Well, maybe you should look into what the man did for his country? Maybe there has been an increase of jobs, a surplus treasury, maybe the standard of living has increased. Maybe he gave millions of dollars worth of tax cuts. Hell maybe he even gave all the voters free blow jobs. Assuming that the guy got re-elected because the people supported the war on Iraq does not mean shit.

First, you should learn to read and write properly. Second, Read more then 1 paragraph that is extremely biased before posting something as stupid as this.

   

Explain Spain, Costa Rica, Philippines, Norway, New Zealand, Thailand, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Moldova, Britain and Italy? All have either drastically cut back their commitments or bugged out entirely. Only South Korea, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Australia are the only members of the coalition that are going to increase to maintain the troops they have there. Seems like a lot more are looking for the exits than proving you right Godz.

   

While Costa Rica doesn't have an army, they still send support to military actions, mostly UN.

   

The Australian election was actually fought on taxes. Labour did not make a big issue out of Iraq because Howard was already planning to pull out in a slow, orderly fashion. Those 860 (yep, that's the entire commitment) Australian troops are going home anyway.

That's according to an Aussie on another board.

You are grasping at straws, Godz. The invasion of Iraq was illegal, poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly thought out, and nothing more than a grab for oil by a crooked US administration. They lied and cheated to get some support, threatened and bribed to get other support.

In Australia's case, Howard went to Crawford and got a trade deal (which Bush has reneged on) as part of joining the coalition of the bullied and bribed.

You also seem to think that Tony Blair's impending re-election means something in regard to this debacle in Iraq. Since the Tories even more rabidly support George Bush's little bit of imperial adventurism than Blair does, pointing to Blair's re-election as a show of support for the war is blatantly dishonest.

   

My facts are perfectly straight, little boy. You are trying to twist them, but you aren't quite bright enough.

Howard has said that he will not send more troops and will withdraw the ones there in a slow and organised manner as soon as the situation has stabilized. Australian troops will not be part of the long-term occupation of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. You may not care about international law, and George Bush may to too stupid and greedy to understand the implications of what he did, but the law is very clear. The US attacked, without reason, a sovereign state. That is illegal. George Bush is a war criminal.

It wasn't poorly planned "to an extent" it was a massive fuck-up from start to finish. Bush lied to go to war, his lies were so obvious that he could not build a real coalition. He's still lying every time they put a mike in front of his face. So's Dick Cheney. They didn't plan to win so quickly. Why not? Cheney was there for Desert Storm, Bush's daddy ran the whole thing (they lied to get that one going too). They allowed the looting to happen, except for that all-important Ministry of Oil...apparently it was critical to save the paperwork detailing where the oil reserves were. They still haven't sealed off the borders. They gave Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, a no-bid contract and got ripped off as a result. They still haven't supplied reliable power. There are terrorists in Iraq now, there were none before.

They couldn't cut a deal for Iraqi oil. Other nations had negotiated and had dibs...signed contracts. The only way for the US to gain complete and total control over the Iraqi oil fields was to invade, and then to privatise the industry so that the new Iraqi government did not have control. That privatisation is against international law and American military laws governing occupations, BTW.

That the Bush administration chose to punish long-time allies who would not break international law at their behest shows how immature and inadequate they are. They would have gone after us on wheat, beef, softwood, etc anyway though...they've been breaking agreements with everybody else too. A contract with the Bush administration is not worth the paper it's signed on.

Now go watch something besides Fox News and at least try to learn how the world really works. The US, right now, is one of the most isolated countries on the planet. They have no friends, nobody trusts them at all. They are deeply in debt, getting deeper all the time, and have alienated those that could help them. Not only that, but Bush continues the alienation with his policies, lack of knowledge, and complete absence of diplomacy.

   

I'm telling you what I was told by an actual Australian, Godz. The election was fought on taxes. Iraq was a minor issue because the war that the Aussies signed up for is over. Go to Whistle Stop and fight with Aussie in question if you have a problem with that. I don't think he voted for Howard though, and your usual childish bullshit is not tolerated there, so watch your step.



So you can do whatever you want in your yard and therefore have a right to do the same in my yard? I don't think so, Godz...that's just more of your self-serving bullshit.

The United States helped to write the laws and conventions that George Bush broke. These are not something being imposed from without, they are the result of a process that the US was very much involved in from the beginning.



Yeah, that's exactly the kind of asshole move that Harper would make. Then we'd be alienating people for good reason except the boorish ineptitude of our leader.



How dim are you? Laws are not arbitrary things that only apply to some, they are the basis for civilised society. Somebody who breaks a law is not a hero, he's a criminal. Do you understand that? Are you bright enough to grasp the basic concept?



And Russia, France and China would have stood quietly by and said, "Yup, that's fine with us?" Not bloody likely. Without the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry and the removal of the government that signed the contracts, the existing contracts would have taken precedence over any new ones, Again, it's the law and the US would have been forced to comply with it.



Apparently you have no access to informed media whatsoever. What do you do all day, sit around listening to Johnny Horton records and practicing your banjo?

   

Spain had 1,300 troops and commanded the troops of Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. Basque seperatists are not the ruling party, the people are and they pulled the troops.


White House had listed Costa Rica as a member of the coalition


51 medics, engineers and soldiers withdrawn July 14 2004


Norway will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq within the next few months.Foreign Minister Jan Petersen. Norway sent 179 Engineers based with British troops in Basra.


The New Zealand Defense Force team of 61 army engineers, which has been repairing damaged infrastructure in Iraq, will complete its 12-month deployment in September.

Withdrawal of last 100 troops from Thailand's 880-strong humanitarian contingent completed on 10th September 2004, in accordance with Thailand's mandate in Iraq which expired in September. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had previously announced early withdrawal if the situation became too dangerous.



True, I posted the wrong country and I apologize. I meant Nicaragua, 230 troops left in February 2004


Various news media were reporting that Singapore had quietly reduced its presence in Iraq from 191 to 33. It is unclear when the troops left the country.


12 troops. The Washington Post, on July 15, reported that Moldova had quietly halved its contingent from 24 to 12.


British to Withdraw 1/3 of Troops from Iraq

Saatchi: Ditch Blair or lose election

Silvio Berlusconi: The singing strongman

Italy facing calls to withdraw Iraq troops

Multinational force in Iraq

Iraq: The Crumbling Coalition

Operation Telic

Bulgaria to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2005. 485 troops under Polish command, guarding municipal buildings and town centre in Kerbala.

Honduras to Withdraw Troops From Iraq. 368 troops withdrawn by end of May along with Spain's contingent. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command (pulled out with Spain).

Dominican Republic to withdraw troops from Iraq early. 320 troops withdrawn by end of May shortly after Spain and Honduras withdrew their contingents. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command (South East Iraq).

   

I don't think he has the slightest graasp of the situation, Scape. Almost everything he has said on this board has been factually wrong.