Why did only the UK support the war?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2 Timothy2:1-4
    And yet President Bush came to the same conclusion of the following:


    Former President Clinton
    Sentator Hillary Clinton
    Senator John Kerry
    The European Intelligence community


    When did they agree on this. In 1998. If you accuse President Bush of lying or misrepresenting intelligence then you need to include the list above in your accusations.




    A Senator does not have access to all the information a President has access to. I don't believe the European Intelligence community were at all in agreement. In fact, why did only the UK support us on invading Iraq? President Clinton did believe that there very well might have been WMD but not enough to start a war.
     
  2. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    For starters it is false that only the UK supported the War. There have been many countries involved in this war. Do I really need to make a list?

    However two countries that fought against the war such as France and Russia was against it for two reasons:

    1. the had prior agreements with Iraq that required debts to be repaid. Iraq owed then money.

    2. It has been discovered that in the failed oil for food program as overseen by the Un both Russia and France were making deals with Saddam under the table ilegally and benefitting fro the program.

    Iraq was their sugar daddy for countries that have failing economies under socialism.
     
  3. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Other countries involvement in Bush's war was minimal. Even then British had only 7K men against our what, 150K. No comparison. A political move.
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where do you get your numbers from?
     
  5. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a link to Wiki - it gives numbers at the time of invasion and current (Jan 2007). According to it, at the time the UK had 45,000 and currently has 7,200 compared to the US of 250,000 and 135,000.

    Iceland has remained steady at 2.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is like saying Austrialia, Korea, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Thailand were in Viet Nam only as political moves and did nothing compared to us. They gave their money and thier blood. Go try your line on some Austrialian veterans of the Viet Nam war, for example, and see what reaction you get.

    Britian and a host of other nations has contributed to the war in Iraq with their money and their blood. You may have forgotten some of the incidents that made the international news.
     
  7. Bob Farnaby

    Bob Farnaby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could try it on the Australian veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq too ... and those from other nations who have contributed forces in vvarious numbers (usually small) to the American led wars.

    Regards
    Bob
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Proportionate to the population or to their regular military, the numbers may not have been so small.
     
  9. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    S&N didnt say that. He implied tht britts involvment was minimal with a total of 7200 troops ever. The fact is they have been reducing their numbers as it was necessary. The recent declared reduction is not new or isolated. And eve after this reduction of Britts troops occurs they will still have 5500 troops in Iraq. It is not a complete pull out.

    In the end S&N was wrong.
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't say he did.

    Yes, he mistook the current number for the original. I'm pretty sure that my post corrected the error without pointing fingers.

    Necessary politically for Blair.

    True, and the US will be sending in more than enough to make up for the British reduction.

    So very generous of you to point that out. Perhaps the favor will be returned one day. Soon. :)
     
  11. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure how many troops Australia has in Iraq at the moment, I think it is around the 1700 mark, two SAS units who track and kill terrorists, peace keepers and military trainers who are training Iraqi people to take up the job once western forces leave.

    On that, it is worth pointing out that the Iraqi's that are being trained have to contend with not their own people, but combatants shipped in from other countries. Although there are problems with a civil war going on, it needs to be remembered that there are still outside influences in Iraq making the problem worse.

    Also Australia have peace keeping missions in some 17 other countries at the moment including in Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. 1700 in Iraq may not seem alot, yet bear in mind that we have a population of 13 million adults, unlike the 300 million plus in the U.S and the U.K 60 million.
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really appreciate Australia's contribution to this war as well as several others on which we've fought on the same side. It was my pleasure to work with some Australian soldiers many years ago in another war. They were certainly good soldiers and also had a great sense of humor which they were exceptionally good at using on us.
     
  13. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Since we furnished more than 150,000 troops please provide a list of all other countries who provided more than say 5,000 or even 2,500.
     
  14. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    That's correct. My numbers were wrong but I believe my point was correct.

    2003 invasion of Iraq
    Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000 troops), United Kingdom (45,000 troops), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (460).

    Now, there are 21 countries involved all (except for S. Korea with 2,300) with troop levels less than 1,000 and 12 with troop levels of around 100. The has been an American/British war obviously which was my initial point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq


    By the way. I watch the radical left media news every night. I read a lot of news on the internet. I don't ever remember it being reported that the other members of our coalition was pulling out especially to the extent that the British have. Funny.
     
    #14 StraightAndNarrow, Feb 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2007
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a war that some nations had the wisdom and courage to fight and some did not. Give me 100 warriors of any nation that did for 10,000 of any other that did not. Victory is ours if we want it. Victory is our enemy's if we quit while we're winning.
     
  16. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    Do you believe that every war is just and worth fighting? What has anyone gained from this one?
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every war that America has fought has been for just cause. All of them may be in some details clouded by the imperfections and fallibility of mankind but all of them have been for fundamentally just causes.

    We've accomplished several of the points listed in the Congressional resolution and are working on the rest. The challenges are, at times, overwhelming but they can be accomplished if we'll continue with the resolve that Congress embodied in its resolution of 2002. Our warriors have no inclination to quit just because it's difficult.

    From a broader view, we've established a hope in Iraq for a more representative government that in turn can be a catalyst for change in the region to move farther away from the influence of radical leaders. It's still a hope and, of course, is at times overshadowed by the legacy of that influence which has been extant for generations. We, nor the people of Iraq, face an easy struggle. Many around the world want us to fail.

    Having such a base in the region may some day prove to be of great value to us, and other peace loving nations, if we must deal with more of our enemies in surrounding nations. That day may come sooner than we expect.
     
  18. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    Is America somehow perfect while all other nations sometimes act in error? That's simply not true.
     
  19. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, America is not perfect in every detail and neither are Americans in many details. The Lord made it clear in His word that all mankind is corrupt and none of us have evolved to become an exception.

    However, America has throughout history only engaged in just war, never plundered another nation for its resources, has consistently demonstrated great compassion for all those it has defeated in war, and been quick and generous to help restore and make peace with even the most bitter of enemies. That's something many nations can not claim in their history.

    I see no basis for a negative twist on our motives and practices in war or in the peace that follows it. Doing so is an undeserved discredit to America and to those who've served as her warriors.
     
  20. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe they feel they still owe us one.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...