And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
Those are nice little irelevancies . . . what he is talking about is a specific instance that still resonates and is still causing some distrust of Americans.
Your list is cut and paste disregard of a specific reality in favor of conservative-political-correct style indignance
So nobody did anyting to quell the revolt that would not have gotten started had the US not told the rebels that they would help
so nobody else was in power and had their entire military in place, as the US did, when the US signed an agreement with the Iraqis allowing them to fly hellicopters so that they could strafe refugees
Face it we screwed up there with that one
and as far as the "Hysteria" of Bush's 'intentions?
Who can tell, he has changed the reasons for our invasion so many times we don't know the real reasons any more . . and probably never did
One thing that we can count on is that it has nothing to do with 'liberating' Iraqis.
That might be a long term side effect but that had nothing to do with it . . . if so what about the Uzbekis, and, Taschickestanis(sp?) etc, whom we are currently alligned with?
and can someone please post that coalition of the willing list again . . . that's almost a laugh riot . . .
Build a coalition through the U.N. and force Saddam to disarm.
nope. try again.
Get the WMDs? nope. try again.
Rebuild the country with their own oil funds. nope. try again.
Have free elections and a western style democracy. ummm... yeahhhh right.
I'm glad you aren't a cop.
Cop 1: "Billybob is beating his wife."
Cop 2: "So what's the plan again? Get him into a drug treatment program and take away his kids?"
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Take away his guns?
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Give his wife a temporary restraining order?"
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Arrest him and hope he cleans up his act?"
Cop 1: "Ummm... yeahhhh right. It's an internal matter, we should stay out of it. If we got involved and if someone innocent gets shot we'll be blamed, not him. If the neighbors get involved we'll have a riot on our hands. Forget it."
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
So let's see here. On Feb 15, 1991 Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up. Leaflets were passed around with Bush's words on it and the uprising started at the beginning of march, fully expecting US backing. Then the cease-fire was signed by Schwartzkopf that included permission for the Iraqis to fly helicopters over rebel-controlled regions, allowing the Iraqis to attack. Finally, the US, concerned about a divided Iraq and break-up of the coalition, decided not to support the rebellion.
It's pretty clearly the US's fault. You simply don't know anything about this.
On the down side of Iraq, let's be honest, I don't think Islam (fundamentalist) is not ready for democracy. Where in the world at this time do we have a working model of what Bush wants to do in Iraq?
So let's see here. On Feb 15, 1991 Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up. Leaflets were passed around with Bush's words on it and the uprising started at the beginning of march, fully expecting US backing. Then the cease-fire was signed by Schwartzkopf that included permission for the Iraqis to fly helicopters over rebel-controlled regions, allowing the Iraqis to attack. Finally, the US, concerned about a divided Iraq and break-up of the coalition, decided not to support the rebellion.
It's pretty clearly the US's fault. You simply don't know anything about this.
Yea, that whole uprising thing was a total sell-out. As usual.
Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support."
--
Of course, since that's from the Government, it Must Be A Lie?.
I'm sure those other countries will appreciate your amusement and your perception that their efforts are insignificant and misguided.
But hey, slamming Bush trumps supporting allies any day of the week.
And all we really had was the support of national leaders. Note that in Spain the opposition to war ranged from 70-90%, so Aznar was not acting in the interest of the country.
On the down side of Iraq, let's be honest, I don't think Islam (fundamentalist) is not ready for democracy. Where in the world at this time do we have a working model of what Bush wants to do in Iraq?
Looks like they are doomed altogether then, as the alternatives will be fraught with atrocity and human misery. So they better figure out a choice of civilization or tyranny- a future with promise (but not w/o heartaches) or one of self-annihilation (w negative impacts for neighboring states, as well).
The U.S.-led coalition against Iraq is the group of nations which have offered various degrees of support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The White House refers to nations as the coalition of the willing, though their definition includes countries which are only offering political support.
The most recent White House count of "willing" nations numbered 49, although a review of public statements made by the governments themselves finds no more than 45.
