A CoAllition of Nations (40-odd ....)

Quote:

---

Originally posted on BBC's reader comments
Poor Mr. Bush. He couldn't name a single country from the list of 48 members of the 'Coalition of the Willing'. He started to try to name some, but quickly retreated into more vagaries and generalities. Mr. Blair was too embarrassed to come to his aid. Presumably, Blair didn't want to reduce the news conference to laughter by having to name Afghanistan, The Marshall Islands, Pallau, etc. If it weren't so tragically sad, it would be funny.
Richard Smith, USA

---

.

Well we know he didnt vote for Bush :D :D :D :D

Some countries want to remain anonymous so he does have to be carefull :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Well we know he didnt vote for Bush :D :D :D :D

Some countries want to remain anonymous so he does have to be carefull :) :)

---

Or maybe the entire coalition is formed by those insignificant little nations whose names not even Mr. Bush knows :rolleyes:

More likely, because if you sided with the strongest players in the game, there's no reason to keep your name secret.

.

Well Australia and Poland arent insignificant.

Unless you want to argue with them!!! :D :cool: :D :D


No country is insignificant!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If i were you i would watch what you say :) :) :)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6893

Quote:

---

Nearly 50 nations are committed to ridding Saddam Hussein's regime of all its deadly, destructive and illegal weapons. To put this in perspective, the combined population of coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people, with a combined gross domestic product of approximately $22 trillion. These countries are from every continent on the globe, representing every major race, religion, and ethnicity in the world.

---

:D :D

The open list of the coalition countries as of March 21, 2003

United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support.



Unnamed countries which may be on the expanded list of the coalition include:

Bahrain - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which agreed to help provide for the defence of Kuwait in the event of a new war with Iraq.
Oman - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refuelling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars, and is a member of the GCC.
Saudi Arabia - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
United Arab Emirates - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
Jordan - U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.
Belgium - Allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.
Croatia - Allowing refuelling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
Egypt - Keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to gulf.
Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defence agreements, but will not send troops.
Germany - Ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany.
Cyprus - degree of support unknown.
Israel - the main US ally in the Middle East.


BBC Web http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm


Hope that helps :) :) :)

Yes, thank you.

I see that not all of them are "insignificant", strictly. But I do see they are not too significant either.

As for your comment that no country is insignificant, in this case they count only because they have one UN vote. Their say would not be honoured at all. The post war, or even the war plans are dictated entirely by the US and the UK, and no other country, including Australia and Poland, can have any say whatsoever. Therefore it's not really a coalition, it's simply a herd of nations led by the US.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK

...............
No country is insignificant!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
...............

---

Reading some of the other pro-wars' posts (not neccesarily yours, BodwadUK), one is led to believe, either Iraq is not very significant or only the US of A is significant, or France is totally insignificant, :D :p posts like (and I am quoting from memory)

Quote:

---

We have got the Bomb, OK!

---

Quote:

---

I don't give a flying crap abt Iraq's 2500 year old history

---

Quote:

---

We (The US of A/ UK) are the only saviours left in the world

---

Quote:

---

France does not matter, in fact it should be totally side lined in any post-war setup.

---

or their equivalent.

;)

It was a disagreement!!!!

They are trying to bring the UN back together. If Iraq was considered insignicant then they wouldnt take any notice of it :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


USA and UK beleive it is a threat to many nations includng themseleves hence the attack, cant see how that indicates any insignificance.

France was seen to be unreasonable and even now we dont ignore them and try to bring them back in to this issue by cautiosly approaching the oil for food plan.

We beleive we can free the people of Saddam in Iraq, We also TRY to prevent civilian injuries during this war, this means we are certainly not treating them as though we dont care!!!! :) :) :)

In response to HB

its called trust they trust us to make the right decisions and i should think that they do have a say in what targets they attack (if they attack)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
In response to HB

its called trust they trust us to make the right decisions and i should think that they do have a say in what targets they attack (if they attack)

---

It's mostly fear and whatever is left is ignorance. Except Turkey I don't think there's any nation in that co-alition that's in a position to be ever threatened by Iraq (I think Iran's not part of the coalition), and that includes the US and UK too. No proof of any danger whatsoever, even after a week into the war.

So, those other nations who joined are afraid to upset the US and couldn't care less if it was Iraq or Iran or Syria or some other nation.

.

