No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

[StarshipTitanic]

Hey Bugsby, here are some numbers for your "optimism"-infected brain:

Military expenditures for various NATO countries:
France: $39 billion
United Kingdom: $36 billion
Germany: $30 billion

United States of America: $399 billion

Cry all you want, no European country is going to send 100,000 men on a TENTH of the US' budget.

[Bugsby]

Hey Bugsby, here are some numbers for your "optimism"-infected brain:

Military expenditures for various NATO countries:
France: $39 billion
United Kingdom: $36 billion
Germany: $30 billion

United States of America: $399 billion

Cry all you want, no European country is going to send 100,000 men on a TENTH of the US' budget.

Bitchwhinemoan... Can't bring any better rebuttal than that? Well, I'll tell you something: Mike's figures while not maybe exact, are very near the mark. Yours were off by an order of magnitude. All it really takes is actually taking a few minutes to check things instead of pulling numbers out of your arse, and if you were too lazy to do that, you deserve the smackdown you get.

That wasn't a rebuttal at all, I was actually asking for numbers there, although re-reading my post it is easy to see how that could have been misconstrued. I wasn't defending something that I had no basis for. I was asking for a basis to either confirm or deny my estimations.

In case you missed it on my last post, I said that if those kinds of numbers existed (it turns out they do), then I concede the point. It was an opinion based off some misinformation I received, and I no longer support that position, so stop yelling at me about it. Please.

As to my argument about "passing the bill," I was merely pointing out that the semantics of that statement imply that America would refuse to help at all once its allies got involved, which is untrue. Although, to be accurate, I cannot attest to exactly what would happen in the future under highly unlikely circumstances, so that's just speculation. I never meant to suggest that we were not asking our allies to help.

As to the rest of the arguments against me, they seem to hinge on the fact that America was stupid for believing everything that our impotent media spoon-feeds us out of Bush's mouth. (sorry if Im not going point-by-point here, but there are about 50 different points and its late. Feel free to point out to me if I forgot anything). Well, you know what? It's not the American public's fault because most Americans don't have access to some good reporting. Yes, our media is spineless and it does nothing beyond regurgitate what it is told. The bitch of it is, American media is what we have in America. If America had decent reporting, none of this would have happened. But we don't. That is why Bush and Rove are so good: because they play to the ineptitudes of the American media.

You would have a point if there were two different sources of news within America: one good, insightful, European-style investigative journalism; the other the mealy-mouthed report-what-you're-told American-style. If, given these two options, Americans overwhelmingly chose the latter, I would have no argument. But in America there ONLY is the latter kind of journalism. The average American (and mind you, I do mean average) does not question what they see on the news. The news anchor comes up and delivers statements that are TRUE. I mean, they HAVE to be true, they're the NEWS. The Average American will not sit down to watch the nightly news and then run to their computer to fact-check everything that they heard that night.

And trust me, at the time, the media was spitting out some scary shit: statistics about the insecurity of the border with Mexico and (to a lesser extent) Canada. The amount of missing nuclear material from Russia. Reports on the different types of biological and chemical weapons. All of these things are FACTS. And after 9/11, these facts were brought up and presented in such a way that presented a message that said "this is what will be used against you." True, these were incorrect statements, but at the time the fear took hold because it was on the news. And up until this point, Americans had no reason to mistrust the major media in America. Sure, there were some rumblings of it. But they were on the border of the American consciousness. And the last thing the media is going to report on is media ineptitude. 3 years ago, someone saying "the media isn't telling the truth, they're just regurgitating what Bush told them because the reporters are lazy and the network execs want to line their pockets" would have been ocnsidered a tinfoil-hat ranter. The AVERAGE American believed everything because the AVERAGE American had no reason to believe otherwise. It isn't until now that the deception of the Bush administration (and by implication, the ineffectiveness of the media) has begun to hit the mainstream. But as of March 2003 when Bush sent America to war, the AVERAGE AMERICAN had no idea how incorrect Bush's position was. And claiming that the average American should have known better by going and checking every American report against a European report is an unrealistic expectation.

To summarize: You would accuse Americans of being dumb for not seeing through Bush's bullshit. Well, how would they? Not every American is an investigative journalist. America (just like everyone else) is dependent on the media for information.

