Isn't it a little misleading for Bush to imply...?

Question

that by stating there are 36 nations fighting together in a coalition in Iraq, that America is part of a larger conglomerate?

The facts are:

1) Originally was 36 nations but 16 have pulled out and it's now only 20.

2) Out of the 20 nations, the USA has 168,000 troops stationed in Iraq, the United Kigdom has 5,500 and the other 18 member nations COMBINED have under 5,000 troops total.

When the US is supplying approximately 94% of the fighting force, is it really a coalition?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

Atstu- didn't forget about Iraq. It was a question of coalition forces that volunteered to help the cause. Iraq really didn't have much of a choice.

Answer 1

It is called spinning the propaganda. He wants people to think he has more support than he really has. He is grasping at straws to find anything that could possibley save his legacy. I think it is going to be too little too late.

Answer 2

There is no coalition, and there hasn't been one all along. If there had been a real coalition, we could have got a Security Council resolution authorizing the invasion like the elder Bush had in the aftermath of Saddamn's invasion of Kuwait. That was a real coalition. The US actually made money on that operation.

The "coalition of the willing" included nations that sent four mechanics, or twenty traffic cops who were not authorized to leave whatever base they were on. Even the British stayed on their bases and took mortar fire more than they patrolled Basra.

We invaded and occupied Iraq, and whoever else went along with us was window-dressing at best, propaganda smokescreen ( no doubt with the promise of a future share of oil revenues for the loyal "willing" nations) at worst.

Answer 3

Thank you for a cogent and politically polite question. Your responders could learn a little bit about how to avoid political bigotry and hyperbole.

It is not misleading, as you have only included those nations that actually have troops, and have forgotten to include all other forms of support. You also forget that we would obviously have the largest force as we are the ones who were most wronged by Iraq (attempted assassination on our President, decade of attacks on our troops during the cease fire after defending Kuwait from Saddam). We also have the largest military in the world and most equipped for it.

Your question (unintentionally) is NOT misleading (as a question cannot be), but your facts are.

It is a coalition.

All our talk of troop withdrawal starts with letting our allies go home. That's why most of them have left, not as a political statement, but as an indication of success (please research their reasons).

Answer 4

I would LOVE to see a list of the nations and the number of troops and money they are providing..

Answer 5

Actually you forgot about Iraq. America isn't supplying 94% of the fighting force. A lot of Iraqi's are involved in the fight too.

>>>I wasn't trying to be critical. I was just mentioning the fact that the Iraqis are in the fight.

Answer 6

As we've learned over the last 6 years, Bush is certainly not above lying and misleading people to get what he wants. In fact, it's his MO

Answer 7

Maybe some of you could use some enlightening. We are a member of The United Nations. These nations are the ones who are supporting the war against terriorism. Every country who is a member pays dues to be a member. If some of you can read, maybe it would be to your advantage to read about who is actually funding and fighting the war effort. All I am reading here is a bunch of bashing that makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.un.org/terrorism/

Answer 8

truth is clearly malleable for a lot of people in the current US administration.

Answer 9

HA!

Bush - "a little misleading"?

How about pathological homicidal LIAR?

Answer 10

If by "a little misleading" you mean "shamefully, wildly deceptive."

.