Coalition support retreats

In yesterday's Cedar Rapids gazette News paper there was an article on the front page telling how Ukraine and Bulgaria are going to pull their troops out of Iraq this month (Dec) and possible 6 other countries are debating on pulling out or reducing their troops in Iraq.

LINK

December 2, 2005 Gazette, The (Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, IA)
Coalition support retreats


VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops. Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by

This is not a good thing for our troops in Iraq as they need all the help they can get, but yet it may be the best thing to happen..... these countries pulling out or reducing the number of trooops in Iraq, maybe now George W Bush will come down to earth and get a clue to pull our troops out and bring them home , if Bush persist on staying in Iraq after other countries leave, that should be the straw that breaks the camels back and impeachment of Bush & Co should be the top issue in the Gov't so we can get our people home.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by nanna_of_6]
Mod edit- to shorten link

[edit on 9-12-2005 by asala]

[edit on 10/12/05 by JAK]

Obviously by its article a middle of the road newspaper without a bias or political position to push.

Whats more thier investment in public ignorance is kept mostly on the emotional level. Get them by the gonads..I mean emotions and stroke them appropriately.

I noticed that they didnt tell how much it costs to keep a army or navy of any type in the field deployed..verses the gross national production of these countrys..including Japan.?? Why is that ???

It doesnt seem to occur to many people that these countrys cannot afford to keep many people deployed far away from their countrys for a year or two..the drain on their budgets must be huge..even for 1000 or more troops. These countrys mentioned are not large countrys....economically.

The also didnt say as to in what capacity these countrys were operating in in Iraq or the other Arab countrys...in support of Iraq. I'd like to know if they did front line patrols.

Most of these emotionally charged people pushing positions like this forget something about Europeans...they couldnt even handle Slobodon Milosovich and he ran around creating chaos...they stood by for years and let him. What are these countrys really going to do in Iraq to make a difference. Dont you people think this is factored in?? Do you people really think our politicians and military leaders base their key strategy on European leadership and military assistance??
One has to be bottom scrapping the barrel to post a article like this and think it is the pivotal thrust into what is happening out here. This article is really going to strengthen this cause and position. Most of us out here are just so provincial in our thinking ability.

Thinking people who know the history of Europe ..know what these people are good for. The French recently are a prime example. Slobodon Milosovich clears up the rest of it.
Good grief...someone out there wants us to follow the European example.??? You have to be kidding me.!!! Some of us can think outside of emotions....on occasion.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I'd like to know if they did front line patrols.

Of course they did.


"The front line is everywhere." - Rage

I agree with orange that the withraw of these troops is hardly going to effect American troops.

However, where I disagree is the significance of the move.
It shows that opinions are changing.

Lets not forget that the European Union was quite divided on the issue of Iraq. For the most pary, only Germany and France opposed the war initially. This somehow was misconstrued as the official EU policy (something which coresponds with the French habit of equating their policy to EU policy).

Thus, the change in national opinion and in turn the pullout of Spain, Ukrane, and eventually Poland, shows a definate change in the attitudes in Europe.

Because the European Union is fiscally stronger than America, for one to discount a swing in favor such as this would be a position of ignorance.

Furthermore, when has debt ever stopped a country from engaging in war? Also, you talk like America can afford the war. Guess what? It can't.

There was this rich kid I used to know. Turns out his parents lived on credit. Well, eventually the banks wanted their money back. The rich kid isn't so rich now.

The concept of whether American has ever been able to afford a war of one type or another has never been the factor in whether we went to war. You can take this back to the Revolutionary War,1812, Civil War, WW1,WW2 and of course Vietnam.
Opinions in war have always changed. This is not a new thing or concept.
I merely point out that if we ever get ignorant enough to concern ourselves with what the Europeans think we are going downhill from there. Europeans as a whole have never had our best intrests in mind. The French aided us not so much because they had our intrests in mind in the Revolutionary War but because they disliked and distrusted the British. The one example I can find without any genuine fault was the Russians during our American Civil war where the Czar put his Baltic and Pacific fleets under the command of the North in New York harbor and San Francisco harbor during that war. Other than these examples we have pretty much stood alone.
If you read carefully the history or what passes for history ..we have been of far more help and aid to our "allies" than the other way around. This continues unto this day. Including England. Our relationship with England is not what it is advertised to be by the media and history books.
Facts are ..when the going gets really rough Americans go it alone. We dont have Gurkas or such to take care of the difficult parts for us. Or for example the manner in which the war powers used or misused the French and Anzacs in WW1.
By the way...what really happens to those "allies" intrested in this type of thing...is the opportunity for hands on combat experience..such as with the Canadians etc. Most dont choose to get involved to this extent.

Cavscout your comment about the front lines being everywhere has some merit to it ..but my point is do they do daily patrols in towns like Fallujah?? Tikrit??? See what I mean ..or are they doing daily civil engineering projects.?? Not that civil engineering projects are not important ..but this information is not media wise forthcoming. At least here. Most of these "allied nations " are not intrested in this kind of "allied risk". I knew this when I made this post. Otherwise it would be blasted at us from the media. This is obviousl.
Once again..my point..our "Allies were of little to no use in stopping Slobodon Milosovich. Other than occasionally making speechs...that was about it. This is undoubtedly factored in by any military and political leader. One would be nuts not to take this into consideration.
However...what we hear from our media..is alot about our Allies opinions. Good Grief!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

I am sure the UK will stick with the Coalition all the way, if not I would feel like we were running.