Varying levels of support
Analysis of the count reveals the complexities in world diplomacy. Some national governments publicly denounced the invasion plan while at the same time accepting U.S. aid earmarked for the war, or providing to the war effort troops, fueling stations, military support, and/or airspace. Some national governments provided only a semblance of support.
Some nations originally on the White House list disavowed membership in the "coalition". Furthermore, significant opposition to the war exists in segments of the populations and Parliaments in many of the supporting nations. Adding to the complications, the Bush administration claimed to have the support of some 15 nations that wished to remain anonymous. This bloc has been dubbed by some "the shadow coalition" or, sardonically, "the coalition of the unwilling to be named."
Support can be so different in nature, from armed troops to use of airspace and bases, logistic support, political support, to participation in reconstruction efforts, that it appears to some to be difficult to exclude most countries from the official list, except Iraq for obvious reasons (although some might claim some movements inside Iraq will probably also help reconstructing their own country).
After George W. Bush (March 26, 2003) mentioned Warsaw's contribution prominently in a speech, Poland asked that its participation in the coalition not be used for "propaganda purposes."\
\
Pre-invasion support
The signatories to a letter of support for U.S. policy in Iraq before the invasion began (see Iraq disarmament crisis, U.S. plan to invade Iraq) were: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A majority of the population in most of these countries at the time the letter was signed opposed the U.S. policy. Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, and Slovenia are members of the Vilnius 10, applying to membership in NATO, and committed to tying their political future to the United States.
The letter notably did not include NATO members France, Germany, or Canada, or permanent Security Council members Russia or People's Republic of China.
Invasion coalition
In the Gulf War of 1991, at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq, and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries. Countries other than the United States pledged more than $50 billion of the $61 billion cost. Only Cuba, Yemen, Jordan and the Palestinians openly condemned a war that the UN Security Council voted to authorize.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries. The United States is expected to be responsible for essentially the entire cost of the war, at least $75 billion.
A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003, (1991 participants are in italics):
Nations declared neutral or with a non-aggressive stance: Ireland (declared neutrality), Singapore (declared itself a member of the 'coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq,' not the 'coalition of the willing'), Thailand (declared neutrality) Total: 3 confirmed.
Nations that have not announced a stance or whose intentions are yet unclear (1991 participants are in italics):
Andorra, Argentina, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Chile, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland (but see: Anneli Jäätteenmäki), Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico (flip flopping), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia. Total: 93
-----
Nature of support
The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.
Combat troops
United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+
Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Military support (no combat troops)
Kuwait - hosts invasion force
Qatar - hosts U.S. Central Command regional headquarters
South Korea - 700 non-combat troops (However, the Parliament vote to provide such troops continues to be postponed)
Japan - refueling Canadian and Greek warships in the Arabian Sea
Chemical, biological, and nuclear specialists
Bulgaria - 150 specialists (and airspace use, bases, use of Black Sea port)
Slovakia - 69 anti-chemical warfare specialists in Kuwait
Czech Republic - sent 400 anti-chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait (and airspace use)
Romania (and airspace use)
Spain - 900 non-combat troops for medical support vessel for treatment of contamination
Ukraine - 532-man 19th Army Battalion deployed to Kuwait, but will not enter Iraq
Defense
Netherlands - three MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries and 360 soldiers for defense of Turkey
Use of bases and airspace
Ethiopia
Eritrea - use of Red Sea port of Assab
Hungary (hosts U.S. base)
Italy (not for direct military attacks)
Portugal - Lajes Field air base in Azores
Airspace use
Albania
Azerbaijan
Georgia (possibly airfields)
Lithuania
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey (after failed negotiations to permit troop deployment)
The Ba'athists were a secular party. It was not an Islamic movement. Which is why Saddam's no. 2. Tariq Aziz, is a Christian.
in reply to
Originally posted by johnq
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
This does not really refute the original comment. The Ba'th appealed to Arab unity or national unity. But regardless of whether or not the Ba'th was secular, Saddam Hussein's tribal loyalties favored the Sunni, whether or not Saddam Hussein himself was religious. And Saddam had his own purge of the Iraqi Ba'th, so in any case, Saddam's Ba'th was brutal toward other Ba'th and Arabs (as well as Kurds).
