AP: "Coalition in Iraq continues to dwindle"

Leaders of nations that withdraw troops from Iraq are...

  • Traitors.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cowards.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • anti-Americans.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They blindly follow public opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are right but could postpone their decision.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are absolutely right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simply withdrawing troops on a prearranged schedule

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#2
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.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
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...
 
#4
chrisg46 said:
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...
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?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#5
chrisg46 said:
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...
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
 
#6
PartTimePongo said:
Last option added by me, as you hadn't added the fact that some countries have declared a timetable for withdrawl.
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?
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
PartTimePongo said:
Last option added by me, as you hadn't added the fact that some countries have declared a timetable for withdrawl.
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?
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.
 
#8
crabtastic said:
KGB_resident said:
PartTimePongo said:
Last option added by me, as you hadn't added the fact that some countries have declared a timetable for withdrawl.
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?
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.
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.
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
crabtastic said:
KGB_resident said:
PartTimePongo said:
Last option added by me, as you hadn't added the fact that some countries have declared a timetable for withdrawl.
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?
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.
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 consideration, 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.
I would suggest that trying to make sweeping generalizations is a waste of time.
 
#10
Goatman said:
chrisg46 said:
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...
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
Well Goatman!

But why future Spanish PM made his promise? Was he right (making it)?
 
#11
crabtastic said:
I would suggest that trying to make sweeping generalizations is a waste of time.
So the coalition is dwindling without any reasonable causes?
 
#12
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?
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
crabtastic said:
I would suggest that trying to make sweeping generalizations is a waste of time.
So the coalition is dwindling without any reasonable causes?
Have you been at the stupid juice today? There are causes- they just vary from case to case.
 
#14
crabtastic said:
Oh ffs, Sergei. 91% of the Spanish people wanted no part of the invasion while it was going on, why would it have been right for them to continue?
So was he right or partially right?
 
#15
You're an idiot.

Published on Monday, March 15, 2004 by Agence France Presse
New Spanish Leader Lashes Out at Bush, Blair Over Iraq War


MADRID - Spain's prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq and criticized US President George W. Bush after Spanish voters ousted governing conservatives who took the country into the controversial war.

"The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio on Monday.

He spoke just before the European Union held three minutes' silence in tribute to the 200 people killed in last Thursday's bombings of crowded Madrid commuter trains.

An ongoing investigation into the attacks has found growing evidence they were carried out by Islamic extremists linked to Al-Qaeda as punishment for Spain's help in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Voters turned out in force for Sunday's elections. Many of them expressed anger at retiring Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar when he cast his ballot, jostling and booing him while some shouted "Aznar: your war, our dead."

Zapatero, whose Socialist Party ended eight years of rule by Aznar's Popular Party (PP) after winning 43 percent of the ballots to the PP's 38 percent, said near-total public opposition to the Iraq war had been key.

He said that barring new developments in Iraq before June 30 -- the date the United States has promised to hand power over to an Iraqi provisional government -- Spain's 1,300 troops in Iraq "will return home" as he had promised before the elections.

The other occupying states will be contacted for consultations on withdrawing the soldiers, he said.

Zapatero also said Bush and his main ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, need to engage in "self-criticism".

"You can't bomb a people just in case" they pose a perceived threat, Zapatero said in statements just five days before the first anniversary of the March 20 start of the war.

"You can't organize a war on the basis of lies," he said, alluding to Bush's and Blair's insistence the war was justified by their belief -- so far unfounded -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat.

"Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," he said.


The head of the EU executive arm, European Commission chief Romano Prodi, agreed in an interview published by Italy's La Stampa newspaper Monday.

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.

The loss of the United States' and Britain's main ally has left Bush especially looking exposed as he faces the November presidential election.

While Zapatero fielded congratulations from French President Jacques Chirac, South African President Thabo Mbeki and other world leaders, Bush had yet to make a call.

Other US allies in Iraq, among them Poland and Denmark, were notably cool towards his win.

Polish foreign ministry spokesman Boguslaw Majewski said: "Our general position is that everybody there (in Iraq) should stay until the situation is stabilized."

Spain's contingent is the sixth-largest in Iraq. It has suffered 11 deaths, including seven intelligence agents ambushed in November.

The investigation into the Madrid blasts suggested Al-Qaeda may have made good on a threat issued October 18 by Osama bin Laden that Spain, Australia, Britain, Italy and other US allies would be targeted for attacks.

Spanish authorities were working to authenticate a video found in a Madrid rubbish bin late Saturday in which a man claiming to be Al-Qaeda's spokesman in Europe said the Islamic radical network was responsible.

"We claim responsibility for what happened in Madrid exactly two and a half years after the attacks in New York and Washington," said the man, speaking Arabic with a Moroccan accent.

"This is an answer to your cooperation with the Bush criminals and their allies," he said, threatening more attacks.

Five suspects -- three Moroccans and two Indians -- were being held in connection to the bombings. One of the Moroccans figured on a list of suspected members of an Al-Qaeda cell in Spain.