Fear of What???? :confused: :confused:


Your trying to say that your the only ones that care????
100 Chemical weapon suits were found yesterday which raises speculation as to Saddam having them and POSSIBLY using them :( :( :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Fear of What???? :confused: :confused:


Your trying to say that your the only ones that care????
100 Chemical weapon suits were found yesterday which raises speculation as to Saddam having them and POSSIBLY using them :( :( :(

---

Most of these nations will be dependent upon the foreign aid (which is mostly from the US, or its influenced international organizations such as IMF). When you acknowledge the fact that the US is the only superpower in the world today, small players must not go against the big one. That's one of the basic rules of survival. I am not saying the US actually threatened these countries, but there's every chance if these countries went against the US, it could go against their interests one way or the other in future.

I am not saying the anti-war nations are the only ones who care. I know better than believing that France, Germany or Russia are saints. However when the US claims to be one, I find it hard to draw any differences between the motives of the anti-war coalition and the pro-war coalition. There's nothing to make me believe the US has better reason to start the war now. I put two cases in front of myself, one is pro-war, and the other is anti-war. I find that the pro-war case is fundamentally weak, and therefore I believe the anti-war case, because its arguments are far more convincing.

Forget about undeniable proof, even if the US had gone for a vote and been vetoed, or been in minority, I would have felt that at least the US tried to democratically establish its own viewpoint. Without even bothering to get a vote on a resolution for war, the US does indeed appear to be a bully and the biggest defiar of the UN. The manner in which the US companies have been asked to submit tenders for a post-war Iraq speaks volumes about its mentality. Why didn't the US go to the UN to chart out plans for post-war Iraq? What's wrong if a French or a Russian company gets to construct bridges in Iraq? Or erect homes? Or provide relief?

About the Chemical weapons suits, Saddam has made it clear that he suspects the US army might use chemical weapons on the Iraqi army. I still don't think just because you found chemical weapons suits, it means there are chemical weapons in possession of the Iraqi army.

Why can't you just leave it at that? Why not merely say: Yes, we found some chemical weapons suits? Why jump to the conclusion that it indicates the Iraqi army has chemical weapons? I think the military commanders in the region have been much more sensible (maybe because they are soldiers and not politicians). Describing chemical factories as "sites of interest" and all. Really, whatever happened to that scoop? People jumped up and down, claiming finally there was material evidence of Iraq engaged in producing chemical weapons, and the next day you find the news has just disappeared. There's been no follow up on that lead either. So why so eager to jump to conclusions?

I have made it clear personally, and I think I can state it for a fact, that if the US really unearths some damning evidence of WMDs and an imminent threat of their use, I doubt if there'll be one nation in the world that will condemn the war. But before you find that bit of evidence, why do you assume it's already there?

.

We have seen a listing of the coalition of the willing, and a dubious statistic regarding their population.

I'd like to briefly examine the dubious statistic. The statement suggests that the whole of the citizenry of each of those populations supports the war. That's clearly not true.

However, if you can make that statement, then we should also see a coalition of the unwilling, and a listing of the population opposed. Since China is in opposition, they alone, outnumber the population of the coalition of the willing, including the US. I think the world, by country population, is overwhelmingly opposed to the war.

What is the vote of the citizenry?

You forget to add Australia's 18 FA-18 Hornets and 2 frigates and I think theres a command ship. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
We have seen a listing of the coalition of the willing, and a dubious statistic regarding their population.

I'd like to briefly examine the dubious statistic. The statement suggests that the whole of the citizenry of each of those populations supports the war. That's clearly not true.

However, if you can make that statement, then we should also see a coalition of the unwilling, and a listing of the population opposed. Since China is in opposition, they alone, outnumber the population of the coalition of the willing, including the US. I think the world, by country population, is overwhelmingly opposed to the war.

What is the vote of the citizenry?

---

China and India are both opposed to war, and I think they are ranking at the top as far as population is concerned...

.

Yes, but I'm sure quite a few countries of the unwilling are told what to believe. ;)

You are saying China and India should decide the fate of the world????

India and China (Really No offense is meant here) arent really known for having the opinions of ALL their people taken into account. Both these countries wouldnt be in the firing line (In Theory) so they have nothing to fear, in this case why should they want a war with Saddam????


I do understand your stance, i just dont trust Saddam in any way or form. He says he has no weapons of mass destruction but i am inclined not to beleive him. Hence in my mind he does have them. Did it never occur to you Saddam could use the excuse of beleiving America could use chemical weapons to prepare his own people for his own attacks????
As i have already said he has never proved to be very trustworthy in the past why beleive him now????