No one knows how this situation will play out. If it is all about power, then it would seem that Sistani and his majority following should remain uncommited and let the opposition (both Sunni/Ba'th and al-Sadr's following) be eliminated. "Political analysts" inteviewed on the radio have said they don't expect Sistani to speak out so that he doesn't appear to be favoring the U.S.
Will Sistani throw his support to one side or the other (who is the worse enemy)? Will the U.S be forced into tactics as the Israelis employed in southern Lebanon? Will the Kurds take advantage of the unrest start another front? Until any of these things or other unforseen indicators show us what is really happening, we won't see a clear direction for the current events.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. My point was that the situation is not as simple as what had been proposed earlier in the thread (i.e., speaking of Sunni and Shi'a as if those groups were single entities). I tried to say that the situation is more complicated and tried to give other factors, not that it is simple (except as noted below).
Do any of those other radical clerics have close to the influence of Sistani?
Quote:
Btw - Sistani leans more to Iran where Sadr is kind of a Hamas supporter. That is where the differences lie. If it comes down to the wire Sistani will get the Iranian back-up. Sadr really is small-fry. But if it escalates then who knows what alliances will form ?
As I mentioned previously, I was under the impression that Sistani has strong idealogical differences with Iran while al-Sadr wants a state similar to Khomeni's (even though al-Sadr does not have much authority from a religious point of view). Does Sistani want or need support from Iran? A recent report said that he condemned the "coalition" attacks but did not incite his followers to action. If he does then, yes, I believe it is simple and the U.S. will lose control.
Comments
So what's the plan again?
Build a coalition through the U.N. and force Saddam to disarm.
nope. try again.
Get the WMDs? nope. try again.
Rebuild the country with their own oil funds. nope. try again.
Have free elections and a western style democracy. ummm... yeahhhh right.
CAPTURE THOSE MILITIAS AND RETURN THE STOLEN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!
Originally posted by johnq
And your precious U.N. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the U.N. come to their rescue?
The French did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the French come to their rescue?
The E.U. did what when the Ba'athists took brutal measures to crush the revolt? Did the E.U. come to their rescue?
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
If the Shi'ia can take on the U.S. military they could have damn well taken on the Ba'athists.
Quit expecting us to break up these internal power struggles. It's a snake pit.
Those are nice little irelevancies . . . what he is talking about is a specific instance that still resonates and is still causing some distrust of Americans.
Your list is cut and paste disregard of a specific reality in favor of conservative-political-correct style indignance
So nobody did anyting to quell the revolt that would not have gotten started had the US not told the rebels that they would help
so nobody else was in power and had their entire military in place, as the US did, when the US signed an agreement with the Iraqis allowing them to fly hellicopters so that they could strafe refugees
Face it we screwed up there with that one
and as far as the "Hysteria" of Bush's 'intentions?
Who can tell, he has changed the reasons for our invasion so many times we don't know the real reasons any more . . and probably never did
One thing that we can count on is that it has nothing to do with 'liberating' Iraqis.
That might be a long term side effect but that had nothing to do with it . . . if so what about the Uzbekis, and, Taschickestanis(sp?) etc, whom we are currently alligned with?
and can someone please post that coalition of the willing list again . . . that's almost a laugh riot . . .
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.thepoorman.net/images/the...ident_big.html
So what's the plan again?
Build a coalition through the U.N. and force Saddam to disarm.
nope. try again.
Get the WMDs? nope. try again.
Rebuild the country with their own oil funds. nope. try again.
Have free elections and a western style democracy. ummm... yeahhhh right.
I'm glad you aren't a cop.
Cop 1: "Billybob is beating his wife."
