Iraq war, 35 coalition states

[Sandman]

155K troops and ~20K are from the "rest of the world".

Laughable.


New Zealand sends nine... LOL now that's a commitment to hang your hat on.

[Hortlund]

Some people seem unable to understand that we do not live in a world-democracy, where the opinions of people living in N'Gurunda in Africa has equal importance as people living in for example New Hampshire.

So the **** what if a majority of the population on this planet lives in nations that are not sending forces to Iraq. Does anybody care? Apart from the pathetic liberals trying to score some cheap-ass "point" in their struggle to bend over to various terrorist organizations. Go take lessons from Spain you miserable ****s.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Some people seem unable to understand that we do not live in a world-democracy, where the opinions of people living in N'Gurunda in Africa has equal importance as people living in for example New Hampshire.

Well, it would be great if you apply the same filter to both sides.

We could argue about the importance of coalition's "heavy weights" too.

Prime Examples:
Romania
Bulgaria
Honduras
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Hungary
Azerbaijan
Latvia
Nicaragua
Mongolia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Albania
Georgia
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan

Originally posted by Hortlund
So the **** what if a majority of the population on this planet lives in nations that are not sending forces to Iraq. Does anybody care?

Majority of the World cares

Originally posted by Hortlund
Apart from the pathetic liberals trying to score some cheap-ass "point" in their struggle to bend over to various terrorist organizations.

Yes, I feel pathetic, especially because I gave my vote to Bush.

Originally posted by Hortlund
Go take lessons from Spain you miserable ****s.

Throwing stones in a glass house?
It's easy to argue and point others out whilst hiding behind neutrality. What Sweden has done in regard to that?

Does the facts, which you aren't agree with, really make you so mad you would give up democracy?

[Thud]

Originally posted by NUKE
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have all sent troops and support to Iraq.

And yet France, Russia and Germany constitute a "world" opposed to the Iraq war. Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case.

In many of the countries mentioned above, a large part, if not the majority of the people did strongly oppose the war. So whether sending troops does imply that a country did not oppose the war remains to be seen..

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
Well, it would be great if you apply the same filter to both sides.

[/b]
What makes you think I dont?

Majority of the World cares

Yeah, I bet the average Chinese peasant really cares. Or some  hunter in Upper Volta...or why not ye average city dweller in Mexico City...I bet they all care really much. After all, they probably feel that the plight of the Iraqis are much more important than their own daily struggle for survival.

Throwing stones in a glass house?

It's easy to argue and point others out whilst hiding behind neutrality. What Sweden has done in regard to that?

There is no neutrality in the war on terror. We sent troops to Afghanistan.

Does the facts, which you aren't agree with, really make you so mad you would give up democracy?

??

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Yeah, I bet the average Chinese peasant really cares. Or some  hunter in Upper Volta...or why not ye average city dweller in Mexico City...I bet they all care really much.  

http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/M15/page.html

Originally posted by Hortlund
There is no neutrality in the war on terror. We sent troops to Afghanistan.

What that has to do with Iraq? And how many troops you have in Afghanistan? 45 dispatch specialists? Or you finally sent some more?

Originally posted by Gscholz
Norway is not part of the "coalition", our troops are there on a humanitarian mission. Norway did not support the invasion of Iraq, and did not participate in the coalition.

Correct, sorry for the mistake in my first post.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
What that has to do with Iraq? And how many troops you have in Afghanistan? 45 dispatch specialists? Or you finally sent some more?
 

Heh "dispatch specialists"... those guys are the Swedish special forces, our SAS if you will.

You were saying something about hiding behind neutrality, I was pointing out that we have sent combat forces to Afghanistan. You say we didtn send enough...well **** you.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by NUKE
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have all sent troops and support to Iraq.

And yet France, Russia and Germany constitute a "world" opposed to the Iraq war. Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case.

China opposed the war in Iraq - it's population alone outnumbers the combined coalition countries' population.
And sorry, Hortlund, it's population does care: It gets quite a lot of coverage on the news - and it's sometimes a bit more thorough reporting-wise than the US news. Of course, the Taiwan election scandal coverage was completely non-existent, though . The muslim lads up in the Northwest are especially interested. The ones I talked to weren't particularly pro-Hussein but they felt he was to be applauded for standing up to the US.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

New Zealand sends nine... LOL now that's a commitment to hang your hat on.

New Zealand....9........was one carrying a ring?

[Sabre]

Slightly off topic, but the most laugh-able line I've read recently was from the French foreign minister, who said, "There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion."  This of course ignorse the fact that the regime itself was nothing but a giant terrorist organization, and that 70-80% percent of Iraqis lived in a continual state of terror from that regime.  Despite the lingering violence in Iraq, I can't help but get the impression that a majority of the population feels the change has been for the better.

[NUKE]

My only point was to say that a lot of nations lent support and were not opposed to the war. It doesnt reall matter how many people they sent or the size of their populations........if population was what we base everything one, then China and India might as well decide everything for the rest of the world.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
According to your own State Department and FBI a state or government agent cannot be considered a terrorist. Otherwise your own operatives might fall under that category.

Could you show me where it says that?

[-dead-]

Originally posted by NUKE
My only point was to say that a lot of nations lent support and were not opposed to the war. It doesnt reall matter how many people they sent or the size of their populations........if population was what we base everything one, then China and India might as well decide everything for the rest of the world.

If so you should have left out the rather confusing last line: "Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case."