Some in Bush's 'coalition of the willing' are suddenly losing their will

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/079/wash/Some_in_Bush_s_coalition_of_th:.shtml

WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush's prized ''coalition of the willing'' the three dozen countries that are contributing military forces in Iraq appears suddenly to be losing some of its will.

First Spain said it was getting out, then Poland said it might leave early, and on Friday the South Korean Ministry of Defense announced that it will not send its troops to the area of Iraq that U.S. commanders had requested, although it said it would position them elsewhere in Iraq.

The coalition may not be crumbling, but neither is it gaining the political traction that the Pentagon had hoped for as it tackles the difficult task of finding fresh forces for the Iraq mission in 2005 and beyond.

A key element of the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq is to put an international face on the military force that is not only helping rebuild the country but also to trying to snuff out a resilient insurgency.

more

[corporatewhore]

1. Now if only kerry would not continue the same policy (staying in)

[Dr Fate]

7. That didnt work for George Sr., and it wont work for Kerry...

George Sr. abandoned Afghanistan after the Rooskies left- and we all know happened then.

You do know what happened after that, right?

Iraq wont magically become a stable place if we abandon them at this point-

Yeah, Bush put us in a pickle, no doubt- but it wont be the 1st time a Democrat has had to clean up the mess left by Republicans...

I say we let Kerry get the UN back in...

Doc

[struggle4progress]

31. Unfortunately, having gotten involved ...

in this boondoggle, with the miserable results that many of us predicted, I think the US now incur a profound moral obligation to repair. * and company lack the required vision: they are so certain of their superiority to everyone else that they continually ignore facts inconvenient to their ideology. A genuine and credible international effort under the control of the UN will be required to stop the violence and to help the Iraqis reconstruct a civil society.

I feel so bad for our troops there. Those who are willing to give themselves entirely for our country deserve such love and gratitude from us that we will not risk their minds, limbs, or lives by whimsy, for personal reasons or for profiteers.

[NJCher]

2. bush's "coalition"

The coalition may not be crumbling,

Sounds to me like "the coalition" is crumbling.


Cher

[mitchtv]

3. sfgate reports Honduras pulling out

only 350 , but who's counting

[truthisfreedom]

4. we should all be happy about their vote of confidence that Kerry will win,

and simultaneously cry in our beer that we will be left alone (not that there's THAT much support anyway, but at least misery loves company, right?)

[Stockholm]

6. I´m quite sure

this trend would be reversed quickly if (when) the control is handed over to the UN. The US must however realise that countries for example my own (Sweden) is not interested (impossible politically) to contribute in the current situation where the US call all the shots, especially when questioning the legality of action in the first place.

There are however examples from areas where NATO(US) and the UN works together (Kosovo) so it is doable.

But it is difficult for any government who today is "against the bush administration" e.g. do not take part in Iraq to decide on contributing when no one knows who Bush is invading next week.

[leftchick]

12. Welcome to DU Stokholm!

I look forward to reading more of your posts and I love your sig line!

:)

[snippy]

19. You are right. Many countries have offered to help if the UN is in charge

Enough countries have offered to send thousands of troops to Iraq that the US could withdraw 90% of our troops. One problem with this is that Bush might use the newly freed up American troops to invade another country.

Welcome to DU.

[cliss]

27. Thanks for the info, St.

Many countries have been hesitant to send more soldiers because they are afraid of what Bush's "travel plans" are next. Many people are wondering the same thing.

I just read an interview last week about Anna Lindh (before she was assassinated). She said the same thing that you wrote; Sweden does not want to get involved because they are questioning the logic leading up to the war.

Välkommen! Vi är svenskar som bor i Portland, Oregon. Jag är också från Stockholm.

[Dover]

5. The Coalition of the Bewildered

.

[R Hickey]

8. "The Coalition of the Hoodwinked"

Bush/Cheney/Rice lied and the GOP propaganda doesn't seem to work outside the Bushevic media bubble.