Cop 2: "So what's the plan again? Get him into a drug treatment program and take away his kids?"
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Take away his guns?
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Give his wife a temporary restraining order?"
Cop 1: "Nope. Try again."
Cop 2: "Arrest him and hope he cleans up his act?"
Cop 1: "Ummm... yeahhhh right. It's an internal matter, we should stay out of it. If we got involved and if someone innocent gets shot we'll be blamed, not him. If the neighbors get involved we'll have a riot on our hands. Forget it."
Sounds like you have a plan. Maybe you could whisper it into Bush's ear.
pssst... "we're the world's police force, go get'em tiger"
Originally posted by johnq
The U.S. has bloodied hands, no doubt. But to pretend everything is America's fault is silly.
So let's see here. On Feb 15, 1991 Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up. Leaflets were passed around with Bush's words on it and the uprising started at the beginning of march, fully expecting US backing. Then the cease-fire was signed by Schwartzkopf that included permission for the Iraqis to fly helicopters over rebel-controlled regions, allowing the Iraqis to attack. Finally, the US, concerned about a divided Iraq and break-up of the coalition, decided not to support the rebellion.
It's pretty clearly the US's fault. You simply don't know anything about this.
Originally posted by giant
So let's see here. On Feb 15, 1991 Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up. Leaflets were passed around with Bush's words on it and the uprising started at the beginning of march, fully expecting US backing. Then the cease-fire was signed by Schwartzkopf that included permission for the Iraqis to fly helicopters over rebel-controlled regions, allowing the Iraqis to attack. Finally, the US, concerned about a divided Iraq and break-up of the coalition, decided not to support the rebellion.
It's pretty clearly the US's fault. You simply don't know anything about this.
Yea, that whole uprising thing was a total sell-out. As usual.
Originally posted by pfflam
and can someone please post that coalition of the willing list again . . . that's almost a laugh riot . . .
Glad you liked it, here it is again:
--
"Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan
Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support."
--
Of course, since that's from the Government, it Must Be A Lie?.
I'm sure those other countries will appreciate your amusement and your perception that their efforts are insignificant and misguided.
But hey, slamming Bush trumps supporting allies any day of the week.
Originally posted by johnq
Glad you liked it, here it is again:
Originally posted by giant
Let's look at the situation at the start of the war:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...oalition01.htm
And all we really had was the support of national leaders. Note that in Spain the opposition to war ranged from 70-90%, so Aznar was not acting in the interest of the country.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yeah those elite forces from Palau and the Marshall Islands are kicking ass! Take that!
Certainly more than the French are...
Oh but the ex-colonial French are busy in Haiti (only about a week after the U.S. Marines showed up btw).
Is Haiti France's Vietnam? Nah. Vietnam is France's Vietnam.
Nice going.
We really do need to listen to the French. The know about screwing things up royally.
Originally posted by dmz
On the down side of Iraq, let's be honest, I don't think Islam (fundamentalist) is not ready for democracy. Where in the world at this time do we have a working model of what Bush wants to do in Iraq?
Looks like they are doomed altogether then, as the alternatives will be fraught with atrocity and human misery. So they better figure out a choice of civilization or tyranny- a future with promise (but not w/o heartaches) or one of self-annihilation (w negative impacts for neighboring states, as well).
Originally posted by johnq
Glad you liked it, here it is again:
A little more:
The U.S.-led coalition against Iraq is the group of nations which have offered various degrees of support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The White House refers to nations as the coalition of the willing, though their definition includes countries which are only offering political support.
The most recent White House count of "willing" nations numbered 49, although a review of public statements made by the governments themselves finds no more than 45.
Varying levels of support
Analysis of the count reveals the complexities in world diplomacy. Some national governments publicly denounced the invasion plan while at the same time accepting U.S. aid earmarked for the war, or providing to the war effort troops, fueling stations, military support, and/or airspace. Some national governments provided only a semblance of support.