"Well, then," you say, "America has an inept investigative sector and their media is castrated and worthless." That is absolutely true. So then would it be fair to say that the media is responsible for allowing Bush to shift America's opinion without check? I think so. I think it is unfair to say "Americans are dumb because they lack an inherent distrust of something they hear from every major respected news organization."


Finally, in terms of the situation in Iraq, I have said from the beginning that America is fully responsible. My assertion was that foreign aid was the only way to possibly stabilize the region. Since I have finally been shown numbers to show that foreign aid would do very little good, I withdraw any support of NATO allies getting involved. What good would it do for you guys to throw yourselves into the breach when there is no hope of accomplishing anything from it? None, as has been yelled at me countless dozens of times. I have supported leaving Iraq since the beginning. The only reason I made my first post was because of disgust at the aparent apathy of foreign powers who I thought at the time had the capability to put an end to the violence in Iraq. Since it turns out that I was wrong, and that capability does not exist, I have no issue now. I never said you should pay the butcher's bill for America's mistake. I said that if there was any hope of rebuilding a war-torn land, it shouldn't only be the US who attempts this - for the good of the world.

And I don't think I deserve the flaming I got on this thread. I had an opinion based on information I thought was true but turned out wasn't. Once it came to my attention that I may have been misinformed, I asked for factual data. And after I had that crammed down my throat by irate mobs, I conceded.

[PainRack]

Oh, yes of course: the glorius UN peacekeepers that were beaten by a small band of petty thugs in Seirra Leone . And name a few instances where the UN has actually helped in stabilizing a country? All I seem to remember is stuff like the UN's failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or to protect the "safe zones" in Sudan, it's failure to enforce it's resolutions against Saddam, and it's inability to do anything meaningful to stop America's almost unilateral war in Iraq.

East Timor? Interfaet, under the Australian aegis played a significant role in stabilising the country hand-over.

The UN isn't a magic word to bring about stability, but it sure is a nice catch-all term to garner international support, troops and money to support your mission.

[Darth Wong]

To summarize: You would accuse Americans of being dumb for not seeing through Bush's bullshit. Well, how would they? Not every American is an investigative journalist. America (just like everyone else) is dependent on the media for information.

Too bad for you this argument is just as bullshit as your idiotic claim that NATO could multiply America's military presence many times over if it so desired. Mindlessly accepting everything that the media spoonfeeds to you is precisely the kind of sheep-like mentality that I'm talking about. It is not an excuse; it is an indictment.

And BTW, even in America there were voices saying all of these things (yes, even in the media) before the war. The American People at large simply chose to ignore them in favour of lapping up the intellectual bird dropping of the largest and most powerfully well-monied news networks, that's all.

[Wired_Grenadier]

Well, it's also a bit using what you got for common sense. If Iraq, back when it had the fifth-largest army of the world and was at the height of its power, could neither beat Iran nor could defend itself against Israel (or vice versa, successfully attack it), even though that's a nation the size of NYC and practically at its doorstep, then why in god's name could anybody possibly believe them being a threat twelve years later despite

a) they had left almost all their "modern" (meaning mid-70ies Soviet equipment) military capabilities in '91
b) their missile technology - when they actually still invested in it - gave them a range of 900 kilometres
c) they had been repeatedly bombed during the 90ies
d) they had no economy to support large-scale research or even re-armement due to the heavy sanctions put on them
e) they were a highly secular state, and considering the way Hussein dealt with the Shia revolution in '91, highly unlikely to support any terrorists at all
f) they didn't even control their own territory (see the Kurdish autonomous provinces and the no-fly zones).

Those facts were available to everybody who cared.

[Durandal]

You nailed it. Bush and Rummy are busy making excuses for their bad intelligence like "Well we thought the intelligence was solid at the time" and "Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs, not just us!"

Let's ignore the accusations of the administration willfully ignoring intelligence and coaxing the CIA to give them what they want for a second and pretend that they genuinely thought that they had solid intelligence with no reservations at all.

