But I thought...

[RetiredGySgt]

What is this? I have been told over and over the US UNILATERALLY invaded Iraq? Can not they keep their stories straight?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/w...c741539ce73d78&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[maineman]

does the term "token" mean anything to you?


Total "Coalition" Casualties: 4078
British Casualties: 169
The rest of our ":coalition partners" casualties" 129
American casualties: 3780

stupid thread.

stupid.

 

[Gunny]

does the term "token" mean anything to you?


Total "Coalition" Casualties: 4078
British Casualties: 169
The rest of our ":coalition partners" casualties" 129
American casualties: 3780

stupid thread.

stupid.

Not at all. His point is valid, and your mincing numbers irrelevant. What percentage of each countries' armed forces deployed to Iraq, and historically, have they ever provided a larger percentage?

Let us not attempt to mislead .....

 

[maineman]

are you suggesting that America's military is ten times larger than all the militaries of all our "coalition partners" put together?

I might need a link for that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

does the term "token" mean anything to you?


Total "Coalition" Casualties: 4078
British Casualties: 169
The rest of our ":coalition partners" casualties" 129
American casualties: 3780

stupid thread.

stupid.

Yup, the only thing that matters to you is American lives, you have proven that by your constant refrain of "fuck" the Iraqis and leave now.

Last I checked Unilateral means someone does something ALONE. We were and still are far from alone. And as I recall this very paper with this story has made the Unilateral claim in the past as well.

 

[roomy]

I think we have taken more than can be considered "token numbers" .Fuck anyone that thinks otherwise and fuck the rest of you for not admitting you think it.Fuck you.

 

[maineman]

Yup, the only thing that matters to you is American lives, you have proven that by your constant refrain of "fuck" the Iraqis and leave now.

Last I checked Unilateral means someone does something ALONE. We were and still are far from alone. And as I recall this very paper with this story has made the Unilateral claim in the past as well.

alone, in an absolute sense? of course not. alone in a real sense, of course we are. The coalition of the billing is a farce and you know it. We are doing the fighting and the dying and the paying.

United States 170,000
United Kingdom 7,200
South Korea 2,300
Australia 850
Poland 900
Romania 865
Denmark 460
El Salvador 380
Georgia 300
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 150
Latvia 136
Albania 120
Czech Republic 100
Mongolia 100 100
Lithuania 50
Armenia 46
Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
Estonia 34
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Moldova 12

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm


I wonder what those twelve brave moldovans are doing?

 

[roomy]

A link is not a thought unless you prescribe to others thoughts?in which case you should say so

 

[DeadCanDance]

alone, in an absolute sense? of course not. alone in a real sense, of course we are. The coalition of the billing is a farce and you know it. We are doing the fighting and the dying and the paying.

United States 170,000
United Kingdom 7,200
South Korea 2,300
Australia 850
Poland 900
Romania 865
Denmark 460
El Salvador 380
Georgia 300
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 150
Latvia 136
Albania 120
Czech Republic 100
Mongolia 100 100
Lithuania 50
Armenia 46
Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
Estonia 34
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Moldova 12

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm


I wonder what those twelve brave moldovans are doing?

You forgot about Iceland. They have ONE soldier in Iraq. Although, they're pulling him out in a couple months.

 

[roomy]

And you idiots kill more of us than they do, it is little wonder that we want to come home, who's side are we on? Fuck you and your intelligence.An army of idiots doesn't inspire confidence in any fucker but the enemy.

 

[maineman]

and I think that Micronesia sent a six pack of hula dancers (or maybe just a microwave)...we cannot forget about their gallant service!

 

[DeadCanDance]

LOL @ MM

Well, lets be thankfull for whatever little help we can get. Given that BushCo has insulted allies, and virtually destroyed america's reputation, it good to get even a little help.

You're right though. The "coaliton" of 36 nations, or 24 nations, or whatever, is a figleaf. Its a joke.

 

[mattskramer]

alone, in an absolute sense? of course not. alone in a real sense, of course we are. The coalition of the billing is a farce and you know it. We are doing the fighting and the dying and the paying.

United States 170,000
United Kingdom 7,200
South Korea 2,300
Australia 850
Poland 900
Romania 865
Denmark 460
El Salvador 380
Georgia 300
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 150
Latvia 136
Albania 120
Czech Republic 100
Mongolia 100 100
Lithuania 50
Armenia 46
Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
Estonia 34
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Moldova 12

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm


I wonder what those twelve brave moldovans are doing?