Some nations originally on the White House list disavowed membership in the "coalition". Furthermore, significant opposition to the war exists in segments of the populations and Parliaments in many of the supporting nations. Adding to the complications, the Bush administration claimed to have the support of some 15 nations that wished to remain anonymous. This bloc has been dubbed by some "the shadow coalition" or, sardonically, "the coalition of the unwilling to be named."
Support can be so different in nature, from armed troops to use of airspace and bases, logistic support, political support, to participation in reconstruction efforts, that it appears to some to be difficult to exclude most countries from the official list, except Iraq for obvious reasons (although some might claim some movements inside Iraq will probably also help reconstructing their own country).
After George W. Bush (March 26, 2003) mentioned Warsaw's contribution prominently in a speech, Poland asked that its participation in the coalition not be used for "propaganda purposes."\
\
Pre-invasion support
The signatories to a letter of support for U.S. policy in Iraq before the invasion began (see Iraq disarmament crisis, U.S. plan to invade Iraq) were: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A majority of the population in most of these countries at the time the letter was signed opposed the U.S. policy. Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, and Slovenia are members of the Vilnius 10, applying to membership in NATO, and committed to tying their political future to the United States.
The letter notably did not include NATO members France, Germany, or Canada, or permanent Security Council members Russia or People's Republic of China.
Invasion coalition
In the Gulf War of 1991, at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq, and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries. Countries other than the United States pledged more than $50 billion of the $61 billion cost. Only Cuba, Yemen, Jordan and the Palestinians openly condemned a war that the UN Security Council voted to authorize.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries. The United States is expected to be responsible for essentially the entire cost of the war, at least $75 billion.
A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003, (1991 participants are in italics):
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica http://www.ticotimes.net/topstory.htm, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, United Kingdom, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Latvia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...003Mar24.html, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal (but parliament may censure the PM), Qatar http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Romania http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2836935.stm, Rwanda, Slovakia, South Korea (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops), Spain, Republic of China (on Taiwan), Turkey, Uganda, the United States, Uzbekistan. Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.
Nations unwilling include (1991 participants are in italics):
Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada (but some Canadian troops on exchange programs are involved)http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/canada_role.html, Cape Verde, People's Republic of China, Comoros http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Croatia (but is providing airspace), Cuba, the Czech Republic (but is supplying anti-chemical specialists), Djibouti http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Ecuador, Egypt http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, France, Germany (airspace use), Greece (airspace use), Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Lebanon http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Malaysia, Mauritania http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Morocco http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway (but will provide humanitarian aid), Oman http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Russia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Slovenia (providing air space), Solomon Islands http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...section=world, Somalia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Sri Lanka, Sweden (but will provide humanitarian aid), Switzerland, Sudan http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Syria http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Tunisia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Ukraine (providing anti-chemical weapon troops to Kuwait), United Arab Emirates http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, the Vatican, Venezuela, Yemen http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm, Zimbabwe. Total: 57 confirmed.
Nations declared neutral or with a non-aggressive stance: Ireland (declared neutrality), Singapore (declared itself a member of the 'coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq,' not the 'coalition of the willing'), Thailand (declared neutrality) Total: 3 confirmed.
Nations that have not announced a stance or whose intentions are yet unclear (1991 participants are in italics):
Andorra, Argentina, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Chile, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland (but see: Anneli Jäätteenmäki), Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico (flip flopping), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia. Total: 93
-----
Nature of support
The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.