[Disturbed]

9. The UN and NATAO

These two orgs.would send in forces if Bushco will allow a 50/50 partnership. The question is will Bushco let go of the control. Kerry has already said he would do so. With Kerry, the other nations would most likely help out.

[izzie]

10. I think Bush sees it as riding in to save it all. Glory

I say let the UN do it. In this world we must all work together. I guess these countries like to go with the people who put them in power. We are half and half so it is a big problem. Bush sure is leaving a mess every place.It is hard for me to believe their are so many people in this country that wish to solve all problems with killing and force but their you are. Read FR and it is a shock to me to see so many people who like to kill anything that they do not like. They are really scary and the most un-Christian people I have ever read about. They also hold the power in DC. This is not the teaching of JC

[Malva Zebrina]

11. Bush won't let the UN in for a coupld of reasons

the biggest is probably his own bull headed ego. He cannot admit he smacked the UN and stomped on it while it was on the ground, went in paying no attention to any wisdom and made a mess out of it. Indeed, all his little lying elves are going around saying over and over that he is a wonderful leader for invading Iraq and the PR people are hard at work over there in Iraq sending the good news back home to us

If he let's the UN in , he probably figures it a weak poing and it will be held up against him in the election. He is so corrupt that he would rather people die, rather our troops die, than allow level headedness to take over and stop it.

[smartass]

13. I believe it's all money. Bush, Chaney , Chalabi and the rest of

war profiteers are making a fortune off of contracts. Greedy bastards won't give it up.

[Mel]

18. I think you and Marianne are both right

it's the combination his ego and the money. That's why Bush* makes such a great sock puppet for Dick Black Heart and the International Corporatisa Gangsters.

[Go Eagles]

14. coalition of the coerced

Turns out the coalition of the bullied, bribed and black-mailed is not as solid as Bush and Co. claims. The actions of a year ago demonstrated such a level of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance regarding global politics. As much as I disagreed with Poppy Bush, even he still had a certain level of savvy and tact and would never have acted with such reckless stupidity. Letting the UN in is admitting that we can't go it alone and crawling back to the organization/nations he and his goons lambasted as being irrelevant. It also means relinquishing some of the fat reconstruction contracts that is being passed out to Bush's carpet bagging cronies. Sadly, things will have to deteriorate to a level that is really bad before Bush relinquishes control and who knows what kind of mess Iraq will be then.

[patricia92243]

15. This shows more and more what the rest of the world think about US. What..

will they think of us if Bush is put back in the WH. I believe literally everybody will think the Americans are a bunch of imbeciles.

It really IS idiotic that that man is still allowed to be president. If he was not impeached or brought up on criminal charges, then at least some of the leaders of his own party should have politely but asked him firmly to step down. They are unpatriotic and do not love this country.

[ConcernedCanuk]

16. I watched VIETNAM:Ghosts of War last night - chilling comparisons

.
.
.

to Iraq, how the US sold the war on "fear", how the war wasn't justified, lies and spin through the media,

and even though the military saw no hope for victory, they carried it on for ten years anyways, - 15MILLION Vietnamese killed, and up to 120 a year are STILL getting killed each year, (yes, over 30 years later ) from bombs and land mines from 1954 - -

In Iraq it's cluster bombs and DU, but we aren't hearing anything much

and we WON'T hear anything for decades if it follows the same "system" as the Military "spun" it back then -

So

I hope the turnouts for the demonstrations are MASSIVE, and I also hope they can mobilize people on a regular (maybe monthly) basis to have ORGANIZED and coordinated demonstrations -

oh

Rummy says it's not like Vietnam,

so I must be wrong?

:shrug:

[0007]

17. I hope for the same thing CC

[Barkley]

21. Here's another chilling comparison:

Recently, I was reading a history encyclopedia about the US civil war and found parallels to the abolishionist movement and today's anti-war movement.

Although the abolishonist did achieve some remarkable accomplishments, like the underground railroad, they, themselves did not succeed in ending slavery.

Like oil, the U.S. economy (north and south) was heavily dependent upon slave labor. So politicians kept compromising and accommodating on the issue of slavery.

