The Bush administration is pleading for help in Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

how many troops do Germany and France have available anyway? France currently has troops deployed in Ivory Coast and DR Congo. Germany has troops in Afghanistan. Both have troops in the Balkans. How many can each deploy abroad anyway? Are they not close to overstretch also?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Your mess, you did it when everyone else said not to, so you clean it up.

Then don't ***** when the occupation isn't to your liking .

Ha..

That's like saying Company X has polluted the countryside so they should clean it up, but if they do no one is allowed to criticise them for polluting.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Ha..

That's like saying Company X has polluted the countryside so they should clean it up, but if they do no one is allowed to criticise them for polluting.

A company that pollutes the countryside makes a pristine place worse.

Surely you're not saying that about Iraq????

Even most of the Iraqis who want us gone consider that we've improved things from what they were.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



A company that pollutes the countryside makes a pristine place worse.

Surely you're not saying that about Iraq????

Even most of the Iraqis who want us gone consider that we've improved things from what they were.

You are missing the point of the example. Imran seemed to be saying that those who say it's the Coalition's mess to clean up are somehow precluded from criticising them for making it. Generalising that principle would be really silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's like saying Company X has polluted the countryside so they should clean it up, but if they do no one is allowed to criticise them for polluting.

Way to twist things .

If Company X asks for help and you deny it to them, saying it is their mess and they should clean it up, when no one else owns the countryside then yeah, you cannot critisize them for the way they are doing the cleanup.

Did I say you couldn't ***** about the war? No, I said you couldn't ***** about the occupation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's like saying Company X has polluted the countryside so they should clean it up, but if they do no one is allowed to criticise them for polluting.

Way to twist things .

If Company X asks for help and you deny it to them, saying it is their mess and they should clean it up, when no one else owns the countryside then yeah, you cannot critisize them for the way they are doing the cleanup.

Did I say you couldn't ***** about the war? No, I said you couldn't ***** about the occupation.

Why should people pay who aren't responsible for the mess? Of course they have a right to demand that it is cleaned up properly.

[DinoDoc]

The company example is stupid and doesn't apply to this situation.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Senate recently passed a resolution calling upon the President to officially ask the UN or Nato to take a leading role. Democrates, and many Republicans, are getting feed up with Bush's cowboy antics. The resolution is nonbinding and the Bush Administration is continuing to insist that all desitions continue to rest with the original coalition.

So why would anyone commite money and manpower to something if Bush doesn't want to give them any say in how the show is run?

More importantly, why would anybody want to join after the US told us we weren't necessary?

If the US wanted an international force then it should have gotten international approval. Since it didn't, I don't want any of my money going toward easing the US' burden.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Re the deaths among our troops, every death is tragic. But if our troops were made up of average Americans living in the US, there would be 1,300 deaths a year anyways.

That seems high. Are you remembering that the Army is not a representative cross-section of US society? 20 year-old men don't die at quite the same rate that 80 year-old men do...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That seems high. Are you remembering that the Army is not a representative cross-section of US society? 20 year-old men don't die at quite the same rate that 80 year-old men do...

You also need to look specifically at what the cause of death or casualty was. Although 80 year old men die at a higher rate than 20 year olds overall, (I would guess that) more 20 year olds are involved in traffic accidents and work related injuries than 80 year olds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though reading this thread I do find it funny that Europeans consider American petty and childish .

Yeah, let's stick it to the US... if more Iraqis die in the chaos it'll be better to rub it in!

[KrazyHorse]

Who says less Iraqis will die as a result of your governance (especially long term) than will die if their resistance continues?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why take the chance?

At the very least if your troops are there, you get a say in the governance.

[KrazyHorse]

That makes no sense. We also lend legitimacy to the original invasion.

Now, if the US were to apologise to the world community, withdraw all of its troops and pay for the lion's share of costs then I could see my way clear to putting men with maple leafs and blue helmets on the ground.

[KrazyHorse]

Got to go now. Be back later.