His attack on a shopping mall in Kuwait proves he is attempting to rule by fear, that is the only reason you would attack civilians instead of using his missiles on the military that is attacking him. :( :( :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Yes, but I'm sure quite a few countries of the unwilling are told what to believe. ;)

---

I am sure that happened with some of the "willing" countries too...

Bodwad, I am not saying China and India should rule the world. I don't want those flat-nosed people sharing the world domination with us, and have therefore decided to have 4 wives, with at least 3 kids each, and hope to make it a family tradition ;)

I was merely pointing out the fact that if people wanted to use the statistics of the population of the "coalition of the willing", only two countries from the "coalition of the unwilling" could beat them hands down in the stats game.

You say you are not ready to trust Saddam, but then there are the UN inspectors who have made it clear they did not find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Aren't you going to trust them, at least? You can't simply go around believing all the bull's crap one person talks. You have to believe that other people may be talking truth too.

About the attack on the Kuwaiti mall, I think the Iraqi missile simply strayed off course. Why, even the technologically superior and satellite guided US missiles go off course!

.
.

Yea it missed the mall!!!!!

Where was it targeted then?????

Quote:

---

You say you are not ready to trust Saddam, but then there are the UN inspectors who have made it clear they did not find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Aren't you going to trust them, at least? You can't simply go around believing all the bull's crap one person talks. You have to believe that other people may be talking truth too.

---

The UN didnt even find the bomb that was under their noses, hell the Iraqis felt so sorry for them they got it for them :D :D :D :D

The 120 or so UN inspectors had 2 helicopters to cover the area of California. And they only went to sites that were on an inspection list.

Surely Saddam wouldn't move the weapons so they couldn't be found would he??? He wouldn't do that...he's been so trustworthy and honest to the UN about his WMD's.

Such as when Hussein Camel (Saddam's Son-in-law, he's married to Saddam's oldest daughter) defected to Jordan, and spelled the beans on the weapons programs, which prompted the UN to send in more UN inspectors.

Oh and by the way, after Hussein Camel's defection, Saddam lured him back into the country, and had him executed.

hmmmm bet that wasnt a surprise.


Saddam:

"Hey hello you just told everyone about my plans with WMD but it doesnt matter come home and we can be friends"

*Sniggering in background

"Honest" ;) ;) ;) ;)



Iraq's generals will not defect because they are chosen by Saddam for their loyalty so i dont know why the coalition thought they would????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
I am sure that happened with some of the "willing" countries too...

Bodwad, I am not saying China and India should rule the world. I don't want those flat-nosed people sharing the world domination with us, and have therefore decided to have 4 wives, with at least 3 kids each, and hope to make it a family tradition ;)

I was merely pointing out the fact that if people wanted to use the statistics of the population of the "coalition of the willing", only two countries from the "coalition of the unwilling" could beat them hands down in the stats game.

You say you are not ready to trust Saddam, but then there are the UN inspectors who have made it clear they did not find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Aren't you going to trust them, at least? You can't simply go around believing all the bull's crap one person talks. You have to believe that other people may be talking truth too.

About the attack on the Kuwaiti mall, I think the Iraqi missile simply strayed off course. Why, even the technologically superior and satellite guided US missiles go off course!

.
.

---

Just a note that in the first 4 years of inspections of Saddam he claimed not to have had checmial and biological weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The 120 or so UN inspectors had 2 helicopters to cover the area of California. And they only went to sites that were on an inspection list.

Surely Saddam wouldn't move the weapons so they couldn't be found would he??? He wouldn't do that...he's been so trustworthy and honest to the UN about his WMD's.

Such as when Hussein Camel (Saddam's Son-in-law, he's married to Saddam's oldest daughter) defected to Jordan, and spelled the beans on the weapons programs, which prompted the UN to send in more UN inspectors.

Oh and by the way, after Hussein Camel's defection, Saddam lured him back into the country, and had him executed.

---

So, if the inspectors haven't been provided with enough manpower and equipment AND information, your government sees it fit to take over their job themselves and use force? I remember the inspectors categorically stating they didn't find any objectionable materials in the mobile labs.

Saddam executing Camel is an internal matter to Iraq. For your kind information, Nawaz Sharrif and Benzir Bhutto, both former prime ministers of Pakistan, have been exiled and may face death penalty if they return.

If the US government thought the inspectors didn't have enough resources to carry out the inspections, it was their job to make sure the inspectors got enough resources. If the US didn't think it fit to provide enough resources, it only shows they were simply not keen to pursue the peace path.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Yea it missed the mall!!!!!