Combat troops
United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+
Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Military support (no combat troops)
Kuwait - hosts invasion force
Qatar - hosts U.S. Central Command regional headquarters
South Korea - 700 non-combat troops (However, the Parliament vote to provide such troops continues to be postponed)
Japan - refueling Canadian and Greek warships in the Arabian Sea
Chemical, biological, and nuclear specialists
Bulgaria - 150 specialists (and airspace use, bases, use of Black Sea port)
Slovakia - 69 anti-chemical warfare specialists in Kuwait
Czech Republic - sent 400 anti-chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait (and airspace use)
Romania (and airspace use)
Spain - 900 non-combat troops for medical support vessel for treatment of contamination
Ukraine - 532-man 19th Army Battalion deployed to Kuwait, but will not enter Iraq
Defense
Netherlands - three MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries and 360 soldiers for defense of Turkey
Use of bases and airspace
Ethiopia
Eritrea - use of Red Sea port of Assab
Hungary (hosts U.S. base)
Italy (not for direct military attacks)
Portugal - Lajes Field air base in Azores
Airspace use
Albania
Azerbaijan
Georgia (possibly airfields)
Lithuania
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey (after failed negotiations to permit troop deployment)
Political support only
Afghanistan
Colombia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Honduras
Iceland (has no military)
Japan
Latvia (may deploy some troops)
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (has no military)
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Palau (has no military)
Philippines
Rwanda
Singapore
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Originally posted by johnq
Certainly more than the French are...
Oh but the ex-colonial French are busy in Haiti (only about a week after the U.S. Marines showed up btw).
Is Haiti France's Vietnam? Nah. Vietnam is France's Vietnam.
Nice going.
We really do need to listen to the French. The know about screwing things up royally.
Not to make light of this thread, but have you seen the old google trick for the french?
Go to google.com and type in "french military victories" and press "I'm feeling lucky" instead of "google search". An oldie but a goodie.
Originally posted by johnq
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
The Ba'athists were a secular party. It was not an Islamic movement. Which is why Saddam's no. 2. Tariq Aziz, is a Christian.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The Ba'athists were a secular party. It was not an Islamic movement. Which is why Saddam's no. 2. Tariq Aziz, is a Christian.
in reply to
Originally posted by johnq
The Ba'athists are responsible for their own brutality against their so-called brothers and so-called fellow Muslims.
This does not really refute the original comment. The Ba'th appealed to Arab unity or national unity. But regardless of whether or not the Ba'th was secular, Saddam Hussein's tribal loyalties favored the Sunni, whether or not Saddam Hussein himself was religious. And Saddam had his own purge of the Iraqi Ba'th, so in any case, Saddam's Ba'th was brutal toward other Ba'th and Arabs (as well as Kurds).
No one knows how this situation will play out. If it is all about power, then it would seem that Sistani and his majority following should remain uncommited and let the opposition (both Sunni/Ba'th and al-Sadr's following) be eliminated. "Political analysts" inteviewed on the radio have said they don't expect Sistani to speak out so that he doesn't appear to be favoring the U.S.
Will Sistani throw his support to one side or the other (who is the worse enemy)? Will the U.S be forced into tactics as the Israelis employed in southern Lebanon? Will the Kurds take advantage of the unrest start another front? Until any of these things or other unforseen indicators show us what is really happening, we won't see a clear direction for the current events.
Originally posted by segovius
It's not as simple as that.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. My point was that the situation is not as simple as what had been proposed earlier in the thread (i.e., speaking of Sunni and Shi'a as if those groups were single entities). I tried to say that the situation is more complicated and tried to give other factors, not that it is simple (except as noted below).
Do any of those other radical clerics have close to the influence of Sistani?
Btw - Sistani leans more to Iran where Sadr is kind of a Hamas supporter. That is where the differences lie. If it comes down to the wire Sistani will get the Iranian back-up. Sadr really is small-fry. But if it escalates then who knows what alliances will form ?
As I mentioned previously, I was under the impression that Sistani has strong idealogical differences with Iran while al-Sadr wants a state similar to Khomeni's (even though al-Sadr does not have much authority from a religious point of view). Does Sistani want or need support from Iran? A recent report said that he condemned the "coalition" attacks but did not incite his followers to action. If he does then, yes, I believe it is simple and the U.S. will lose control.
Originally posted by torifile
Not to make light of this thread, but have you seen the old google trick for the french?
Go to google.com and type in "french military victories" and press "I'm feeling lucky" instead of "google search". An oldie but a goodie.
eXile magazine's War Nerd on French military history.