Unilaterally????

We went into Iraq unilaterally.

It was a US war for US reasons and the US and England pretty much went it alone with very little international support.

The nations in this so-called coalition are there, for the most part, to curry favor with the Superpower. Many of them came after the war was a fact on the ground. Why do you think Eritrea is on the list? What do you think they are contributing?

Before the war, with the exception of England, there was almost no support from governments or from people. Now there is tepid support from governments....

This is as unilateral as you can get.

The Bush's adm. claim of a coalition is very deceptive
The Bush's administrations claim of a coalition is very deceptive:

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

Troop Contingents in Iraq by Country of Origin: March 2004

Iraq Troop numbers March 2004
Country Troops Per 100000
population Per 1000
military

1 USA 130,000 47.7 94.8
2 United Kingdom 9,000 15.2 42.4
3 Italy 3,000 5.3 11.3
4 Poland 2,460 6.7 10.2
5 Ukraine 1,600 3.2 5.1
6 Spain * 1,300 3.3 7.0
7 Netherlands 1,100 7.0 19.5
8 Australia 800 4.3 14.5
9 Romania 700 3.1 3.4
10 Bulgaria 480 5.9 5.9
11 Thailand 440 0.7 1.4
12 Denmark 420 7.8 17.3
13 Honduras * 368 6.1 5.4
14 El Salvador 361 6.2 14.7
15 Dominican Republic 302 3.7 12.3
16 Hungary 300 2.9 6.9
17 Japan 240 0.2 1.0
18 Norway 179 4.0 5.8
19 Mongolia 160 6.1 17.6
20 Azerbaijan 150 1.9 2.1
21 Portugal 128 1.3 2.6
22 Latvia 120 5.1 20.9
23 Lithuania 118 3.3 9.7
24 Slovakia 102 1.9 2.3
25 Czech Republic 80 0.8 1.4
26 Philippines 80 0.1 0.7
27 Albania 70 2.1 7.0 **
28 Georgia 70 1.4 2.7
29 New Zealand 61 1.7 6.4
30 Moldova 50 1.1 4.7
31 Macedonia 37 1.8 2.3
32 Estonia 31 2.2 6.5
33 Canada ^ 31^
34 Kazakhstan 25 0.1 0.4
Sources: The Australian, 17th March 2004. SBS World Guide, ninth edition, 2001.

Top ten by proportion of population
Country Troops Proportion

1 USA 130,000 47.7
2 United Kingdom 9,000 15.2
3 Denmark 420 7.8
4 Netherlands 1,100 7.0
5 Poland 2,460 6.7
6 El Salvador 361 6.2
7 Honduras * 368 6.1
8 Mongolia 160 6.1
9 Bulgaria 480 5.9
10 Italy 3,000 5.3

Top ten by proportion of military
Country Troops Proportion

1 USA 130,000 94.8
2 Honduras * 368 *** 44.3
3 United Kingdom 9,000 42.4
4 Latvia 120 20.9
5 Netherlands 1,100 19.5
6 Mongolia 160 17.6
7 Denmark 420 17.3
8 El Salvador 361 14.7
9 Australia 800 14.5
10 Dominican Republic 302 12.3

The Coalition of The Willing: Facts & Figures



NATION Per Capita Mil. expenditures Annual amount Troops in $ Allocated GDP (1) as % of GDP(1) Spent on Mil. Coalition in latest (in $B) (1) (2)(3) US Budget (4)

Afghanistan $800 NA NA 0 $127MAlbania $3,800 1.49 0.056 70Australia $24,000 2 9.3 2000Azerbaijan $3,100 2.6 0.121 0Bulgaria $6,200 2.7 0.356 150*Colombia $6,300 3.4 3.3 0 $34MCosta Rica $8,500 1.6 69 0Czech Rep. $15,300 2.1 1.19 1 NBC* Team $15MDenmark $29,000 1.4 2.47 1 sub, 1 warshipDom. Rep. $5,800 1.1 .18 PW#El Salvador $4,600 0.7 0.112 0Eritrea $740 19.8 0.138 0Estonia $10,900 2 0.155 0Ethiopia $700 12.6 0.8 0Georgia $3,100 0.59 0.023 0Honduras $2,600 0.6 0.035 0Hungary $12,000 1.75 1.08 0 $15MIceland $27,100 0.9 0 0 Italy $24,300 1.64 20.2 0Japan $27,200 1 40.7 0South Korea $18,000 2.8 12.8 0Latvia $7,800 1.2 0.087 Still decidingLithuania $7,600 1.9 0.23 0Macedonia $4,400 6 0.2 0Micronesia $2,000 NA NA 0^Netherlands $25,800 1.5 6.5 360Nicaragua $2,500 1.2 0.026 0 Palau $9,000 NA NA 0+Philippines $4,000 1.5 0.995 PW#Poland $8,800 1.71 3.5 200@ $15MPortugal $18,000 2.2 1.2 0 Romania $6,800 2.47 0.985 278*Slovakia $11,500 1.89 0.406 0 $4.5M~Spain $20,700 1.15 8.6 1 medical shipSolomon Isls. $1,700 NA NA 0Tonga $2,200 NA NA 0Turkey $6,700 4.5 8.1 0 $1BUkraine $4,200 1.4 .5 500*UK $24,700 2.32 31.7 45,000Uzbekistan $2,500 2 0.2 0USA $36,300 3.2 396 300,000*Nuclear,

