• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Administration spins and lies about coalition numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica"]target=_blank>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar20.html[/font]

United States Puts a Spin On Coalition Numbers


The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War. But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts.

[...]

However, the current operation in Iraq is almost entirely a U.S.-British campaign, with virtually no military contribution from other countries except Australia.

"It's a baldfaced lie to suggest that" the coalition for this war is greater than that for the 1991 war, said Ivo H. Daalder, a former Clinton administration official now at the Brookings Institution who supports the war against Iraq. "Even our great allies Spain, Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops."

The administration asserts that 44 nations are part of the coalition, but officials reach that number by lumping nations providing military units or logistical assistance with an eclectic group of nations -- such as Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda and the Solomon Islands -- that are voicing only political support. The administration further suggests another 10 or so nations support the campaign but do not wish to be publicly identified.

The first Persian Gulf War was prosecuted by a 34-nation military force, with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics. (The list is sometimes reported as 31, because four Persian Gulf states provided a combined force.) Dozens of others nations voiced support for the war against Iraq in 1991, meaning that under the standards used by the current Bush administration, the size of the 1991 coalition likely topped 100 countries.

Moreover, the list of 34 countries in 1991 did not include Japan, which pledged $4 billion to fund the multinational force and aid frontline states; the Soviet Union, which supported a United Nations resolution authorizing force; or tiny Luxembourg, which paid the fees of Dutch and Belgian ships passing through the Suez Canal.

Twenty-one of the 34 countries that contributed forces or materiel to the first Persian Gulf War -- such as France, Syria, Pakistan, Canada, Germany and Norway -- have either refused to support the current conflict or have asked not to be identified because of public opposition to U.S. actions. In 1991, for instance, France provided 17,000 troops, 350 tanks, 38 aircraft and 14 ships. Syria provided 19,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and 270 tanks, and Germany provided five minesweepers, three other ships and eight aircraft.
 

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Today at 11:54 AM Stormy said this in Post #3

This is not news... unless you are extremely ill-informed.



It certainly is news - at least to the people around here, anyhow.  There are at least two threads started that are parroting the administration position of a "broad coalition of the willing".  :rolleyes:

So apparently the "extremely ill informed" you reference are the folks who believe that the US has some kind of "coalition" - when the reality is that there are just 2 nations involved.

I think the United States is doing an excellent job in fulfilling the obligation that the UN could not... disarming Iraq.

Except there is no such obligation - there is only Bush's desire to do so.  And of course, disarming has nothing to do with regime change.  No UN document either now, or during the 1st Gulf War, ever mentioned or sanctioned that action - a little detail that the warmongers hope nobody notices.
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Site Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,089
624
76
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think He (Bush) called it a coalition of the willing. If the US and GB are most willing then I see no real subject here.

I don't see the attraction to all the trash Bush threads.
I don't see the connection to the problem at hand (Iraq)
It can't be debated, it's opinion.

What do I see:
I can see it as divisional, borderline trolling.

Warnings/vacations? It's not my desire to warn or ban people but this forum will not be disrupted and controlled by a few people with an agenda.


Thread closed.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.