Stock markets in Europe fell back on the specter of Al-Qaeda involvement, and the dollar slipped.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw played down any negative consequences of Sunday's elections, insisting that his and Blair's center-left government "look forward to doing business with them."

And he dismissed the suggestion that Spain, or any other nation, could become immune from terrorist attacks by opposing the Iraq war.

"Nobody, nobody, nobody should believe that somehow we can opt out of the war against Islamic terrorism," he said. "The idea that, somehow, there is some exemption certificate for this war against terrorism is utter nonsense."

France has proposed an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers to coordinate Europe's response to terrorism, while Germany has suggested a meeting of EU interior ministers, security and police chiefs was necessary to draft a "common assessment" amid increasing indications the attacks were the work of Islamic extremists.

© Copyright 2004 AFP
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?
 
#16
crabtastic said:
You're an idiot.
Such a coincidence! My wife uses to repeat the same word toward me and I adore her.

By the way, questions asked by idiot are sometimes so difficult that only morons would be able to answer.
 
#17
crabtastic said:
chrisg46 said:
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...
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?
No because the party that got in was way behind in the polls until the leader at the time claimed that it was Eta??? who committed the atrocity. This more than anything else caused the Spanish to vote for the left wing???? party that got in
 
#18
Sven said:
crabtastic said:
chrisg46 said:
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...
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?
No because the party that got in was way behind in the polls until the leader at the time claimed that it was Eta??? who committed the atrocity. This more than anything else caused the Spanish to vote for the left wing???? party that got in
That you don't know that there is, in fact, a socialist government in power in Spain and that the group Aznar tried to pin it on is called ETA, reveals at a stroke, the depth of your knowledge of Spanish politics. If I didn't know such basic facts, I think I'd be inclined to STFU until I knew what I was talking about.

This, Sven, is called democracy at work. The Madrid attack was seen as a retaliation for Spanish involvement in the Iraq war, as foreward in a bin Laden tape released the previous October. The Spanish saw the war as far more trouble than it was worth- they made the decision. Why carry on if you've got nothing to gain and a lot to lose?

By the way, the PP was not "way ahead". They had a "slim" to "modest" lead. Polls immediately before the bombings showed that the PP had a lead of between 3-6 percentage points (within or just above the statistical margin of error). Furthermore, in the March 21 European edition of TIME magazine, Paris and Brussels bureau chief James Graff reported:
[J]ust hours before the bombings, results leaked from private PP [Aznar's Populist Party] and PSOE [Zapatero's Socialist Party] polling showed the parties in a dead heat, according to the veteran Madrid journalist José Antonio Martínez Soler.
Even the arch-conservative Cato Institute say that your hypothesis is only partly right:

True, opinion polls showed the Popular Party with a modest lead over the opposition Socialists before the Madrid bombings. That was largely because the Iraq war had faded as a salient issue for most voters. The bombings of the commuter trains again elevated the prominence of the Iraq issue. And when that happened, voters remembered their irritation with the Aznar government.

The Aznar administration compounded the Popular Party's renewed problems by prematurely and tenaciously attributing the bombings to the radical Basque separatist group ETA. When evidence continued to mount that Al Qaeda, not ETA, was probably responsible for the atrocities, a good many Spanish voters concluded that the government was manipulating the tragedy for its own political advantage. They suspected (with good reason) that Aznar and his associates were trying to blame ETA to conceal the reality that the attacks were a payback for Spain's support of Washington's Iraq policy. Not surprisingly, voters did not react well to such attempts at self-serving political deception.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-24-04.html
 
#19
crabtastic said:
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?
From my point of view (from point of view of an idiot) mr.Zapatero was absolutely right. And many other leaders of the coalition made a right desision too. And causes are more or less similar. So there is a ground for generalisation.

It seems to me that you don't understand my idiotic question. I would like to make it absolutely clear:

IF you think that decisions made by some leaders to withdraw troops from Iraq were wrong then what is the main cause?

I proposed some options (some apparently ironic). And I repeat that answer like: "they did it because they planned to did it" - is not an answer at all.
 
#20
Traitors - How can they be traitors to their own people and country.
Cowards - Because they chose as a national government to rethink their foreign policy.
anti-Americans - Maybe, Maybe-not
They blindly follow public opinion - Public opinion allows them to remain in power, and let their national policies get completed.
They are right but could postpone their decision. - They might have, but the chose not to.
They are absolutely right. - Its their national foreign policy, they are the government and as such they have the right to make the decision to stay or go.


Again Sergey, you post a poll which has no real meaning as it is skewed to fit a negative outcome. Please stop now, you are making yourself out to be an idiot. Do you work for the Scum?

It is just as well that PTP is on the ball and added the last option, any credibility that you might have thought you had would have gone down the drain.

Now, I implore you, stop doing these polls, they are cr@p.

Edited because I as an elected official of the country of WHA, chose to do so!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top