 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
First Spain, then Poland, now South Korea?
quote:
Some in Bush's 'coalition of the willing' are suddenly losing their will
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Burns
March 19, 2004 | 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.
That strategy is meant to counter the charge by critics that the administration took a unilateral action in attacking Iraq, and that it has failed to garner sufficient allied support in the war's aftermath.
It's possible, of course, that security conditions in Iraq will improve so markedly over the remainder of this year that a military force much smaller than the current one of about 140,000 will be required. In that case the United States may not need additional allied troop contributions.
But if the insurgency persists or gains ground, then any slack in coalition contributions _ as suggested by Spain, Poland and possibly South Korea _ may have to be made up by deploying even more American forces.
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an Associated Press interview Thursday that there are now about 115,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, plus about 24,000 coalition troops. Nearly half of the coalition contribution is from staunch ally Britain.
Pace said it was too early to conclude that Spain will follow through on its pledge to withdraw.
"It's not clear that Spain will withdraw,'' he said. The new government has indicated ``there are conditions under which they can stay, and that would be up to their sovereign government to make their
Spain's Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who gained office in an election held just three days after terrorist train bombings that killed 201 people in the Spanish capital, said Wednesday that the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq ``is turning into a fiasco.'' He said he will pull 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq unless the United Nations takes control of military mission.
Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said in a CNN interview Thursday it was up to the Spanish government to decide whether to end its role as a key American military ally in Iraq.
"Whatever they decide about their forces in Iraq, that's up to the Spanish government,'' she said.
Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski said Thursday that his country might pull its 2,400 troops out of Iraq early next year, about six months ahead of schedule. Polls show about half of Poles are opposed to involvement in Iraq. Kwasniewski said he was misled by Bush administration assertions before the war that Saddam Hussein had threatening stockpiles of germ and gas weapons. No such weapons have been found.
Kwasniewski's comments were the first by a Polish leader to raise doubts about the intelligence behind Washington's decision to go to war and the latest signs of a weakening of support for the war among coalition members. He tempered his remarks by stressing that Poland has not intention of abandoning its role in Iraq, and said Iraq was a better place without Saddam.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Thursday would not comment directly on Kwasnieski's remarks.
"Poland is a strong ally in the war on terrorism and we appreciate their strong support,'' McClellan said. "They reaffirmed they stand with us in the war on terror.''
South Korea's announcement, which had not been foreseen in Washington, may be more problematic.
U.S. commanders had counted on South Korea to send about 3,600 troops to the Kirkuk area of northern Iraq, to be part of a multinational force led by the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division. Without the Koreans there, the Pentagon might have to find another U.S. ground unit to fill the gap.
A Defense Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "We value South Korea's contribution in fighting terrorism as we value the contributions of the more than 90 countries that have joined the coalition in fighting terrorism. It is up to each country to decide what type, duration and scope of support it may provide the coalition.'' |
What a great leader we have.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 19-03-2004 at 19:48
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:34
|
|
Park Avenue, On the contrary, I think it's very easy. I mean it's not easy when you start thinkign about it, but if you see it like I do, the choice is easy.
option a is bad no doubt. Terrorist are celebrating absolutely, victims dead and their relatives are in pain.
option b is far worse. We give up the power of West by deviding ourselves and the power that comes from us being friend is now gone. There are only separate powers. It opens up a new space for example China to step up. Suddenly, there is a competition of new superpowers. We gotta make a move here in Europe..... if we're not friends anymore, it could just as easily be China. THat's not something to joke about, that scenario is horror.
Anyway the situation is so open, that no one can predict anything anymore, controlling is more impossible than ever.
Who knows what happens to different economies.
All the bad things of this century will come out of this lost friendship. And for what? If we are not friends anymore, let's make it count for something. Let's nuke each other first. THat's a reason to separate. Iraq? War on terrorism? Not even close. This is where the terrorists get their first orgasm, being virgins and all.
Who could have known, that with few bombings and letters and phone calls and bad english, you get a situation where west is devided, power diminished, friends against each other. That's what the weak must do, to get bullies go at it each other.
No matter if the bullies are already in disagreement of something, they can still be friends and should be friends. We will see the chaotic outcome after it would happen, and we would regret it forever and we couldn't build it back up like it was. We just gave the ultimate power away.
Think about what would happen in US if we weren't friends anymore. Do you think US stands in one line happy about it? What about the same sitaution in Europe? No way! That would be so huge upset to both, it's like poking ant nest.
Nothing good would happen, nothing. I don't see nothing good coming out of it not a single thing and I see good things coming out of every war and me paying traffic fine for speeding.
It's just not worth it. Enemies have manipulated us away from the real enemy, which is them, not us. Never forget it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2004 19:40
I can understand that.
|