Where was it targeted then?????




The UN didnt even find the bomb that was under their noses, hell the Iraqis felt so sorry for them they got it for them :D :D :D :D

---

Maybe it was targetted at the US base in Kuwait?

Which bomb are you talking about? The one that's ticking in the White House?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Just a note that in the first 4 years of inspections of Saddam he claimed not to have had checmial and biological weapons.

---

And he still claims not to have them. Your point being??

.

He then handed us one!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

BOMB MECCA !!.....Please

HoneyBee, can you please name me the 40 odd nations in the coalition off the top of your head?........well........i'm waiting......

To say that Bush couldn't name one nation in the coalition is absolutely retarded. Obviously he could name quite afew of them off the top of his head as i have seen him do it on several occasions. Does he have the whole list memorized? I doubt it... do you? You seem to care so much about the subject, you should.

Just FYI, they have already found banned weapons...Al-Samoud 2 missles have been found in several locations. These weapons are capable of carrying NBC warheads, and can travel farther than the UN allowed distance of 93 miles.

The UN stated these weapons should have been destroyed, but obviously weren't.

Just another shining example of how trustworthy Saddam Hussein really is...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Just FYI, they have already found banned weapons...Al-Samoud 2 missles have been found in several locations. These weapons are capable of carrying NBC warheads, and can travel farther than the UN allowed distance of 93 miles.

The UN stated these weapons should have been destroyed, but obviously weren't.

Just another shining example of how trustworthy Saddam Hussein really is...

---

Maybe if your president had waited a couple more weeks, Iraq would have destroyed them. And don't forget that it would have also ensured a quick victory for you :rolleyes:

And Arc, maybe you should direct that question to Mr. Richard Smith, who originally commented upon Mr. Bush' inability to name a few nations from the coalition.

Personally, I just wish your president knows them, if not me :rolleyes:

.

Quote:

---

Maybe if your president had waited a couple more weeks, Iraq would have destroyed them. And don't forget that it would have also ensured a quick victory for you

---

He wasnt supposed to have them so we could never ever trust him again. You could actually find a much more unstable area around Iraq if this action didnt take place!!!!! ;) ;)

Quote:

---

And Arc, maybe you should direct that question to Mr. Richard Smith, who originally commented upon Mr. Bush' inability to name a few nations from the coalition.
Personally, I just wish your president knows them, if not me

---

Critics make up so much bull**** that anyone who has a brain ignores them!!!! oh sorry that means i am implying you dont have one :D :D :D :D

Learn them yourself and then you may realise their is more in this coalition than America!!!!!!! :) :) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
their is more in this coalition than America!!!!!!! :) :) :) :)

---

I doubt if any other country was as aggressive as the US, or as critical of the UN inspections and their so-called failure as the US, or wanted war as bad as the US or has been as ready for unilateral action as US. I doubt if any other country would have given a rat's arse if the UN inspections had continued. It's an American war, and not a coalition war.

.

So the British in Basra and the Australians and Polish i beleive in the west are there to wave at the people are they. You twonk what planet do you live on????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No but if it wasn't for the US bribing and threatening those other countries, and if it wasn't for lapdog prime ministers, then the UK or Australia wouldn't be there.

Look at turkey for example.
Something like 80-90% against the war - yet they're now allowing US supplies to go through.


This is the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
So the British in Basra and the Australians and Polish i beleive in the west are there to wave at the people are they. You twonk what planet do you live on????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

---

Just pull out the US troops (you can also minimize the friendly firings as a side-benefit) and see how many countries from that "coalition" of yours are willing to send large troops in Iraq to fight, complete, win the war and then rule Iraq.

To explain it with evidence, Britain is not going to deploy additional troops, it may only consider replacing existing ones. Neither is any other country, except US.

.

Britain has enough out there oh and if you didnt know America are sending in troops thatwere going in anyway. I dont fear America when it comes down to it everyone could live very well with or without them. America is an ally, something like 70% of British support this war so i cant see Blair going far wrong can you???

Cant see how Australia gains or loses anything either what a lame argument from somebody who doesnt have anything useful to contribute to the argument :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No one is going in to rule Iraq in fact a government will be set up possibly even by the UN as they keep moaning!!! If you dont want anything to do with this war then dont have anything to do with it after all its no where near you and really doesnt effect you too much ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Britain has enough out there oh and if you didnt know America are sending in troops thatwere going in anyway. I dont fear America when it comes down to it everyone could live very well with or without them. America is an ally, something like 70% of British support this war so i cant see Blair going far wrong can you???