It was abolishionist Wm Lloyd Garrison, who once said:

"I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard."

Garrison rivals Ralph Nader in his distain for the established political system and beleived in dismantling the Union in order to free slaves.

Garrison had a point!

The Union had to be dismantled in order to end slavery.

Today, politicians in both parties (save Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton) are glued to Iraq.

Iraq is about oil and oil is a very compelling economic interests of the U.S. So the loss of 560+ GIs is 'worth it'. That's why many politiicans are willing to compromise on Iraq.

Although I will vote for Kerry; I believe Ralph Nader's position on the two party system and Iraq are correct.

[wildwww2]

29. You are correct. And Rummy`s a dummy. Albeit a rich evil dummy.

Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[rooboy]

20. But I thought this was the biggest coalition in the history of the world.

n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. That "coalition" is a joke

.
.
.

Here's some info, outdated a bit, but you'll get the idea . .

What Coalition ?

The US and Britain cannot find “the willing” to lead

Washington says that in the war on Iraq they lead a coalition of 45 nations.

This is a transparent sham:

• 15 of the 45 are too ashamed to be named.

• 24 of the rest are sending NO troops. This includes Spain!

• 4 are sending token numbers (less than 300 at most).

That leaves Australia (2,000 troops), the UK (45,000) and the US (315,000). It’s not a coalition, it’s a gang.

- The "rest" of the story (one page - .pdf file)


-A list of other Fact sheets/flyers.

[DinahMoeHum]

22. Like I've said, the acronym for this coalition is: COWS

n/t

:evilgrin:

[pippin]

23. Countries in the Coalition

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
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Eritea? Ethiopia? Tonga? ha!ha!ha!

[Ravy]

24. I honestly think that more countries would send troops if they didn't feel

that it would free up our forces to invade someone else.

I think our only hope here is for the UN to come in, and to administer it in place of the United States.

That won't happen under the current administration because if the UN administers it, Halliburton won't get Most Favored Status.

That (UN Administration) won't even happen in the Kerry administration if IRAQ is in such a state of turmoil that it is a hopeless cause trying to control a raging civil war.

Our ONLY hope as I see it is for the coalition to stay together and keep it from COMPLETELY blowing apart until Kerry can get in office. It is a horrible state of affairs either way.

I believe this is why Kerry is calling on other countries to help out, even now, to keep it somewhat manageable once he takes office and can hand it over to the United Nations.

[struggle4progress]

25. kick

:kick:

[cliss]

26. I just read that the US is considering

having the UN return to Iraq.

I would say, judging from their scrambling these past 3 days, after Zapatero dropped his bombshell, that these guys are scared.

And they've been scared for a long time. They've been hanging onto the thinnest of hopes, keeping their fingers crossed that the thin veneer of "success, bravado and pure bullshit" would keep everyone together.

Like the gambler who blows on the dice and knows that this is his last chance to win big after he's bet the mortgage money, BushCo has felt the world closing in on them, slowly but ever so surely.

Criticism, like an ever-increasing crescendo to be heard from all corners of the world, has now become screeching in their ears and it's all they can do to keep it together.

"Just a little bit longer", they say, as they shake the dice.....

[SOS]

28. The Madrid Conference in October 2003

showed clearly that the "coalition" is paper thin.

"Pledges of $27.5 billion have been made so far, and it is likely Washington will declare the donors conference a success. However, $20 billion of that initial amount will come directly from the U.S., so the amounts promised from other nations are tiny. Only Japan ($1.5 billion) has pledged a significant amount. The EU offered an almost insultingly small $230 million, and even war-backers Britain ($840 million) and Spain ($300 million) offered small amounts, as did new recruit South Korea ($200 million). The remainder, $3.4- $4 billion, is expected to come from the World Bank (which of course includes a major component from the U.S.) "

Payoffs, small troop commitments, almost no financial contributions.

[rocktivity]

32. What's Spanish, Italian, and South Korean for

"YOU DELIBERATELY DECIEVED US, YOU LYING CROOK!"

:headbang:
rocknation