Why then were they able to predict that the Iraqi military would topple so god damn easily? Iraq's military was in shambles, and we knew it at the time. We made strategic plans around it. So how could such a military possibly sustain WMD research programs that yielded any kind of results?

[Bugsby]

Too bad for you this argument is just as bullshit as your idiotic claim that NATO could multiply America's military presence many times over if it so desired.

That claim was based off misinformation, and I did not pursue it any further once I learned I had been misinformed. It's a red herring in the argument at hand. Drop it.

Mindlessly accepting everything that the media spoonfeeds to you is precisely the kind of sheep-like mentality that I'm talking about. It is not an excuse; it is an indictment.

That's not fair and you know it. Where else do people get their information from? Not every American is an Iraqi weapons inspector. We don't know what's going on, so we turn to the media as our source. That's true of everyone. Rabid skepticism about everything in the media is impractical at best. I cannot support the idea that everyone has to bend over when the media says to, of course, but someone has to give the media some credit for what they do. I hear my adversaries praise the European media excessively, so it seems that people actually DO listen to the media. That the European media does a better job than the American media is undoubtedly true, but until the recent scandals broke, Americans had just as much reason to distrust our own media as you do to trust your media. We had just as much reason to go and seek out European news as you do seek out American news. Of course, this assumes parity between American and European news, but that parity was a reasonable assumption up until the inaccuracy of that assumption became obvious in the last few months. This isn't "sheep-like" behavior, it was a trust put in an organization whose job it is to provide objective coverage. Americnas are less trustful now, but only because that trust has been violated.

And BTW, even in America there were voices saying all of these things (yes, even in the media) before the war. The American People at large simply chose to ignore them in favour of lapping up the intellectual bird dropping of the largest and most powerfully well-monied news networks, that's all.

Also true. But these were very marginal voices with limited projection. The presence of these voices is why there was as large a resistance in America to the war as there was. But the mainstream media in America, apart from just being the "largest and most powerfully well-monied," is also the voice that gets heard by the vast majority of Americans. It is easy to do a Lexis-Nexus search and find a bunch of articles calling down Bush before March 03. But having lived in America before March 03, I know that htese arguments, although existant, were marginalized and not in the mainstream of the American conscinece. Should they have been? Hell yes. But because of the media structure in America, they were not ALLOWED to be part of the American consciousness.

Of course, it would have been possible for Americans to do the kind of personal investigation that you say every American should have done. Few did, because few felt the need. Times have changed now; American has a healthy dose of paranoid skepticism. But two years ago, Americans did nothing more than listen to the people who were in a position to know. While, in retrospect, this was not a GOOD idea, it is not a reprehensible one.

[Bugsby]

That the European media does a better job than the American media is undoubtedly true, but until the recent scandals broke, Americans had just as much reason to distrust our own media as you do to trust your media.

should read

That the European media does a better job than the American media is undoubtedly true, but until the recent scandals broke, Americans had just as much reason to TRUST our own media as you do to trust your media.

Curse the lack of the edit button.

[Darth Wong]

Too bad for you this argument is just as bullshit as your idiotic claim that NATO could multiply America's military presence many times over if it so desired.

That claim was based off misinformation, and I did not pursue it any further once I learned I had been misinformed. It's a red herring in the argument at hand. Drop it.

It's still relevant in the sense that it shows your mentality: you formed and aggressively promoted an opinion without making the slightest effort to research it yourself: the exact same mentality which I'm attacking in the "sheep" to which I refer in the rest of this post.

Mindlessly accepting everything that the media spoonfeeds to you is precisely the kind of sheep-like mentality that I'm talking about. It is not an excuse; it is an indictment.

That's not fair and you know it. Where else do people get their information from?

Newspapers. Magazines. The Internet. Deliberately going to foreign news sources in order to hear more than one side of the story. Don't be a fucking moron; this is very elementary critical-thinking stuff.

Not every American is an Iraqi weapons inspector. We don't know what's going on, so we turn to the media as our source. That's true of everyone.

Oh, so someone like myself, who primarily watches American network TV, was able to figure all of this out because I have some kind of magical source of information that is unavailable to the average American?

