Rogue Countries attack Iraq

[Almighty Colin]

I put this together ... if I made an error let me know.

The Rogue Countries List.

The following governments support the removal of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq with force by either allowing US bases and operations from their countries for operations, have sent troops to the region, or have otherwise officially supported the action. (Can I count Israel?)
--------------------------------

United States
UK
Australia
Poland
Kuwait
Bahrain
Qatar
UAE
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Japan
South Korea
Portugal
Spain
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

[Shok]

The people of the Republic Of Shok have also offered assistance. :bwave:

Still no reply from Bush though <_<

[Mike AI]

I looked up on Jane's about the military might of the Republic of Shok, and it has th 12th largest armory in the world. 4th largest in the Coalition of the Willing.

[Shok]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 18 2003, 09:23 AM
I looked up on Jane's about the military might of the Republic of Shok, and it has th 12th largest armory in the world. 4th largest in the Coalition of the Willing.
soon after that post I just got this email


chirac@hotmail.com: "We surrender!"

[Forest]

U missed Holland

they are sending hookers for Support

:yowsa:



Last edited by Forest at Mar 18 2003, 09:27 AM

[Trev]

shouldn't Hungary be on there as well :)

anyone know Belgium's stance?

[Jeremy-RR]

Originally posted by Trev@Mar 18 2003, 09:30 AM
anyone know Belgium's stance?
Lying prone waiting to be over-run as usual?

Let's face it, Belgium isn't likely to disagree with France and Germany!

Out of Poirot, chocolate, lace and beer, I'll keep the beer and you lot can divvy the rest up amongst yourselves. :)

[Almighty Colin]

Consider these officially on the list? Where's Petr when ya need him?

Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary

[Trev]

Originally posted by Jeremy-RR+Mar 18 2003, 06:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jeremy-RR @ Mar 18 2003, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Trev@Mar 18 2003, 09:30 AM
anyone know Belgium's stance?
Lying prone waiting to be over-run as usual?

Let's face it, Belgium isn't likely to disagree with France and Germany!

Out of Poirot, chocolate, lace and beer, I'll keep the beer and you lot can divvy the rest up amongst yourselves. :)[/b][/quote]
Sooooo true...

and if I aint getting the beer I'm having the chocolate :nyanya:

[Mike AI]

http://www.boomspeed.com/facemetfloor/dixie2.jpg

Apparently the French will be on board if Iraquis use biological or chemical weapons - but since they support Iraqs claim that they have none, then I guess this is a moot point!

Fuck France.... Their interfernce, dragging things out on purpose without ever coming to an ultimatum has only allowed the Iraqies to be better prepaired for war - which may mean more casualties for American Soldiers - I hold the Chirac gov't responsible for it!! ( this does not include the weapons, the machinery, and chemicals they have sold Iraq past 10 years)

[mojobill]

The News reported on CNN last night, that there were 33 nations supporting the US in this.... making this the third largest Coalition in history, behind only WWII, and The first time we went after his sorry ass...

:agrin:

[Petr]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 18 2003, 10:13 AM
Consider these officially on the list? Where's Petr when ya need him?

Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Colin, "The National Security Council agreed on Monday that four hundred troops of the 1st Czech-Slovak chemical warfare battalion in Kuwait would participate only in the removal of consequences after a possible use of mass destruction weapons, they would not be deployed in the front fighting line, but they could provide humanitarian aid to the afflicted people."

[Sword]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 18 2003, 01:22 PM
http://www.boomspeed.com/facemetfloor/dixie2.jpg

ROFLMAO! :P

I heard lots of people are going to radio stations and throwing their Dixie Chics Cd's in a trash can and burning them. Hell if I had a Dixie Chics CD I'd probably have burned it even if they never said that stuff.

Country music & me don't mix :barfon:

[slavdogg]

Also

Jordan, we have tropps there for the western front
Afganistan

[Forest]

United States
UK
Australia
Poland
Kuwait
Bahrain
Qatar
UAE
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Japan
South Korea
Portugal
Spain
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Holland
Jordan

looks like 30 to me soo far!!!

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 18 2003, 08:48 AM
(Can I count Israel?)

Israel was attacked by Iraq with no provocation in the last Gulf war
Saddam sends money to support terrorism and death in Israel
Saddam calls to the destruction of israel and promotes it

Whats your guess then? :rolleyes:

[slavdogg]

speaking of Israel,

there was a program on the History Channel the other day how Israel tried to stop France from building the Osrik Nuclear reactor in Iraq. And how they prepared for and finally destroyed it.

[RawAlex]

Some of those don't really belong on the list, they are not "attacking" anyone...

like Japan, which by it's own laws is not allowed to attack anyone. Their prime minster said he is in favor of the Bush 48 hour declaration and would provide help in rebuilding Iraq after the war.

Many of the Arab countries are not participating, but rather allowing use of military bases and such... qatar is allowing the US base to be used for control.

Many of the former east block nations are not sending any troops or equipment, rather have just come out in support of the US action.

When it comes down to it, it is US, britain, australia and (maybe) spain that are actually going to fight in this "war".

Not exactly the same thing as the coalition that went in during the 1991 conflict (I actual posted fiasco and then went and changed it)

Alex

[Mike AI]

I do not agree with all of this 100%, but it still good:



"DO NOT FORGET"

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why
didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why
weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil
people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to
be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not
comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too
manyAmericans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to
the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media
personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the
bravery of the
rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to
understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have
announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating
footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick
our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's
address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about
him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President
Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented,
"We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't
informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor
should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on
the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and
their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications
equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability
to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modern
communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those
perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly
"Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.