Yes I agree. The UK will stick because of the special nature of the relationship they have with us. A relationship which has not ever been fully defined both to the people of the UK or us Yanks.
Nevertheless..they are the only ones our leaders will count on because of this relationship.
Barring some radical change in the government of the UK this will not change.
I am not particulary a Tony Blair fan but I am aware of the huge amount of flack he is taking from the home front in this issue. My hat is off to him in this arena. He has to have brass ones to take this day in and day out. Same with alot other PMs before him.

Also ...Devil Wasp I am sorry to see that the stubborn bulldog nature of many Englishmen has been changed to the continental attitude.
This is not the attitude which built the Empire or stood up to the Hun with everything they had. I pray that not all Englishmen will be infected with this continental docileness.
I also pray that it does not totally infect us here across the Atlantic as obviously someone wants us here too to be Continentals. I am not intrested in this docileness olde man.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Kind of ironic, isn't it??? at the beginning of the war, this coalition was a big deal, we weren't going into this alone, we had all these other countries backing us.....

now that these countries have exhausted their means and are withdrawing, well, it's not a big deal, they weren't contributing much anyways?? At least that is what I am reading in some of the posts here...

only problem with this is that it kind of leads us back to the original assertion that we went into this pretty much alone, outside of Britian. all the other countries in that coalition were pretty much insignificant.

Originally posted by dawnstar
Kind of ironic, isn't it??? at the beginning of the war, this coalition was a big deal, we weren't going into this alone, we had all these other countries backing us.....

Backing us? Yeah, right. If you can call not getting in our way backing us, then I guess they were backing us, but no one I know actually thought our allies would be much help except from a propaganda and public opinion point of view. The UK is a notable exception to this, as they are the only country who's commitment to this seems to be as strong as ours.

to the UK

With respect orange I agree there are some englishmen that do feel that way, along with many scotsmen, irishmen and welshmen. But there are still a majority of us who will not give up, and will not rest.
My friend john is the obvious example of being able to annoy someone nonstop in a campiegn that has lasted over 14 weeks, a major achievement for a glasweegian...

I must call upon you to educate me as to the historical perspective of this term you used...

glasweegian

I must apologize for my ignorance in this but I believe it has some local historical definition which escapes me.

I would very much appreciate if you could explain this term to me so that I can enjoy the full significance of your post.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I must call upon you to educate me as to the historical perspective of this term you used...

glasweegian

Well I am an edinburghdonian (Yes we are sad enough to make up names) which means I come from near edinburgh, now glasgow (you may notice part of the above galsweegian has most of "glasgow" in it. Basically its what we call someone from glasgow, they....sterotypically short tempered, religios, mad, "dodgy" or dangerous characters with little patience or attention span.

Frankyl him being able to annoy a devon famer boy for over 12 weeks straight near enough 24 hours a day (they are room mates) is quite an achivement.

I must apologize for my ignorance in this but I believe it has some local historical definition which escapes me.

Well you where on the right lines but no need to apologise, hell if you said an american slang or place to me I doubt I'd know where or what it meant.

Well we all know that the liberation in Iraq has become one sided war for the US.

The US since the beginning has been the major contributor of troops, and over and over all these countries that supported US and UK in Iraq has been withdrawing because the agenda and purpose of the war is over.

It was after all to take Saddam out of power and that is done, Iraq has a government and that is done, so what is for any of them to do.

The only country that still wants to keep hold of Iraq is the US and its administration.

My thanks to you Sir for bringing me up to speed on the term

"glasweegian"

I have filed this away for future use.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Are they going to do a Thermopylae again? I was Leonidas, King of the Spartans in one of My many past lives, I died at Thermopylae.

I smell them pulling a Thermopylae. Letting all the other forces pull out, before the main attack begins, once they attack the US forces with maybe the UK sticking it out with us, then they will have plenty of PR to recruit "Fresh Blood", because we were "attacked".

This will of course be a major factor in starting up the 2nd Civil War in America, not sure how though.

Our president isnt going to pull out at all. A madman doesnt just retreat his troops, the world would view him as a weakling.

No siree. We're going full speed ahead, at ALL costs.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Our president isnt going to pull out at all. A madman doesnt just retreat his troops, the world would view him as a weakling

.

No siree. We're going full speed ahead, at ALL costs.

dgtempe,
You are correct about a madman not retreating,... look at Hitler and he was one crazy fool , President Bush is taking after his Great Granddad's hero who helped make the Bush family what they are.

Anyway, first to let Orange know, The Cedar Rapids Gazette indorsed Bush when he was running for re-election, they are to the "right" which was why I was surprised to see them write this article,.... they do print articles written by other reporters from other papers, but they have been pretty much "Bush".

These other Countries that are in Iraq helping, weather their help was large or small to the USA really isn't the issue, it's their backing-out that is, which means more of our troops will have to be deployed back to Iraq to fight and die over the lies ,oppps I mean "Mis-leading information,LOL", that was broadcasted to the world,...... which leads me to think that Bush will be calling for the "draft" to be re-instated, just so he can keep doing what he's doing.

Ukraine and Bulgaria

I got a van they can use to get their guys home. They are such a minor factor it matters little to the future of Iraq if they stay or go.