The U.S. is almost alone in its war

Sadly, mine is, Frolic - but against the will of the majority of its people. AND we have troops over there.

I still wonder why Howard, Blair and Aznar(aka Anzar) want to put their entire political capital at risk to support this war? Is it because they believ public opinion will change its view once the war is over. Or is there another reason? Big contracts for the national compagnies for rebuilding Iraq?

YAY! Slovakia on the way to fame! We made it into the list!

In general our troops, our arms and our money will fight in Iraq. Come to think of it hasn't it been that way for most of the last 50 years. Yes, I know the British and I believe the Australians are with us on this one. It seems that for the US we have been engaged some where in the world since the end of WW2. Where is the peace I have heard so much about?

one remarkable thing about the list of supportive states

Where is South and Latin America?

I seems like Bush ignored his friends in Latin and South America, replacing them with Blair and Aznar. What happened with the deep (and i believe true friendship) with Mexican President Vicente Fox?

The love affair between Fox and Bush ceased the moment Fox didn't get what he wanted. I have the perfect punishment for Fox. Dump the millions of Mexican illegals back on Mexico.

If this was a joke, it was an insensitive and bad one.

dagmaraka

" Dump the millions of Mexican illegals back on Mexico."
It is neither a joke nor insensitive, There are immigration laws in the US that are being flagrantly broken by illegal aliens. They in essence are committing a criminal act by entering and remaining in the nation and in my opinion should be deported. I should add not only Mexican illegals.

I believe Blair, in any case, is genuinely convinced that Saddam Hussein is an acute threat and that it is his duty as PM to act against this threat - even if it should take him against public opinion.

You see this more, I'm sure, with politicians who have long adapted their every move to public opinion; there comes a moment when they suddenly feel this deep urge to take a stand of conviction at least once. Blair already achieved the highest one can in public opinion, but he's thus far always been derided for having a focus group in place of a mind of his own; this is his chance to make a name as statesman, too, if it goes well.

Of course it didn't quite work as he want to, as I think he also genuinely sought the support of the UN, and the fact that he stayed loyal to the war effort even when it wasnt achieved also must have something to do with a sense there was no way back anymore by then.

au - i believe that none of those illegal immigrants do it for fun or pleasure. do you?

frolic - You are my hero, as far as liberals go! First you pen a discussion with a title stating that the US is going it "alone". Then, when I point out that they are not going it alone, you begin to question the credentials, motives, even stability of those countries you clearly knew were in fact supporting the US.

I wonder if you've asked any of the same questions regarding the countries who aren't supporting the US. Countries like France, who have more to lose financially than any other nation by toppling Saddam, but like to pretend that they care about peace here. How about questioning their motives?

What a hoot!

nimh; i do sorta kinda question Blair's motives, seems to me that he sees his role as the great moderator between the upstart US and Europe. regarding illegals from mexico, much of the US economy is rooted very specifically in the labor of those "illegals", not unlike the economy of ancient Athens rooted in slavery.

Of course we knew from the start of this discussion that the US was not literally "alone" - there's the UK, Spain, Portugal ...

I'm sure "alone" was meant in the commonly used slightly more figurative way, as in: lacking any kind of broad support in the world.

In response to that you have provided us with the names of some thirty countries - as ILZ pointed out a minority of about 1 in 6. And most of these 30-odd countries turn out to be both politically and militarily practically insignificant. There's only a literal handful of states of prominence there. The US didn't even manage to sway any of the doubtting minor states in the SC. All that in itself would reinforce the "alone" observation.

On top of that, the "support" underlined by the list must be relativated a bit if it includes countries like my own, the government of which has declared political support for the war only while in the same breath making clear it would not actually offer any men to fight in it.

dys, that is a heavy parallel, but i can see that. officially i would deny that of course, i only whisper it here. well, it is actually not a secret. many industrialized countries legalize their illegal immigrants every few years (france being the most obvious case), since they officially ackowledge that they do need the unskilled labor that the domestic population is not willing to do. but i realize that this is a topic for an altogether different thread, which would certainly be interesting. back to the war, it has started just minutes ago!

dagmaraka

dagmaraka


I will answer it this way. When someone commits a robbery to get money to support his family is it not still a crime?

When someone commits a robbery to get money to support his family and he gets severe punishment while the Enron Crooks get away with it. Do you call that justice?

And now back to the topic.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the US-led military action was completely unjustified, while China said the strike violated the United Nations charter.

President Jacques Chirac of France expressed regret at the launch of hostilities without UN backing.

Mr Putin urged the US to halt what he called the unjustifiable attack on Iraq - an attack which questioned a basic principle of world order.

"If we install the rule of force in place of international security structures, no country in the world will feel secure," Mr Putin said.


The government and the people of Indonesia strongly deplore the unilateral action by the United States and its allies who decided to wage war against Iraq

World reaction in quotes

Mr Chirac, who had voiced opposition to any UN resolution that automatically led to military action, said: "I only hope these operations are as fast as possible, with the least fatalities, and that they do not lead to a humanitarian catastrophe."

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the military operation violated the principles of international law.

"They ignored the opposition of most countries and peoples of the world and went around the UN Security Council to being military action against Iraq," he added.

The Vatican said it was "deeply pained" by the conflict and deplored the interruption of peace efforts.

President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia(largest Muslim state in the world) voiced her disapproval.

Washington had pushed the UN to one side to wage war, she said.

So far there has been little official comment from the Middle East, but Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi condemned what he said was the "illegitimate and unjustifiable attack" on neighbouring Iraq.

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said it was a sad day for all Arabs.

There has also been anger and dismay around South Asia.

Pakistan said it deplored Thursday morning's attack, while India said the attacks were unjustified.

Question.

Name me the countries supporting the US that are not depending on the US army for their protection. Columbia needs the US to fight against the FARC, Japan needs the US to balance with China, Same for South-Korea and North-Korea. The Philipines count on the US to hold down Muslim seperatists,......

Mexico said an unequivocal no. And in the western hemisphere - no one is supporting us, nor, it seems, have we gone to any of those countries. Spain does not seem to be the most supportive of countries - over 80% of its people are against this, and it has just promised about 900 non-combatant troops, whatever that means.

And there is the significance of who supports us and who doesn't, and the fact that almost all of our supporters have been promised monetary aid, while most of what we've received from them is airspace. A fly over Albania should be most helpful. Major powers in the world are not backing us, nor have they remained quiet about this. Nope, this is almost entirely our war (didn't Rummy say England was not necessary?), and we shall reap the benefits.

Maybe ridding the world of Saddam Hussein in this manner will not bring us the true victory. If we are not regarded as heroes, we will not be regarded with respect, and trade agreements and negotiations will be looked at in a new light. And the way our economy is, we will nneed all the help, all the allies, we can get. Globalization is here, and that means the rest of the world.

Now we're picking and choosing which countries matter and which ones don't, AND redefining commonly used words like "alone".

Why don't you write what you mean: The US isn't doing what YOU want, so that makes them wrong.

I think that's oversimplifying, tres. There are objective means by which we can determine the relative significance of the coutries standing 'for' or 'against'. For instance the size, GNP and military autonomy of the country are factors which would make them either more or less significant in a major conflict (which admittedly this isn't, but that's another thread).