I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the
right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American
war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen,
sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose
reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor
Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the
innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt
they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no
point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be
defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"

I will force myself to:

-hear the weeping

-feel the helplessness

-imagine the terror

-sense the panic

-smell the burning flesh

- experience the loss

- remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where
did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)

Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 18 2003, 11:33 PM
Some of those don't really belong on the list, they are not "attacking" anyone...


Alex, you misread what Colin said

"allowing US bases and operations from their countries for operations, have sent troops to the region, or have otherwise officially supported the action."


Japan and East Euro nations have officially supported the war action.


>>> Not exactly the same thing as the coalition that went in during the 1991
If i'm not mistaken Moracco, France and the Saudis are the countries that participated in the 91 Gulf war and are not participated this time around

[RawAlex]

Slavdogg: The coalition this time is HUGELY different. Basically, this time it is 4 countries (US, UK, OZ, and Spain) actually sending troops, and everyone else on that list saying "that's a good idea!" or "we'll help clean up after the party!"

Example, in 1991, Saudi Arabia flew over 3000 air missions - this time they are limiting their involvement to allowing allied forces to operate from their country. The same can be said for all of the arab counties, which from what I have read so far all seem to be taking a miss on this one - they aren't objecting, but they aren't the active participants they were last time.

This isn't the same forces as last time around - a good solid force, but not the same diversity of troops on the front lines as last time...

Alex

[Ironhorse]

Still US Forces form the bulwark and the rest auxilliary so .. can you imagine the unit that has to meet with the 1st Marines? Ouch!

[slavdogg]

Alex, you're right but this time around Iraqi army is much weeker and are not expected to put up much of a fight. We dont need as much support from other countries this time around as we did last time.

UAE is the only Gulf country to send in troops this time
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=265


45 nations join 'coalition of willing'
30 countries that have agreed to be named publicly
15 others that have given their backing privately.
Poland will deploy up to 200 non-combat troops,
more here.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=31592 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31592)

[RawAlex]

Ironhorse, I don't debate the amount of firepower (even though there are only about 50% of the total number of troops) - but 1991 was VERY inclusive on the front lines... 2003 is a VERY small number of counties.

MSNBC is reporting that Turkish leaders are asking parliment to approve US flyovers to get to Iraq, but that they will not currently vote on allowing US troops onto their soil.

So you can cross Turkey off that list... actually, no, leave them on, they are contributing about as much as many of the other countries listed.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 19 2003, 02:06 AM
but 1991 was VERY inclusive on the front lines... 2003 is a VERY small number of counties.

MSNBC is reporting that Turkish leaders are asking parliment to approve US flyovers to get to Iraq, but that they will not currently vote on allowing US troops onto their soil.

So you can cross Turkey off that list... actually, no, leave them on, they are contributing about as much as many of the other countries listed.

Alex
How can I cross Turkey off? I never put them on.

There are always differences. I am not arguing that Gulf War II has more support than Gulf War I. I don't think anyone could put a coalition together like George Bush I did. I am saying that anyone that feels this is the US alone on one side is sadly mistaken. There are somewhere around 45 governments that do support the US position. There will never be world-wide consensus. China and Russia were not involved in Gulf War I either.

The difference between last time and this time is that in Gulf War I the Arab countries insisted they liberate Kuwait City and Khafji, Saudi Arabia. It was a matter of honor and pride. Something I admire in the Saudis. They never would have set foot on Iraqi soil then. They will not set foot on Iraqi soil now. Saudi Arabia for example is a country that believes another Arab country should not attack another Arab country. For this reason also, most Arab countries cannot participate.

It is interesting how many people are in favor of action against Iraq IF the UN would have agreed to it. "OK, I think it's a good idea" in principle if everyone else agrees. Many people think this action is justified in principle but that it may be poor diplomatically. It is more noble to act on principles than consensus.

The doubters will be wrong. Saddam's chemical weapons will be found and only with a military action. If they had been found by inspectors AGAIN, those same people would just say "see, progress!" when of course, there would be more hidden somewhere else. Iraq is the rogue nation. The world is as divided as ever on such matters. In a few months, they won't be.






Last edited by Colin at Mar 19 2003, 05:06 AM

[wig]

It is more noble to act on principles than consensus.

The doubters will be wrong. Saddam's chemical weapons will be found and only with a military action. If they had been found by inspectors AGAIN, those same people would just say "see, progress!" when of course, there would be more hidden somewhere else. Iraq is the rogue nation. The world is as divided as ever on such matters. In a few months, they won't be.

Well put, Colin! :okthumb: :rokk: :wnw:

[Trev]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 19 2003, 07:06 AM
MSNBC is reporting that Turkish leaders are asking parliment to approve US flyovers to get to Iraq, but that they will not currently vote on allowing US troops onto their soil.

So you can cross Turkey off that list... actually, no, leave them on, they are contributing about as much as many of the other countries listed.

Alex
According to Sky News the Turkish Parliament are only voting to allow the US to fly through their air space because they've lost a $6,000,000 aid fund from the US, so it's not like they've had a change of stance... it's purely because of the $$$ and how to get it back...