Rabid skepticism about everything in the media is impractical at best. I cannot support the idea that everyone has to bend over when the media says to, of course, but someone has to give the media some credit for what they do. I hear my adversaries praise the European media excessively, so it seems that people actually DO listen to the media. That the European media does a better job than the American media is undoubtedly true, but until the recent scandals broke, Americans had just as much reason to distrust our own media as you do to trust your media. We had just as much reason to go and seek out European news as you do seek out American news. Of course, this assumes parity between American and European news, but that parity was a reasonable assumption up until the inaccuracy of that assumption became obvious in the last few months. This isn't "sheep-like" behavior, it was a trust put in an organization whose job it is to provide objective coverage. Americnas are less trustful now, but only because that trust has been violated.

I love it: you think it's not sheeplike to blindly accept one side of the story that's being fed to you. And then you assume that everyone else does the same myopic thing, when in fact virtually everyone here who doesn't live in the US has made a point of checking out what American media is saying.

And BTW, even in America there were voices saying all of these things (yes, even in the media) before the war. The American People at large simply chose to ignore them in favour of lapping up the intellectual bird dropping of the largest and most powerfully well-monied news networks, that's all.

Also true. But these were very marginal voices with limited projection.

Yeah, sources like newspapers and magazines require the ability to read instead of sitting zombie-like in front of the boob tube. That severely limits their projection

The presence of these voices is why there was as large a resistance in America to the war as there was. But the mainstream media in America, apart from just being the "largest and most powerfully well-monied," is also the voice that gets heard by the vast majority of Americans.

That's the whole fucking point, moron. These sheep don't want to even look at what the other side is saying. Rather than examining the opposition's arguments, they simply push them aside and refuse to even acknowledge their existence. That's why they invent so many labels which can be used as an excuse to do just that. Oh, that's "liberal" thinking, so I don't have to address it. Oh, that's "ivory-tower intellectual" thinking, so I don't have to address it. Oh, that's "peacenik" thinking, so I don't have to address it. Etc. etc.

It is easy to do a Lexis-Nexus search and find a bunch of articles calling down Bush before March 03. But having lived in America before March 03, I know that htese arguments, although existant, were marginalized and not in the mainstream of the American conscinece. Should they have been? Hell yes. But because of the media structure in America, they were not ALLOWED to be part of the American consciousness.

I can't believe you deny that Americans behaved like sheep while simultaneously saying that they allowed the big media corporations to dictate what they would think about.

Of course, it would have been possible for Americans to do the kind of personal investigation that you say every American should have done. Few did, because few felt the need. Times have changed now; American has a healthy dose of paranoid skepticism. But two years ago, Americans did nothing more than listen to the people who were in a position to know. While, in retrospect, this was not a GOOD idea, it is not a reprehensible one.

Yeah, I guess there had never been an incident in the history of televised media before now to make anyone question the wisdom of mindlessly accepting everything the talking heads say

[Julhelm]

America started it, America gets to wipe it's own shit up.

Deal with it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

America started it, America gets to wipe it's own shit up.

Deal with it.

Except, we didn't go in alone. We went in with other nations backing us....those nations have commitments as well.

so yeah...deal with it

[Julhelm]

Fine, then sort the mess out with that massive support from the nations who are backing you. Asserting that anyone else has any kind of responsibility for it is stupid.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Well, it's also a bit using what you got for common sense. If Iraq, back when it had the fifth-largest army of the world and was at the height of its power, could neither beat Iran nor could defend itself against Israel (or vice versa, successfully attack it), even though that's a nation the size of NYC and practically at its doorstep, then why in god's name could anybody possibly believe them being a threat twelve years later despite

I dunno. Hypotheticals are all we have, even now, and hindsight is 20/20, but the risk of Saddam getting his hands on WMDs and getting into cahoots with Al Qaeda and gang despite his secularism is simply too scary to ignore.

US intel failed big on that, but I'm not sorry that Saddam is gone, nor the struggle for democracy in Iraq right now. Notice also that the present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan offers the US some options against soon-to-be-nuclear fundamentalist Iran. That may be more important than we suspect in a few months.

It's a long term game, and until the final score, secularization of the Islamic world and the halt of the islamic fundamentalist threat, is achieved, all we can do is to second guess every decision.

