It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Coalition of the Willing' - Oh Really?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:57 PM
Came across this on the Iraq Casualties thread - apologies if it's been posted before.

Interesting to see the true figures of troops deployed: makes it clear it's actually US/UK effort with a few small contingents to dress it up.

Boots on the ground appear to bear little relation to claimed participation - Australia for example often gets praise for its participation on here but is well down the list and major military powers such as Poland and Romania actually contribute more in term of troops in country.

The ROK, which hardly ever gets a mention on here, is third on the list and has nearly 8 times the troops committed than Australia - even Italy has more.

I hope our American friends on here appreciate who's actually putting in the effort / risking their boys' lives to keep America rich (sorry I meant to say 'safe'

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:32 PM
Now isn't this what Britain should have done?
If you’re going to contribute to an occupation where you're not wanted by the people
and which for the moment is probably immoral and largely pointless then why do you want to spill your own blood on it?
I believe that's its for 2nd world rate countries like Poland to support the U.S because even though economically America is a first world economic power, I think morally (administration but not people wise) its pretty much a third world one. So second rate allies should suit it just fine. So I wonder why Britain is involved at all? Could it be to do with being a 3rd world moral power too? Then again I suppose one or two symbolic soldiers (just to clean the shoes of the Americans) would be ok; but anything more than that (is in my mind) out the question.

P.S I have given that opinion poll link may times before. Quite good don’t you think coming from our own MOD? Wonder what the U.S military got in their end of Iraq?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:52 PM
Supporters of the Iraq war will be the first people to point out the fact that there are many nations there who have troops.

Its usually the anti-war crowd who tends to make the erroneous statement that we are "going at it alone". Like take John kerry for example. he made that same error during a speech in his campaign in 2004, saying we were going at it alone without the support of the world, after which angry responses reminded Kerry of the Polish, Italians, Koreans, Japanese, Czechs, and others involved in the war. I know Kerry's comment did upset quite a few Poles.

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:14 PM
I'm in two (if not three) minds about the whole thing.

Politically I'm appalled we've gone along poodle fashion with this ill-conceived quasi-religious crusade - I think it spells trouble ahead for the World and us by dint of our involvement.

Once committed I'm 100% behind our troops and recognise that it's better for the Iraqis and the World to have us there - our experience in CRW and our confidence in our own ability allowing us to adopt soft hat approach not shoot anyone and everyone 'just in case' is certainly preferable to the 'fire-power first' tactics / approach of the Americans.

From a national POV I'm really peeved (actually much more than that but can't swear on here) that we sold our involvement, our dead, our maimed & wounded and the loss of goodwill among our previous influence spheres so cheaply.

We'll be seen as the US's poodle for years to come. Winston must be spinning in his grave.

We've got Jack in return - that's where Bliar could (and should IMO) have extracted a higher return for our participation. Just recently we've seen the US bitching and treating us like a suspect 'customer' state over the JSF - shows what the US really thinks of us.

Let's face it the US could have invaded militarily without us, morally I'm not sure they could have swayed World opinion. We had a strong hand and let the other player buy it too cheaply.

Personally I'd have preferred us to adopt the French/German approach but I will concede the Aussie approach (commit little but shout a lot) is politically much more astute than Tony's craven approach.

new topics

top topics

log in