Bush can count his reliable allies on one hand even after losing a couple of fingers

[HolyWarrior]

France is about as relevant as...

...Andorra...Tonga...Burkina Faso...Belize...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm surprised Canada isn't joining in..........

We're already there. The navy is still on the scene.

The air assets don't take too long to move, and the USAF can move the small number of ground forces we might send while they send the mail.

Our dear leaders wish to seem 'independent', so they hold out as long as possible. It's a big thing for them in the whine and cheese circles they frequent.

[Asher]

Canada would join in, but that'd be too unfair for Iraq.

We'd be way too powerful for it to be an entertaining thing to watch on CNN.

[Ned]

Let me predict that France will be there with troops in the end.

[Eli]

Bush does everything to convince countries to participate in the war, and pays Israel billions of dollars to do the exact opposite.

[Shi Huangdi]

Israeli participation in Gulf War II= bye bye all arab bases....

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Eli
Bush does everything to convince countries to participate in the war, and pays Israel billions of dollars to do the exact opposite.

Because if Israel gets into the fray outside of its own borders (which are still an uncertain subject) it would almost certainly incite other Arab nations in the region into furthering the coming conflict. You'll only make things worse for yourselves if you react to anything less than a nuclear/biological/chemical attack. Stay inside your borders, knockout whatever missiles fly your way, and leave the air/sea/ground conflict to the US and its allies.

[MRT144]

eli...i think drosedars is correct...if you get involved there will be a great gnashing of teeth in the middle east for decades to come.

[Edan]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
You'll only make things worse for yourselves if you react to anything less than a nuclear/biological/chemical attack.

Should a country not react to attacks on it? While there was a (debateably) good reason in the Gulf War, given the low casualties and the possibility of the breakup of the coalition, doesn't this set a very bad precedent? If America hadn't retaliated for Pearl Harbor or 9/11, wouldn't that have made countries/terror groups more likely to attack because they figure they can get away with it without any consequences?

How does one remain a detterant power if your enemies think you won't react to an attack?

[Lancer]

Are the Aussies are in because of the Bali bombing?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ned
Let me predict that France will be there with troops in the end.

I agree. At the very end, there will be France.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Edan




Should a country not react to attacks on it? While there was a (debateably) good reason in the Gulf War, given the low casualties and the possibility of the breakup of the coalition, doesn't this set a very bad precedent? If America hadn't retaliated for Pearl Harbor or 9/11, wouldn't that have made countries/terror groups more likely to attack because they figure they can get away with it without any consequences?

How does one remain a detterant power if your enemies think you won't react to an attack?

Because this is ISRAEL we're talking about here. It doesn't have a single ally along any part of its borders: it is surrounded for hundreds of miles in all directions either by unforgiving seas (large bodies of water don't like Humans of ANY creed) or Arab nations that REALLY don't like Israel. Israel IS NOT the United States: it doesn't have our resources, it doesn't have our economic strength, it doesn't have our political clout. Israel wouldn't be able to sustain a war effort for too long without outside help, close physical proximity to blood-enemies means they'll take serious hits to their economic infrastructure, and Israel's word means little to those whose land-borders it shares. If Israel threatened war against Iraq for ANYTHING LESS THAN a nuclear/biological/chemical attack, their threat would be drowned out by the unified outraged call-to-arms of the Arab Middle East.

No one nation in the ME is stupid enough to invade Israel and almost certainly no one is planning to anytime in the forseeable future. The best any of them can do is lob SCUDS (as Iraq has already done and probably will do again) or send ragtag paramilitary groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad to take potshots at Israel. Nothing Israel can't handle as they have shown time and time again. The terrorist bombings ARE frightening, but Israel always manages to deal with them.

Israel NOT reacting to the SCUD missile attacks of Gulf War I DOES NOT set a bad precident because although Israel wasn't reacting to the attacks...the United States and its Coalition was on its behalf. Non-reaction on Israel's part was and remains a political strategy intended to reassure Arab nations in the region that Israel, which they hate SO much, was not and is not getting too "big for its britches" meaning it isn't becoming more of a threat to them.
EDIT: Made paragraph make more sense in refering to Gulf War I.

[Az]

I still don't understand why Israel shouldn't respond to a squd attack, unless it gains some major political/military capital from the US in return.

[MRT144]

azazel, so young israelis may live to see their grand children rather then get killed by arabs in a needless war...

your type of reasoning is why i think we should sever ties with israel. you want us to pay you to stop you from killing yourselves

[Az]

So if Mexico ( ) start throwing ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, you'd be against an american retaliation?

rrriiight, thought so.