Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    Definitely not a diplomatic triumph here for the Administration though I am mildly supportive. I have a big problem with a dictator that bombs its own defenseless civilians. I would have much preferred surgical strikes as a response to these attacks rather than a prolonged military commitment...

    http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

    Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

    Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

    Afghanistan,
    Albania
    Australia
    Azerbaijan
    Bulgaria
    Colombia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    El Salvador
    Eritrea
    Estonia
    Ethiopia
    Georgia
    Hungary
    Italy
    Japan
    South Korea
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Macedonia
    Netherlands
    Nicaragua
    Philippines
    Poland
    Romania
    Slovakia
    Spain
    Turkey
    United Kingdom
    Uzbekistan

    [Source: US State Department]

    Coalition - Libya - 2011

    United States
    France
    United Kingdom
    Italy
    Canada
    Belgium
    Denmark
    Norway
    Qatar
    Spain
    Greece
    Germany
    Poland
    Jordan
    Morocco
    United Arab Emirate
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:01 AM GMT
    Tsk tsk tsk.....

    The WHOLE truth... not 'bits'!

    Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 19 to April 9, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath.
    As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
    Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest that attracted between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    Just for some 'boasting busting'...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:08 AM GMT
    TropicalMark saidTsk tsk tsk.....

    The WHOLE truth... not 'bits'!

    Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 19 to April 9, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath.
    As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
    Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest that attracted between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    Just for some 'boasting busting'...


    Not sure what you define as the whole truth since we don't know how what's happening in Libya will end? These coalitions are at least how both these conflicts have started. The one thing that bugs me - and I think which makes it difficult for a lot of people to support this intervention is that we don't really know what a successful outcome is supposed to look like and what the objectives are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidTsk tsk tsk.....

    The WHOLE truth... not 'bits'!

    Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 19 to April 9, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath.
    As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
    Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest that attracted between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    Just for some 'boasting busting'...


    Not sure what you define as the whole truth since we don't know how what's happening in Libya will end? These coalitions are at least how both these conflicts have started. The one thing that bugs me - and I think which makes it difficult for a lot of people to support this intervention is that we don't really know what a successful outcome is supposed to look like and what the objectives are.
    We will soon find out. We dont have the authorization to invade now, nor did we then..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:22 AM GMT
    Riddler, your an F'n joke on this one for sure !!! You know damn well how much money, military equipment and other military favors and etc. that Bush put in place for each of those countrys, to buy their involvement in that 'coalition' he laid claim to. GIVE US A BREAK FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!! You know damn well better than than this bullshit !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:23 AM GMT
    The first day of bombing cost the American tax payer $110 million.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Mar 22, 2011 4:01 AM GMT
    His hesitance ( nothing new ) is a criticism and weakness of Obama.

    But in this situation, what is Obama supposed to do?

    Often the USA is lambasted for unilateral action. But when the chips are down, we are asked for help ( Arab League). And many in our own country would beat the drum of Anti-American sentiment.
    Now that we have a so called "progressive" President, and the same garbage happens to him. Hopefully the left will wake up to the fact that the U.N. is a worthless organization.

    We should spend our energy building local alliances and exploring local resources.

    We have so much more in common with our neighbors to the north and south than any African or Arab country.

    Frankly BP should pay for this operation , since they will benefit from Qaddafi's removal.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 22, 2011 5:36 AM GMT
    I don't think Obama needed as many in the coalition to implement a "No Fly Zone" vs, going to war with a country, This is not a war with Libya --- not yet anyway --- but give it a few more days who knows what they'll be calling it. All I know is if one American soldier loses his life it's going to be a mess for Obama. icon_eek.gif
    Meanwhile, I'm watching Jay Leno's monologue and he just called the President "Oh--BOMB-Ah".
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 22, 2011 8:27 AM GMT
    ...and look how that turned out.

