Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on January 22, 2005, 04:17:07 AM
-
article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&u=/nm/20050122/wl_nm/bush_iraq_dc&printer=1)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has scrapped its list of Iraq (news - web sites) allies known as the 45-member "coalition of the willing," which Washington used to back its argument that the 2003 invasion was a multilateral action, an official said on Friday.
The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the White House replaced the coalition list with a smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq sometime after the June transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government.
The official could not say when or why the administration did away with the list of the coalition of the willing.
The coalition, unveiled on the eve of the invasion, consisted of 30 countries that publicly offered support for the United States and another 15 that did not want to be named as part of the group.
Former coalition member Costa Rica withdrew last September under pressure from voters who opposed the government's decision to back the invasion.
On Friday, an organization from Iceland published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times calling for its country's withdrawal from the coalition and offering apologies for its support for U.S. policy.
The United States, backed by major allies, including Britain and Italy, invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the premise that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) posed a grave threat because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.
The Bush administration acknowledged this month that it has abandoned its search for WMD without finding any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), who was national security adviser to President Bush (news - web sites) at the time of the invasion, told a Senate panel this week that the administration had made some bad decisions in Iraq.
Nearly 1,370 members of the U.S. armed forces have been killed and another 10,500 have been wounded in Iraq since the invasion.
Unofficial estimates put the civilian Iraqi death toll at between 14,000 and 100,000.
-
The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity..........miky moore?
-
no it was a government official release.
-
Originally posted by JB88
Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), who was national security adviser to President Bush (news - web sites) at the time of the invasion, told a Senate panel this week that the administration had made some bad decisions in Iraq.
Is it common in US that people in goverment who make a "bad decision" will be fired or investigating will take a place ?
If im not wrong last time i did hear about that lady, she were looking forward to get a sweet new place in "new" administration.
-
You mean, Lada. Bad stuff like: "I dont dare to go to Germany cause they like nail me in jail for minimum 100 years" Bad stuff?
-
Originally posted by patrone
You mean, Lada. Bad stuff like: "I dont dare to go to Germany cause they like nail me in jail for minimum 100 years" Bad stuff?
I mean simply this. I got wrong informations (if somebody can prove it) and i made wrong decision. However im responsible for my decisions so i will get trail. If you will make bad decision at your work and your company will lose few bil.$$ , guess what happen.
Does the same eukw apply on politics overthere or they can produce BS w/o responsibility ?
im not quite sure i fgot your point correctly Crabo, what did you mean by Bad stuff ? at the end of your post ?
-
Originally posted by lada
im not quite sure i fgot your point correctly Crabo, what did you mean by Bad stuff ? at the end of your post ?
Ok, I meant like "bad stuff" that makes Some guys responsible for bad decisions they made in Iraq.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1465263,00.html
-
Yeep we speak about same things. I used to read about that on few days ago, posted link in other thread.
Yeah yeah ... im wondering if something like that can happen inside US.
-
Wll, I dont see any other countries, but Germany, that would dare to do it. Not as long as they hold their office.
Still, for some reasons, guys like Kissinger never goes on vacations abroad. Powell will have some troubles travelling in Europe, thats for sure.
-
Have I missunderstood something? Was Norway Part of the coalition of the Willing (Aka:Little Willies)?
-
Who cares if they scraped a list? :lol
-
Sort of hard to have a "coalition of the willing" when they are dropping out like flies.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Sort of hard to have a "coalition of the willing" when they are dropping out like flies.
a coalition of the remaining.
turn ouuuuuut the liiiiggghhhhhts, the partiesss over.....
ew. is that micronesia and tonga making out in the corner?
-
There never was a "real" coalition of any size. Even UK and Aussie sent a token force to Iraq and still do.
Coalition of the Willing is/was nothing but Bush PR and Media crap.
...-Gixer
-
Here are the troop amounts
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
I had no idea the uk was down to less than 10,000 troops in Iraq. Support is definitely dwindling
-
i wasnt a big fan of the word "homeland" either.
-
How do you feel about "ground zero"?
1) we werent nuked
2) the land is still habitable
3) it gives the enemy propaghanda
-
how does it give the enemy propaganda?
not sure that i am grasping that one.
not so much concerned about that particular term...but homeland just has such a how would one say it...a certain 'riechishness' about it.
-
Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though
-
Originally posted by lada
I mean simply this. I got wrong informations (if somebody can prove it) and i made wrong decision. However im responsible for my decisions so i will get trail. If you will make bad decision at your work and your company will lose few bil.$$ , guess what happen.
Does the same eukw apply on politics overthere or they can produce BS w/o responsibility ?
im not quite sure i fgot your point correctly Crabo, what did you mean by Bad stuff ? at the end of your post ?
Not applicable to the USA politics.
There's only responsibility of the politicians to the ad hoc media opinion, which depends .... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm
Sort of hard to have a "coalition of the willing" when they are dropping out like flies.
And who's shooting down those flies ? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though
ah. ok. just wasnt quite seeing how you were applying it.
:)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Here are the troop amounts
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
I had no idea the uk was down to less than 10,000 troops in Iraq. Support is definitely dwindling
A fresh addition to the "list of unwilling" is the Ukraine with its newly "democratically" elected president. This country is planning to withdraw her troops from Iraq by May 2005.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Ground zero is a term defined by the location a nuclear bomb detonates. A nuke at the Twin towers would have flattened most of new york causing casulties in the millions. Instead of downplaying the attack by calling it a disaster or tragedy we gave the impression that we got hurt really really bad. Do Not Misunderstand me 9/11 was truly horrific on an unprecedented level but it was not a Ground Zero and by classifying it by such give the terrorists the idea that they can hit harder than they really did/can. just my opinion though
You're absolutely right on this one.
But the purpose of the introduction of the term 'Ground Zero' was to scare the Americans into accepting whatever the "retaliatory" actions the ruling circles could deem necessary to undertake.
All that you say is right, but it may be considered as being just a slight side-effect of the "useful" propaganda.
-
Iraq is well on it's way to statehood & so is wherever you live if it ain't The USA
-
Originally posted by lada
Does the same eukw apply on politics overthere or they can produce BS w/o responsibility ?
It depends.
If the same party controls the White House and the Congress then forget it. America bent over with its pants around its ankles on Sept 11? No problem. Thousands dead and billions of dollars wasted because on bad intel? No problem.
Now, if the opposition party controls Congress, the someone's BJ can become a matter of utmost national importance.