Biological, Chemical decontamination experts #Undisclosed number of troops pledged for post-war deployment@Non-combat troops+Between 20 and 200 of Palau's 20,000 citizens reportedly already members of the U.S. military^Micronesia is, by treaty, wholly dependent on the US for its defense.~Same amount was offered to Slovenia, which is NOT part of the coalition.

The American people were almost 100% behind the president immediately after 9/11 and behind the war against terrorism/terrorists wherever it exists. So we went after the al Qaida in the form of the Taliban in Afghanistan first. That wasn't easy but it was fairly quickly accomplished. So far so good.

Next attention is turned on Iraq. There was nobody, and I mean nobody, other than Saddam himself, who did not believe he had WMD. That included the U.N. Saddam harbored terrorists and he funded terrorists. He was the next designated target. We (the Americans) told the U.N. okay, you take care of him or we will. The U.N. (for what now appears to be highly questionable reasons) dragged their feet. So we took care of it with the support, however limited, of 35+ other countries.
Turkey would be there if the Kurds had permitted it, and Israel would be there if we had not asked them to stay out for obvious reasons.

It was only when we entered the hard, difficult, costly, tedious work of the war against terrorism that the wimps of America started bailing out.

All of us haven't bailed out. There are some of us who understand what GWB and our brave military are trying to accomplish and are willing to put aside politics to accomplish it.

But to say that the contribution of the much smaller, much poorer allies in our effort are worth nothing or are for purient reasons is extremely short sighted.

Fox, as usual, your post is full of holes and (as Click and Clack say) completely unencumbered by the thought process.

First, it is clear that Iraq was not a response to 9/11. Bush was planning an attack on Iraq before 9/11 happened.

Second, there were many voices of doubt that Saddam had WMD's before the war.

Third, the reason the U.N. dragged its feet were not questionable at all. They are even less questionable after the events of last week.

Fourth, there was a large opposition to the war in the United States well before the war started.

Fifth, there is a huge difference between support for action against Bin Ladin and support for the war in Iraq. It seems to many of us that the manpower and the billions of dollars would be better spent either fighting Al Qaeda, finding Bin Ladin or paying for added police resources here.

Sixth, do you know what "prurient" means? If you do, I would like you to explain your use of the word.

This is pure bull, many of us here predicted the outcome of that ghost hunt.



A claim you will be unable to support.



It's easy to make a feckless characterization. To say that has as much merit as to characterize the US actions as "bullying" and such.



You are right on Israel and wrong on Turkey. Turkey's rejection had to do with us refusing to give a better economic package to them.



Ahh, the feckless characterizations again. "Wimps" is as fair as calling you a "bloodthirsty warmonger".

You seem quite happy with simply dismissing dissent based on feckless characterization.



And some of us understand that your arguments here are nearly entirely based on theatrical characterizations that suit your fancy and have no substance.



To say that those convinced by cheque book diplomacy negates the criticism of the US disregard for international convention is not short sighted, despite your wish to characterize this too, in lieu of factual basis for your position.

And they STILL haven't found the elusive WMD's.

ebrown, the war on terrorism was a response to 9/11. Iraq is part of the war against terrorism. It is not saying that Iraq was directly invovled in the effects of 9/11. It is saying that the war against terrorism is to rid the threat of terrorism. For that reason Iraq is a legitimate target.

The debate should be whether we should be fighting a war against terrorism perhaps. Not whether Iraq should have been included in it.

I would be interested in your list of those who did not believe Saddam had WMD.

The story is rapidly building that high officials within the U.N., including representative from France and possibly Germany, were receiving kickbacks from diverted humanitarian aide being sent to Iraq during the embargo. If they turned on Saddam, he would have no qualms about seeing that these 'indiscretions' were exposed.

There are always voices who will oppose war for whatever reason. The polls, however, indicated that the vast majority of Americans were with the president at that time we launched an offensive against Iraq.

