The U.S. is almost alone in its war

Okay, I'll buy that.

tress
Admit it in reality we stand alone. That should be expected since Bush and Rumsfeld have done everything they could to alienate the rest of the governments of the world. That is probably the only area in which this administration has been a success. What a sad commentary.

That I won't buy.

Tress
What part of the statement won't you buy.

Don't be childish. Look at the title of this thread. It says: "The U.S. is almost alone in its war". Almost alone. As coalitions for massive war in this post-Cold War time go, a coalition of thirty-odd countries, of whom most carry the clout (and population numbers) of Eritrea, and of whom far from all have pledged any actual military support, is pretty much "almost alone". Compare the coalition that supported Bush Sr in the Gulf, or even Bush Jr in Afghanistan, for clarification.

A question was asked a while back about how come Howard (Australia's Prime Minister) and Blair were supporting the US - against massive opposition in their own countries.

Speaking for Howard, I believe he actually, genuinely believes Bush is right - and, also we do, in fact, have a treaty with the USA - he believes he is honouring it - doubtless in the hope that the USA will honour it back if we are attacked.

Which countries, by the way, other than Britain and Australia, put troops on the ground with US troops in Afghanistan?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? We do not stand alone...we have Ethiopia, Eritrea, Slovakia, Albania, Poland, Colombia, some others, besides GB, Australia, Spain. But the sheer numbers of others who not only are not with us but against us - and we had to buy most of them. That does not give us the allies list we had before. And they have yet to jump on the bandwagon, as Rummy said they would.

So far, this is Bush's war.

By the way, whatever happened to Italy and Bulgaria? Each country had been talked about before as being a staunch ally.

Being a staunch ally does not necessarily mean that they send troops to fight. Even if France, Germany, Russia, and China had supported the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions, they would not have sent troops either. French military prowess is the stuff of humor, though they've managed to sell a lot of military hardware to Saddam. Russia already has its hands full with the Islamic radicals within its own borders. Germany has a professional military that could make a contribution, but we won't miss them much. Even the idea of elements of the PLA fighting inside any UN coalition is likely to provoke laughter. The fact is that the most effective fighting forces in the world today ARE engaged in doing what the UN could not, would not do.

I don't think that any of those dissenting countries really want to step out from behind the American/British shield. Its just easier for them to claim the moral high-ground as an excuse against losing lucrative oil contracts, and buyers for Mirage fighters. As the end approaches for Saddam and his band of cutthroats, many more countries will want to climb on the bandwagon.

au, you got this one perfectly wrong.

An exchange of a immigration package for a yes vote in the Securiity Council was NEVER in the agenda of either Mexico or the United States. The US can play that game only with very small nations.

We were determined to vote against for several reasons, given in order of importance:
1. Even if it was "convenient" in the short-term, a vote for BBA (Bush-Blair-Aznar) would have meant leaving a diplomatic tradition, which calls for multilateral ways for conflict solving. It's not in Mexico's national interest (and neither in Canada's, as we have seen) to have a unilateral world domination by a powerful, unchecked neighbor.
2. Mexican democracy and the size of the country -few people outside Latin America realize we are among the 15 biggest economies of the world- call for a more active role in world affairs, with the purpose, precisely, of enhancing multilateralism and international law.
3. Internally, a need to foster national unity in times of international political and economical turmoil. All, absolutely all the parties were against Mexico endorsing BBA.
4. Also internally, a boost in presidential support, since 82 to 87 percent of the population (depending on the poll) are against the intentions of the US administration.

We all expect some kind of American backlash (well, really 98% of the polled citizens do). When citizens were given terrible US retaliation scenarios in case of a "NO" vote, support for the "YES" vote climbed from 13-16% to a mere 19-20%.

Part of the explicitly expected American backlash were demeaning phrases and attitudes like yours, au.

So, thank you. Your post makes me feel even prouder.

Italy is one of the countrie that can't afford to go against the public opinion. The government is very fragile and it is almost certain it would just fall again. As it does almost yearly, ehehe. And Bulgaria most likely won't pay such expenses as they got ditched from both NATO and EU accession groups, why would they bother. Slovakia, where I am from, is doing it to make sure nothing happens to their fresh promise of NATO membership, but just like most countries, it only sends non-combat batallions - that is doctors, chemical cleanup units and such. Why? Well, people are not so hot into the war idea in those countries either and reelection will be coming up soon. You need to cover your ass on all sides. Very few countries will send actual military combat units along with the U.S. In this sense U.S. is lonelier, when you dissect the list according to who is actually willing to fight. And, although I do think I am a good citizen of my country, realistically, it will not help much the U.S. efforts. Will Eritrea or Guinea and others on the list (excluding the 3-4 big ones)? Czech Republic is discussing whether to join or not. They got full 5 million people more than we do. They got 10, wahooo!

I must add a couple of things:

1. We have expressed, both in the Security Council and in all sorts of bilateral meetings, our resolve to cooperate with the US in its fight against terrorism. Both countries have, in fact, created a joint intelligence force to create a more secure border and work in several projects together.
Mexico has condemned Saddam Hussein and differed with the US only in "the times and procedure" to secure his regime's disarmament.
This shows that the US Administration, even if "dissapointed", understood Mexico's point of view, much better than some American citizens.

2. It would certainly be a nightmare if all Mexican illegals were sent back. I only don't know whose nightmare would be worse, the Mexican's or the American's. But that's another topic.

fbaezer
Bush and Fox were great friends until the flareup now they are hardly speaking. Sorry don't remember all of the particulars. Do you think that if the friendship had prevailed Mexico's vote could have possibly been favorable to the US?
You say I got this one perfectly wrong, maybe so but than maybe not. We will never know.

au,

Personal chemistry prevails. Agendas differ a lot at the moment. Common goals, values and interests are much bigger than our differences.
I think Mexico's was a tough decision, precisely (or, but only) because of the prevailing chemistry and the true friendship. There was really no way Fox could have had a different position without betraying the national interest and committing political suicide. For us inside, it was a no-brainer.

I know that some American politicians, both in the Republican and the Democratic party are staunchly anti-Mexican. But even they recognize that Fox and his conservative party are, by far, the best deal they can get.

Can't take all war, all the time, so I'm taking a break. Watching CNN tonight, I had the feeling they were describing a game. At the moment, it's all quite unreal to me. To think. Profess peace, go to war.

fbaezer - not all Americans think like that, you know. And when it comes to the Mexicans who come here - well, who hires them to do the back-breaking work for lower wages? Many times the very same people who complain about all the illegals. The two corners of the mouth sometimes say different things at the same time.

Fbaezer - thank you for your consistently fascinating contributions here - I very much enjoy learning from you.

At the beginning of World War I, public of many nations did not oppose the war, which was probably wrong. If at the beginning of this war public of multiple nations opposed the war, did that mean the result would be wrong?

Dadaism (1916~) was a form of oppostion to WWI. And I respect Arp J.

Actually, I respect all the (anti-)artists who participated in Dadaism.