Cant see how Australia gains or loses anything either what a lame argument from somebody who doesnt have anything useful to contribute to the argument :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No one is going in to rule Iraq in fact a government will be set up possibly even by the UN as they keep moaning!!! If you dont want anything to do with this war then dont have anything to do with it after all its no where near you and really doesnt effect you too much ;) ;) ;)

---

1) UK has enough troops because they actually know what they're doing. There is 70% support for the ongoing war, but there was about 50% for and against it before it started.

2) Australia loses by being marred with the same brush as the US.

3) The US want to run the place themselves.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...279751,00.html



Bush wants next to nothing to do with the UN.
Blair wanted the UN to run the country after this appaling invasion and massacre, but now, mysteriously he doesn't want anything to do with the UN anymore.


Like I said, this is the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Britain has enough out there oh and if you didnt know America are sending in troops thatwere going in anyway. I dont fear America when it comes down to it everyone could live very well with or without them. America is an ally, something like 70% of British support this war so i cant see Blair going far wrong can you???

Cant see how Australia gains or loses anything either what a lame argument from somebody who doesnt have anything useful to contribute to the argument :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No one is going in to rule Iraq in fact a government will be set up possibly even by the UN as they keep moaning!!! If you dont want anything to do with this war then dont have anything to do with it after all its no where near you and really doesnt effect you too much ;) ;) ;)

---

Oh, believe it's a coalition then, if you want. :)


And please don't say it doesn't affect me, because that shows your ignorance and lack of education ;)

.

Explain then!!!!!!

*Bodwad poors a packet of smarties down HB pants

Smarty pants :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Explain then!!!!!!

*Bodwad poors a packet of smarties down HB pants

Smarty pants :D :D :D :D :D

---

Oil.


That should be enough if you are educated.

.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You brought out the oil argument. That's so freaking laughable I can't even continue this post...

Well the US seem very keen on starting up the oil-for-food program don't they.
I thougt humanitarian aid was an act of charity.

Quote:

---

I thougt humanitarian aid was an act of charity.

---

Why should it be, aid is aid, despite where the money comes from.

Asking the people for oil back for food and water is just exploiting them.
Everyone knows they need the food and water - and everyone knows they have a ****load of oil.

Its exploitation.

No,

It's allowing the Iraqi's to use the oil for something that they need.

Without the sanctions Oil would be the main source of income anyway, and would be used to buy the things that the oil-for-food programme will (probably wouldn't under Saddam though).

But the Iraqis shouldn't have to pay for humanitarian aid.
If the country was given back to them, they own the oil, and they can purchase food off whomever they want.

They shouldn't have to trade oil for food.

Food from us for oil from them it is a trade you ****!!!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its the UN that is so keen to start the food for oil thing again and the US has agreed get your facts straight!!!!

Quote:

---

1) UK has enough troops because they actually know what they're doing. There is 70% support for the ongoing war, but there was about 50% for and against it before it started.

2) Australia loses by being marred with the same brush as the US.

3) The US want to run the place themselves.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...2279751,00.html



Bush wants next to nothing to do with the UN.
Blair wanted the UN to run the country after this appaling invasion and massacre, but now, mysteriously he doesn't want anything to do with the UN anymore.


Like I said, this is the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

---

1) no longer relevant the past is the past, 50% where for it the other 50% were against or unsure.

2)???

3) They have obviosly taken it back because the page doesnt work anymore

The trade occurs within the UN countries not only America so again get your facts straight ;) ;)

1) Don't call me a ****.

2) The oil-for-food programme was setup to allow the Iraqi people to sell their oil after sanctions were imposed on them.

1) Awww but its fun :D :D :D :D *whispers* sorry

2) Oil for food was set up to prevent Saddam getting his hands on the money that would be made on that oil and ensuring that food is provided to his people.

The idea was for people to get food and Saddam to go to hell!!!! :) :) :)

And how was placing sanctions on medical supplies going to help the people ?

****

The point is to ensure that the oil isnt sold for money and then spent by Saddam and to leave his people starving. The oil for food program ensures that the same oil goes to paying for food and medical suplies. Iraq was nowhere near as poor as it is now all because of Saddam loads of people are starving.

Is it not right that the strong should defend the weak??? :( :( :(

Yes the strong should help the weak, but not when there are so many glaring ulterior motives afoot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Yes the strong should help the weak, but not when there are so many glaring ulterior motives afoot.

---

Hehe you sound like Sherlock Holmes :)

X