Besides, who else has a plan that seemed feasible? The neo-cons had one, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, felt it was the best plan. Other plans include Shep's nuke 'em all, or the peaceniks' head in the sand. Of course, there're more, but I just don't see Canada, France, or Germany dealing with it.

a) they had left almost all their "modern" (meaning mid-70ies Soviet equipment) military capabilities in '91
b) their missile technology - when they actually still invested in it - gave them a range of 900 kilometres
c) they had been repeatedly bombed during the 90ies
d) they had no economy to support large-scale research or even re-armement due to the heavy sanctions put on them
e) they were a highly secular state, and considering the way Hussein dealt with the Shia revolution in '91, highly unlikely to support any terrorists at all
f) they didn't even control their own territory (see the Kurdish autonomous provinces and the no-fly zones).

Those facts were available to everybody who cared.

Sure, but you know the usual refrain: they might work with the terrorists!

Your point (e) is the most dubious for me. I just can't quite believe that Saddam would have avoided outright any attempts to work with the fundamentalists if both sides were convinced that it was in their best short term interests. We've seen stranger bedfellows in the past.

However, the key issue is now NK. Good thing NK is a wholly non-islamic country devoted to the worship of the Kims, and just about as far in every respect as you could get from islamic fundamentalism. But then again, if the islamic terrorists did start working with Pyongyang, we're all in deep shit...

TWG

[Edi]

America started it, America gets to wipe it's own shit up.

Deal with it.

Except, we didn't go in alone. We went in with other nations backing us....those nations have commitments as well.

so yeah...deal with it

Like Spain is dealing with it? The Aznar government supported the war against the wishes of the people and got bvooted out of office for its troubles. Spain subsequently got out of Iraq, and I don't see them going back anytime soon. The Spanish government does have a commitment, to its own people, and the new PM (Zapatero, wasn't it?) is taking care of it. These other nations do have commitments in Iraq as long as their current governments stay in office, but if the power changes, they are in no way obligated to continue supporting the US, no matter how shrill Washington's cries about commitment will become (as they did when Spain withdrew).

The fact remains that the war was a US/UK show, with US doing most of the heavy lifting, and Spain, Poland, Italy and all the completely irrelevant places like Nauru were just window dressing in a pathetic attempt to claim legitimacy for the invasion. You're stuck with the heavy lifting for the foreseeable future, with the Brits doing what they can in their own area. I just wish it had been the Brits actually running the show instead of the Americans, that way the place wouldn't be such a clusterfuck right now.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh, yes of course: the glorius UN peacekeepers that were beaten by a small band of petty thugs in Seirra Leone . And name a few instances where the UN has actually helped in stabilizing a country? All I seem to remember is stuff like the UN's failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or to protect the "safe zones" in Sudan, it's failure to enforce it's resolutions against Saddam, and it's inability to do anything meaningful to stop America's almost unilateral war in Iraq.

East Timor? Interfaet, under the Australian aegis played a significant role in stabilising the country hand-over.

The UN isn't a magic word to bring about stability, but it sure is a nice catch-all term to garner international support, troops and money to support your mission.

Timor happned because Aussie and NZ would no longer tolerate Indonesia's behavior there, we were going in and the UN provided a conveniant label of legitimate authority. It only became a UN operation after Aussie and NZ sorted out the situation and made the place reasonably safe and stable.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

John Kerry may not be the perfect candidate but one thing he isn't is George Bush. In other words, he hasn't lost international credibility. By simply NOT being Bush, Kerry stands a much better chance of heading to the UN and saying, "Look, the previous administration got us into this quagmire but arguing that is a moot point. The situation is what it is and we need your help now to resolve it. If you come to our aid as allies, there will be direct benefits for you. First you'll be able to take part in the reconstruction (big money) and second, you have a vested interest in seeing Iraq turn out to be a positive in the end. A stable Iraq is good for all of us."

That sort of message cannot be conveyed by Bush, period.

No offense mate, but that is bullshit. First, the UN has no troops, at all. The blue berets are the forces of nations that are members of the UN and remain under national control, and are deployed for national interests. As such asking the UN to do the job is no different to asking nations states to sort it out. Even if they could why would they send troops to clean up the mess that America made?