    As soon as they figured out that Bush lied to them, most of them walked away.
    In the end, he had only one ally: Great Britain
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Mar 22, 2011 9:09 AM GMT
    saying that as a "FACT" is the same as saying

    this "FACT"

    FACT: Most counties In USA VOTED FOR McCain!
    2008electionresults.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 10:28 AM GMT
    Webster666 said...and look how that turned out.

    As soon as they figured out that Bush lied to them, most of them walked away.
    In the end, he had only one ally: Great Britain





    Ditto
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 22, 2011 10:52 AM GMT
    LOL ...................

    You're trying to compare an ILLEGAL invasion to a no fly zone?

    The absurdity of your post made me almost inhale my Honeynut Cheerios icon_eek.gif

    icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 22, 2011 2:07 PM GMT
    I still think it's debatable if it were actually "illegal". Congress passed it, U.N. resolutions were passed warning of it if Saddam Hussein didn't comply -- he didn't -- a coalition of countries backed it.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Mar 22, 2011 2:47 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI still think it's debatable if it were actually "illegal". Congress passed it, U.N. resolutions were passed warning of it if Saddam Hussein didn't comply -- he didn't -- a coalition of countries backed it.



    If Obama relies on the fact that the U.N. passed a resolution rather than going to congress he is of course legally wrong. I am not sure if that's impeachable. But wrong.

    Up to now there is not enough information. So we need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    But it would be wise for the President to get authorization for this operation.. Relying on a international mandate violates our constitution.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 22, 2011 5:07 PM GMT
    Congress is already threatening to cut off all funding for the Libyan mission. If this happens, this will be a huge embarrassment for Obama on the international stage. I really REALLY hope this is not what they do. It will only make the U.S. look bad.

    That said, it does seem as though, seeing that Kahdafi 3 days into this is still out there bombing cities with artillery, that this mission is sort of yet another half-assed attempt --- or are we to believe that Kahdafi and his forces are a match for the U.S. backed by French, British, Canadian, and Arab League military?
  • LuckyGuyKC

    Posts: 2080

    Mar 24, 2011 1:51 PM GMT
    I am yellow dog Democrat (I would rather vote for a yellow dog than a republican) and an ardent Obama supporter.

    HOWEVER, I agree John Boehner (I just threw up a little) who openly questioned the fuzzy way Obama got us into the middle of a Civil War. I agree with Ron Paul (more throw up) that the last three wars have been entered in by the US un-Constitutionally.

    The criteria used to get us into Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya would have FIRST got us into any number of non-oil producing countries including North Korea, Rwanda, South Africa (pre-repeal of Apartheid) and of course Sudan (mostly Darfur region).

    We Europeans and Americans have been implicitly involved or allowing genocides selectively for over 200 years. It's amazing what we will justify when the oppressed and murdered are white or light brown and oil producing rather than black without natural resources.



    Bombing a country under a no fly zone and bombing a country under a illegal invasion get us into the same position folks. There is NO difference UNLESS we have the courage to stand up and retreat now before we pass the point of no return - unless we already have do so.

    I am shocked that first US black President has decided to get involved in this particular tribal civil war. This is a regional issue and deserves a regional solution.

    And for OP - the magnitude of GWB's coalition for invading Iraq compared to the one France, UK, and US put together in Libya is proportional to the amount of OIL involved!!!! Rape, Oppression, and Murder of innocents are tolerated until it impacts the flow of oil. The only proud moment for the US on this one is that at least it appears that we were not in the lead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidTsk tsk tsk.....

    The WHOLE truth... not 'bits'!

    Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 19 to April 9, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath.
    As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
    Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest that attracted between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    Just for some 'boasting busting'...


    Not sure what you define as the whole truth since we don't know how what's happening in Libya will end? These coalitions are at least how both these conflicts have started. The one thing that bugs me - and I think which makes it difficult for a lot of people to support this intervention is that we don't really know what a successful outcome is supposed to look like and what the objectives are.