This reminds me of the first gulf war. There was a chart in National Geographics. I did some math. You could have added up the number of soldiers from all other nations and doubled the sum. It would not have come close to the number of soldiers that the USA sent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This reminds me of the first gulf war. There was a chart in National Geographics. I did some math. You could have added up the number of soldiers from all other nations and doubled the sum. It would not have come close to the number of soldiers that the USA sent.

That was different. Just Like the Balkans is different.

 

[maineman]

That was different. Just Like the Balkans is different.

the numbers don't lie. We are effectively in this alone. To claim this is some "coalition effort" is laughable.

 

[mattskramer]

That was different. Just Like the Balkans is different.

The point is the same. The UN condoned the first Gulf War –a result of Iraq taking Kuwait. I think that the first war was more justified. We should have made Iraq give Kuwait back – and we did. The point is that even though other nations participated in that war too, the USA gave, by far, more soldiers than did any other nation. Our leaders told us that, in that war as in this war, it was a worldwide effort with participation from many other nations. That may be technically true, but in each case the USA give many many more troups.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The point is the same. The UN condoned the first Gulf War –a result of Iraq taking Kuwait. I think that the first war was more justified. We should have made Iraq give Kuwait back – and we did. The point is that even though other nations participated in that war too, the USA gave, by far, more soldiers than did any other nation. Our leaders told us that, in that war as in this war, it was a worldwide effort with participation from many other nations. That may be technically true, but in each case the USA give many many more troups.

The korean war, and the first gulf war were formally sanctioned by the UN and international law, as they were reactions to true aggresion: the invasion of south korea, and kuwait respectively. Both wars had broad, international consensus internationally, or in the case of korea, from the free non-communist bloc. Tens of thousands of actual combat troops from dozens of nations participated.

Bush's Iraq war was not formally sanctioned, nor did it enjoy true broad international support. Not even from NATO. While, bush cobbled together some governments to sanction his war, he did not have the world's support or the international legitimacy that would have been helpful, indeed neccessary. And few nations contributed or sacrificed actual combat troops to Bush's war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The korean war, and the first gulf war were formally sanctioned by the UN and international law, as they were reactions to true aggresion: the invasion of south korea, and kuwait respectively. Both wars had broad, international consensus internationally, or in the case of korea, from the free non-communist bloc. Tens of thousands of actual combat troops from dozens of nations participated.

Bush's Iraq war was not formally sanctioned, nor did it enjoy true broad international support. Not even from NATO. While, bush cobbled together some governments to sanction his war, he did not have the world's support or the international legitimacy that would have been helpful, indeed neccessary. And few nations contributed or sacrificed actual combat troops to Bush's war.

Simply not true, Britain sent at least 30,000 troops ( I seem to recall 45,000), Italy and Spain sent troops , most of Europe was in fact IN on the war. Only France, Belgium and Germany were openly opposed. I suggest you learn some facts.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Simply not true, Britain sent at least 30,000 troops ( I seem to recall 45,000), Italy and Spain sent troops , most of Europe was in fact IN on the war.

According to Wiki's tally, the majority of european countries were either against the war, or neutral. As for the invasion, only the UK sent troops. And the poles supposedly sent a company, for the invasion. I think the Danes might have had a submarine posted in the persian gulf.

Only France, Belgium and Germany were openly opposed. I suggest you learn some facts.

I'm counting at least 14 european countries (not including russia) openly against your invasion, with many more than that choosing to be neutral.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/State_positions_Iraq_war.png

 

[dilloduck]

The korean war, and the first gulf war were formally sanctioned by the UN and international law, as they were reactions to true aggresion: the invasion of south korea, and kuwait respectively. Both wars had broad, international consensus internationally, or in the case of korea, from the free non-communist bloc. Tens of thousands of actual combat troops from dozens of nations participated.

Bush's Iraq war was not formally sanctioned, nor did it enjoy true broad international support. Not even from NATO. While, bush cobbled together some governments to sanction his war, he did not have the world's support or the international legitimacy that would have been helpful, indeed neccessary. And few nations contributed or sacrificed actual combat troops to Bush's war.

Perhaps we should be discussing the pros and cons of International Law.