And prurient (I did misspell it in my quote) in its broader definition is selfish motive or desire.

Did that hit everything?

Oh and Craven, I think I addressed your points as well. It is well documented that Turkey had troops ready to go to Northern Iraq. The Kurds objected to them being there and it was decided that Turkish troops would not be well received and they stayed home. Dispute that if you can.

Just the fact that the war against Iraq was to rid it of it's weapons of mass destruction. The shrub sounded like a broken record he repeated it so much. It's only since they couldn't be found that it was conveniently switched to a war on terrorism.

Wrong. The debate *is* whether Iraq is a legimate part of a "war on terrorism".

All of us agree that we should act against terrorism. As you stated, most of us supported the action in Afganistan.

The war in Iraq was being planned before 9/11. Iraq had no link to 9/11.

The billions of dollars being spent in Iraq, not to mention the lives and manpower, could be put to uses that directly related to a intelligent response to terrorism.

Is the "kickback" story being reported outside of very partisan sources? Could you post a link?

You also cite about polls showing a "vast majority" of Americans who supported the president "at the time we launched an offensive in Iraq". (I don't know if you are trying to obfuscate here ).

I remember large protests against the war before it started. I remember passionate debate in and out of Congress. It seems to me the war has always been very controversial with many of us consitently opposed to it from the beginning.

Please post a link to these "polls" -- or did you just make them up?

Your posts seem to show a prurient interest in defending our president. You should consult a dictionary.

The United States wanted to base troops, and launch an offensive from Turkey. Turkey refused.

See this story for example...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/iraq/main544103.shtml


When you make up a story to support your position, it is very easy to dispute.

The definition states "one side," not one country and clouds the semantics of the term and depends on its context and interpretation. Bush got his degree from Harvard Business School which stresses sales and marketing techniques. This was a bait and switch and now Bush is stuck with selling the switch.

(And he's as bad at the soft sell as he is with the hard close).

What I said is correct. Turkey did not join our coalition because of a failed economic negotiation.

Once the war was "over" many who opposed the invasion sent signals of being willing to help in the aftermath.

But the nations such as Turkey who volunteered to do so still maintained a strident objection to the war. Whether or not they wished to help improve the situation once it was too late to stop the war doesn't really reflect on their position in regard to the war itself.

Turkey, for example, always maintained that it was not worth the regional instability on their border.

Her story wasn't really made up. What she was referring to was "post war" offers from Turkey. I'd agree that it is a poorly applied point as their desire to help ameliorate the situation on their border does not speak about their opinion on the validity of the war, but nevertheless it's not made up.

ebrown, it takes time to locate and post links. I don't object to being told somebody doesn't agree with me or that isn't the way somebody else understands it. But if you want proof that I'm wrong, YOU post a link to disprove my remarks. Or sway me with a logical argument. I won't always read a long tedious post from some publication, but I will always consider reasonabe, thoughtful comments from people. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree.

Sometimes debate can actually be conducted on logic and reason. From my own notes, Bush asked the consent of Congress to use military force if Iraq refused to disarm. The final vote was House 296 (GOP voting aye 215, Dems voting aye 81) and Senate 77 aye to 23 nay including an aye vote by John F. Kerry who now has flipflopped saying it was to 'be the last resort' rather than 'if Iraq refused to disarm' which was the language of the bill). The polls from almost all major polling sources had the American public supporting the president in this initiative in the high 60 into the 70's percentile.

It all really is a matter of perception. I think intellectually honest people go with the facts. The rest go with their feelings and personal prejudices and this I identify by the insulting tone of their debate.

All you have to do is read the actual words of people in the U.N., comments from our allies, statements on the House and Senate floor to know who believed Iraq had/has WMD. If you think for a minute that GWB had the power to influence all these people with misinformation, you give him far more credit than I do.

And sorry you don't like my definition of prurient. You're welcome to write your own. It just seemed to fit your posted opinion of our allies in Iraq.

The initial posts on this thread talked about whether we "went into Iraq" unilaterally.

There is a difference between supporting the initial invasion, and realizing that now that it has happened that we need to stay there to clean things up. I believe strongly that the invasion was a big mistake. I don't want American troops to leave right away.

I think it is safe to say that the initial invasion was unilateral. However the mess is now a concern of the world.

There may be a prurient motive for the confusion of support that was there before the war with the support that is, shall we say, post-coital.

post-coital. Hey I like that. And in fairness to ebrown, I will concede that some, maybe several, of the coalition members are there for less than altruistic reasons. But as the old saw goes, he who is not against me is with me.

And were all these by our side when we went in? No they weren't. But was it a unilateral mission? No, because at least the UK was with us from the beginning.