AP: "Coalition in Iraq continues to dwindle"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, May 31, 2006.

?
  1. Traitors.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Cowards.

    13.5%
  3. anti-Americans.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. They blindly follow public opinion

    24.3%
  5. They are right but could postpone their decision.

    8.1%
  6. They are absolutely right.

    27.0%
  7. Simply withdrawing troops on a prearranged schedule

    27.0%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As the last option "Simply withdrawing troops on a prearranged schedule" was added by (apparently) moderators then I would like to know why this "prearranged schedule" (US/UK haven't it) was adopted? It is because they are:

    - Traitors.
    - Cowards.
    - anti-Americans.
    - They blindly follow public opinion
    - They are right but could postpone their decision.
    - They are absolutely right.
     
  2. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    The story does mention that at one point 300 000 troops were present, but a lot less now. To me i would think that this emans that they were not needed, as the americans/brits are not having to stump up the shortfall. The only real cowardly withdrawal i would suggest was Spain who yanked their troops out as soon as they were attacked. the rest of the troop withdrawals seemed to be planned some months in advance...
     
  3. Umm, there was also a general election which brought about a change in government in Spain, which had a declared policy of withdrawal as part of its manifesto. Polls suggested that at the time of the invasion 91% of Spaniards opposed the war.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925146,00.html

    Do you think, therefore, that the democratic process may have had something to do with it?
     
  4. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    The Spanish were there from the word 'Vamonos muchachos ' in 2003 - because I remember queuing up at the Efi van with them - and their hospital ship << Guadalqivir>> (?) was the PCS until about mid-June 03.......they 'yanked their troops out' because the Spanish electorate voted for a party which promised in advance to do exactly that.

    The only surprising thing about the Spanish withdrawal was that a politician stood by his pre-election promise....never happen here......

    Le Chevre
     
  5. Dear PTP!

    I tried to show that the last option is rather a way not to answer the main question: why the Coalition continues to dwingle? Agree that the answer: withdrawal was pre-planned is not an answer at all. Why it was pre-planned? Indeed why some some Western leaders established their own timetables while US and the UK stay firm and don't plan any timetables?
     
  6. Sergey, the basic premises of the options you provide are fundamentally flawed, to that extent your poll is pointless. Indeed, the idea that each country chooses to leave for the same reason is just wrong. There are different variables which play greater or lesser roles in each specific case. To just attribute a decision to something like "cowardice" is stupid.
     
  7. Crabtastic!

    The question: Why does the coalition continue to dwingle? (in another words why do the leaders of some countries perform withdrawal?) is important enough. But what are possible options?

    - They are absolutely right (for many different reasons: it is a democracy, 'it is an economy stupid', because of moral considerations, because of lies about WMD, not to waste lives of their soldiers, because the war is senseless and so on...)

    - They are partially right (for the same reasons) but as allies whey go away too early.

    - They are wrong because... what are possible explanations? I proposed some variants. Yes these is a bit of irony in my options but try to propose a serious explanation, why namely Spanish or Italian leaders (and others) are wrong? It is not so simple task.
     
  8. I would suggest that trying to make sweeping generalizations is a waste of time.
     
  9. Well Goatman!

    But why future Spanish PM made his promise? Was he right (making it)?
     
  10. So the coalition is dwindling without any reasonable causes?
     
  11. Oh ffs, Sergei. 91% of the Spanish people wanted no part of the invasion while it was going on, they had no obvious national interest at stake, why would it have been right for them to continue?
     
  12. Have you been at the stupid juice today? There are causes- they just vary from case to case.
     
  13. So was he right or partially right?
     
  14. You're an idiot.

    Look at the bold type. Zapatero viewed the war as being illegal, as having no domestic support, serving no practical purpose and had no end in sight. What on earth would motivate any desire to continue and be complicit in it?