    LOL!
    Total BS.
    FYI - 70% of Americans SUPPORT "this intervention".

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/22/news/la-pn-libya-poll-20110322

    The other 30% = bitterly partisan Repubs who are hoping for President Obama - and AMERICA - to fail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    So what is Obama doing too liberate the people of North Korea and Zimbabwe? Oh do they behold any oil for motivation to do so?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Mar 26, 2011 9:32 AM GMT
    GQjock saidLOL ...................

    You're trying to compare an ILLEGAL invasion to a no fly zone?

    The absurdity of your post made me almost inhale my Honeynut Cheerios icon_eek.gif

    icon_wink.gif


    Well Iraq had a no fly zone in place before second Iraq invasion, there was an agreement in place that Sadam violated. A cease fire

    You can disagree with G.W. actions in Iraq, but illegal doesnt fit. He had authorization from Congress, and Sadam was in violation of security counsel resolutions. There was a cease fire in place, meaning technically the war wasnt over from 1991. G.W. still got approval of Congress though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2011 10:06 AM GMT
    The united kingdom didnt support iraq just fyi as canadians wouls be involved as well cuz the queen is our head of state
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2011 10:07 AM GMT
    We were however involved and still are invovled in Afganistan
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Mar 27, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    LanceKC saidI am yellow dog Democrat (I would rather vote for a yellow dog than a republican) and an ardent Obama supporter.

    HOWEVER, I agree John Boehner (I just threw up a little) who openly questioned the fuzzy way Obama got us into the middle of a Civil War. I agree with Ron Paul (more throw up) that the last three wars have been entered in by the US un-Constitutionally.

    The criteria used to get us into Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya would have FIRST got us into any number of non-oil producing countries including North Korea, Rwanda, South Africa (pre-repeal of Apartheid) and of course Sudan (mostly Darfur region).

    We Europeans and Americans have been implicitly involved or allowing genocides selectively for over 200 years. It's amazing what we will justify when the oppressed and murdered are white or light brown and oil producing rather than black without natural resources.



    Bombing a country under a no fly zone and bombing a country under a illegal invasion get us into the same position folks. There is NO difference UNLESS we have the courage to stand up and retreat now before we pass the point of no return - unless we already have do so.

    I am shocked that first US black President has decided to get involved in this particular tribal civil war. This is a regional issue and deserves a regional solution.

    And for OP - the magnitude of GWB's coalition for invading Iraq compared to the one France, UK, and US put together in Libya is proportional to the amount of OIL involved!!!! Rape, Oppression, and Murder of innocents are tolerated until it impacts the flow of oil. The only proud moment for the US on this one is that at least it appears that we were not in the lead.


    Great post and I am saddened by most media that this is not coming up more. Whether we want to admit it or not, most media is more liberal bias and are not willing to challenge the president on this. Make no bones about it this was a move by Obama because of the price of oil! Black Gold! Only look at the oil prices the days before the attack to after to see that the two are linked. I would love to see this opinion debated more in the national news and get America's opinion on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    What Obama is doing with the air war against Libya is no less EVIL than what the liberals screamed about Bush '43 invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or what his pappy Bush '41 did in Kuwait.

    Of course, you will not hear the rabid Obamaphiles criticizing their Dear Leader's motives, nor his being owned by Big Oil the same way the Bushes were for their wars.

    Obama is very much of the same mold as his authoritarian, interventionist forebears, Woodrow Wilson and FDR: seeking to get us involved and mired in one more Middle Eastern tribal conflict for the sake of their oil when we have trillions of barrels and cubic feet of our own oil, oil shale, and natural gas, as well as untold trillions of barrels of fuel that can be derived from coal.

    And that's not even before we tap into the offshore methane clathrates at our disposal.

    America should be worried about the tyranny at out own doorstep and within our own house before worrying about the woes and weal of tinpot dictatorships around the world.