[PainRack]

Timor happned because Aussie and NZ would no longer tolerate Indonesia's behavior there, we were going in and the UN provided a conveniant label of legitimate authority. It only became a UN operation after Aussie and NZ sorted out the situation and made the place reasonably safe and stable.

The UN did provide a conveniant label of authority, however, it also provided for an outpouring of logistic and medical support, along with security forces that significantly relieved the Australian burden and as such, advanced the second phase of the East Timor operation. It is improbable that the active elimination of the remaining militia along with the provision of humanitarian aid could had been done as rapidly as it was without the help of UN forces.

And as for your second assertion, that is relatively inaccurate. While Interfaet was not fully operational before hostilies died down, the second phase of Australian led peacekeeping forces had already begun, with the onset of foreign troops entering under the UN aegis before the Indonesian militias pulled out. Also, logistic and medical support was already onroute before TNI forces pulled out of the city, although all combat related operations were conducted by Aussie forces as opposed to Thailand.

[PainRack]

.Also, logistic and medical support was already onroute before TNI forces pulled out of the city, although all combat related operations were conducted by Aussie forces as opposed to Thailand.

Edit: All combat related operations related to Interfaet was conducted by ANZAC forces.

Just wanted to correct the sentence, which seems to suggest that Thailand contributed infantry before the TNI pulled out.

[Darth Wong]

International consensus would have been really good before the war, but it wouldn't help now. Because the real value of said consensus would have been a marked decrease in the anger and hatred fomented by America's unilateral actions, both of which led to Osama Bin Laden's wet dream of hordes of Muslims hating America and rushing into Iraq to fight and kill westerners.

Now that all of this shit has already happened, it's too late for UN consensus to mean shit. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have meant anything before the war. George Bush Senior understood this before Gulf War 1, which was why he made such a concerted effort to build consensus with particular emphasis on other Arab nations. But Shrubby felt it was unnecessary and that the UN was a big joke and totally useless so it was irrelevant to "pander" to the international community (an opinion that many people here staunchly supported as being the pinnacle of realist wisdom ).

[Admiral Valdemar]

Bush never did grasp that burning all your bridges and then trying to cross isn't an altogether wise move.

Mind you, Kerry almost had that impression on me too when he seemed to imply the US was going this War on Terror alone despite obvious allies like Canada and the UK still aiding.

I did so enjoy watching Bush address the UN for support in Iraq after giving them the finger and gloating about all the gains you'd get from the inva... uh, liberation.

[PainRack]

Besides, who else has a plan that seemed feasible? The neo-cons had one, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, felt it was the best plan. Other plans include Shep's nuke 'em all, or the peaceniks' head in the sand. Of course, there're more, but I just don't see Canada, France, or Germany dealing with it.

You mean as opposed to increased inspections of Iraq, with the threat of US military action if anything funny pops up?

[Stuart Mackey]

Timor happned because Aussie and NZ would no longer tolerate Indonesia's behavior there, we were going in and the UN provided a conveniant label of legitimate authority. It only became a UN operation after Aussie and NZ sorted out the situation and made the place reasonably safe and stable.

The UN did provide a conveniant label of authority, however, it also provided for an outpouring of logistic and medical support, along with security forces that significantly relieved the Australian burden and as such, advanced the second phase of the East Timor operation. It is improbable that the active elimination of the remaining militia along with the provision of humanitarian aid could had been done as rapidly as it was without the help of UN forces.

False. The UN does not posess forces of its own, for example, NZ's forces got their stuff sent in via the Franch Navy *the shame, the shame*
The operation was a multi national effort, dont make the mistake of assuming that the UN did anything without intervention of ANZAC forces or the support of other nations.

And as for your second assertion, that is relatively inaccurate. While Interfaet was not fully operational before hostilies died down, the second phase of Australian led peacekeeping forces had already begun, with the onset of foreign troops entering under the UN aegis before the Indonesian militias pulled out. Also, logistic and medical support was already onroute before TNI forces pulled out of the city, although all combat related operations were conducted by Aussie forces as opposed to Thailand.

