Will the entire world become aware of Bush admin's lies, deception/manipulations, and turn against us ???

Question

.
more than they arleady have??
What happened to the "coalition?" how many countries are left 'fighting' the 'war' on terror in Iraq? We hear all about US troop deaths and injuries. As much as they want us to know that is. And we hear about a few British.
But what happened to the rest. Have those that supported Bush decided that enough is enough?

Answer 1

This is a direct copy of the data drom the website listed in my source material:

Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007
The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

In addition, that same Weekly Status Report listed 34 countries (including the US) as maintaining personnel in Iraq (as part of the Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO). The State Department reported that Fiji was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland, Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission. However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee on August 3, 2006, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld described the coalition in Iraq as composed of 34 allies (plus the US).

As of June 13, 2006, MNF-I reported that 27 countries (including the US) maintained responsibility over the six major areas of Iraq. Since that time, Japan has withdrawn all of its forces from Iraq.

For the purposes of this tally, only countries that contribute troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom are counted.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.

Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.

Countries supporting UNAMI: Fiji (150); Georgia (550)

Answer 2

Yeah , Washington seems exceedingly indignant contained in the photograph you contemporary. he's possibly turning over contained in the grave on the sight of Bush's, unconstitutional, war mongering activities. He can not stand the certainty that Bush has given united statesa. a bad call around the globe. the sole war that he authorized of replaced into the war for independence and not something greater. he's no longer an imperialist like Bush, simply by fact he knew what being a colony is like.

Answer 3

The world is already aware of them.
There just isn't much you can do.
Its the way the world works. The world depends on this ECONOMIC engine of warfare, thus democracy is the only method of economic growth.
Democrats or Republicans don't really care.
If they could start another war in Iran or Siberia or Libeya.
They would, simply because, more war means economic growth in the American economy. Its the perfect excuse to spend more money. Thus... growth back home. Otherwise, the trade defecit would be too great.. and the economy would reach recession. War is good for jobs and the domestic economy.

Answer 4

Are you talking about the Coalition Of the Bribed?

Yes, they've started deciding it's not worth it and packing up. Even the Brits are scheduled to get most of their guys out this year.

The difference between the current president Bush's "coalition" and his father's is that his father's was actually authorized and given a mandate by the United Nations Security Council, and those nations bankrolled the effort to get Saddamn out of Kuwait and under control.

Bush's war has cost us a half-trillion dollars and we're worse off now relative to Iraq than we were before we invaded.

The rest of the world knows this already. It's America that doesn't.

Probably because of the dam "liberal media".

Answer 5

Just like everything political.. there are two distinct sides.. and waaaay too much gray area in the middle.
It takes a leader to be a leader.. and we can keep dying..
or.. we can admit we have nothing left to accomplish and move on.
If we decided to leave Iraq would we be backing down and admitting defeat? I don't think so.
We would be saying enough is enough.. just like the rest of the world. Mission accomplished, Saddam is out.. and let's leave them to figure out their new direction.. they are the ones that will have to live with their decisions.
Break it into a few seperate countries based on religious beliefs or political standpoint and let them individually decide which area is right for them.. let them decide what their destiny should be.. let them establish their own governments. Give them their freedom.
Who are we to force our opinions on them?
Militarily, we seem powerless to do anything at this point.
I can't blame the rest of the world for quietly slipping into the shadows when it comes to openly supporting this conflict.
It is fun to watch a dog chase its tail.. but not when you are the dog getting dizzy for nothing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html
How the country views the presidents handling of the Iraq situation
The latest poll.. 59% strongly disapprove 17% stronly approve
We elected the president .. he needs to start listening to the people that put him there.. and stop pressing his own agendas .. there is no place in politics for ego and pride to take majority rule over the voice of the people in any 'democracy'.

Answer 6

Well here is the situation:

Silvio Berlusconi (Italy): voted down

Maria Jose Aznar (Spain): voted down after his big lie about the terrorist attack blaming it on the ETA for his political agenda and without any regard for the over 100 victims

Tony Blair: very soon to be voted down. Has a popularity close to D.Cheney (floor level)

Poland: the twin brothers are still there but not for very long anymore.

I also noticed an incredible high level of antiamericanism among British citizens which has never been the case before

Answer 7

Don't fret, thou fainthearted one. The good guys are there, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Yes, we do have our dead too. We just don't drag them all over the newspapers in order to hurt our President. Even though we don't like him much.
And I can tell you one thing- even though we have some 200 political parties, all agree that we should stay the course and make both Afghanistan and Iraq safe for normal humans to live in.
Because we happen to believe that all free men are brothers and deserve freedom.
We do not pull out. To suggest that in my country would be political suicide to any politician- no matter how populist he may be otherwise. In fact, we are sending more troops- simply because mopping up is always labour intensive (as opposed to real combat).

FYI I'm Polish.
And before you start asking silly questions- yes, I am in the Army reserve, and will go if needed.

Answer 8

Bear with me on this ok? Actually Bush in his own weird way may have helped us.The rest of the world thanks to people being outspoken against Bush have seen we're not all out to take their countries or change their beliefs.So maybe by Bush being so stuck on his way he has created an atmosphere where terrorist countries will be more open to talks with those they see have respect for their own people and others.My thoughts anyway.

Answer 9

Bushe is Under a Spell, Programed to Obey HIS MASTERS. who "PLACED" GW into the OralOffice, With His HAND PICKED Thugs Who ALL Curiously... NO, who are CRIMINALY In HIGH POWERFUL U.S. Govt. POSITIONS. This Nation, and for that Matter, THE WORLD is Under The Argueabley? Human Clutches of an Evil Force.. that of The Ashkenazi Zionists..Here For The SOLE Purpose, and BENEFIT of The State of ISRAEL. These and Others Are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS !! Wolfowitz - Zelikow - Abrams - William"Bottoms Up"Kristol - Feith - Paul"The World" Wolfowitz - John"Big Boy"Bolton - Zoellick - Armitage - Richard"LipGloss"Perle - and A Host of Other SCUMBAGS, Too Numerous to Mention in My Present Condition..... Everyone NEEDS to Access This Link/Site For The Sake of You/Your Family, Friends, Lover Ones, And FOR THIS AMERICA !! PLEASE..... http://www.antichristconspiracy.com

Answer 10

more than they arleady have??

I suppose there are some in the world who have a little farther to turn against the US. But, no, I don't think the Bush Lies are going to do it, it's more a matter of geopolitical interests. Bush Lies are just a convenient way to attack the current President. Afterall, Clinton was attacked for his lies, so Bush should be attacked for his. Turnabout is fair play, and all.