Ireelivant, BTw INTERFET was UN authorised, it was not a UN op, that came later. I will say it again putting Timor back together happned only because NZ and Aussie would no longer tolerate what was happening. The UN legitimised it, but it was ANZAC that made it happen.

[Kamakazie Sith]

America started it, America gets to wipe it's own shit up.

Deal with it.

Except, we didn't go in alone. We went in with other nations backing us....those nations have commitments as well.

so yeah...deal with it

Like Spain is dealing with it? The Aznar government supported the war against the wishes of the people and got bvooted out of office for its troubles. Spain subsequently got out of Iraq, and I don't see them going back anytime soon. The Spanish government does have a commitment, to its own people, and the new PM (Zapatero, wasn't it?) is taking care of it. These other nations do have commitments in Iraq as long as their current governments stay in office, but if the power changes, they are in no way obligated to continue supporting the US, no matter how shrill Washington's cries about commitment will become (as they did when Spain withdrew).

The fact remains that the war was a US/UK show, with US doing most of the heavy lifting, and Spain, Poland, Italy and all the completely irrelevant places like Nauru were just window dressing in a pathetic attempt to claim legitimacy for the invasion. You're stuck with the heavy lifting for the foreseeable future, with the Brits doing what they can in their own area. I just wish it had been the Brits actually running the show instead of the Americans, that way the place wouldn't be such a clusterfuck right now.

Edi

Spain just shows that we can't depend on them when it gets tough, that's fine I've never really considered them that close of an ally anyway. Britain on the other hand I'd be very surprised and disappointed if they ever left us alone in Iraq.

Also, I think the chances of the UK doing better than the US if they were running the show is 50/50. Everyone is always convinced that they can do better but when it really comes down to it you never know until you're actually doing it.

[Edi]

Spain just shows that we can't depend on them when it gets tough,

Bulls-fucking-shit. Spain just shows that the US can't expect everyone else who once supported something they did to keep on sucking Uncle Sam's cock when it's fucked up its objective beyond any reasonable hope of repair. Afaik Spanish troops are still taking part in operations in Afghanistan, where you had all of Europe supporting you.

that's fine I've never really considered them that close of an ally anyway.

That's a real nice attitude you've got there, if your allies do not submit to a complete anal rape without lube at your convenience, they aren't that close of an ally anyway. So far, I haven't seen the Spanish commitment in Afghanistan lessening, but 70+% of their people opposed the Iraq war to begin with and their government went there anyway. Then Islamic groups killed 200+ people in Madrid and stated it was in retaliation for Iraq, and the government that had defied the people tried to cover it up. It is no surprise the Spaniards got rid of those fuckwits and elected someone who actually listens to the people for once. Too bad it doesn't suit you.

Britain on the other hand I'd be very surprised and disappointed if they ever left us alone in Iraq.

Given how the UK has backed the US to the hilt all along, so would I. They went so deep in from the get go that they are quite in the same boat as the US, they can't just up and leave, not without serious political repercussions. Never mind that the political situation in the UK before the war was strange (to put it mildly). Opposition supported the war while a large chunk of the governing party did not, so there is no scope for a change as great as in Spain even after elections, I think.

Also, I think the chances of the UK doing better than the US if they were running the show is 50/50. Everyone is always convinced that they can do better but when it really comes down to it you never know until you're actually doing it.

Newsflash: UK has been dealing with exactly the type of insurgency and rebellion you've got on your hands in Iraq for over 30 years, and they know their shit about how to go about defusing it. They made mistakes at first too, but the difference is that they did so over 20 years ago, have learned from them, and are actively applying those lessons to their operational planning and conduct. The US is still completely inexperienced and at the fuckup stage, which has been reflected in everything from planning to management to operational decisions on the ground.

You're fucking deluded if you think that the situation would be this bad with the UK military people in charge. All you have to do is compare the numbers of attacks against occupying troops relative to troop strength for the US and UK and look at the general level of unrest in their respective occupation zones in Iraq to see who has been better able to handle their responsibilities.

Edi

[Colonel Olrik]

Adding to what Edi said, Spain increased its military presence in Afeghanistan by the exact numbers it had in Iraq, a few days after the troops left the country.