PDA

View Full Version : The War: Winners/Losers - do you agree?


veryborednow
Apr 12th, 2003, 09:42 AM
Winners: Countries

Iraq
Free at last after decades of Baathist tyranny, its oil wealth now held in trust for the people, in line for massive infusion of Western humanitarian aid and hopes are high that it will soon become the most democratic state in the Arab world. And France no longer wants to have anything to do with it.


United States
Won its war with less effort, fewer casualties and in less time than critics feared. Enjoys a much-needed economic boost as a consequence of the quick conflict, which takes oil prices down. Cheering Iraqis confirm that the Arab street is ready for Starbucks on the corner. And France no longer wants to have anything to do with it.


The new Gulf
Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates Smaller Arab states who took a big risk by backing the war against Saddam. It is no coincidence that states such as Qatar are modernising themselves in a way that shames their big brother, Saudi Arabia.


Australia
John Howard, the most consistently underestimated leader on the world stage, defied vocal opposition to affirm the commitment of the Anglosphere to fighting fascism. His judgment once again vindicated, Australia confirms its place as the US’s key ally in the Pacific.


Poland
Pivotal nation of “new Europe”. Its Government may be in difficulties, but the nation whose sons played such a distinguished part in the skies over Kent during the Battle of Britain also contributed forces to the liberation of Iraq. The country that gave birth to Solidarity showed it knows what that means when it counts.


Guinea
As chair of the UN Security Council, this tiny equatorial African nation enjoyed its own hour in the sun. Visited, and fêted, by foreign ministers from both sides of the Iraq debate, the blandishments of the West should go some way to easing its people’s plight.


Spain
José María Aznar’s place alongside Bush and Blair at the Azores summit confirmed Madrid’s new status. Spain used its position on the UN Security Council to confirm its place as a force for modernisation in the EU, and a genuine Atlantic power. Aznar’s bravery means the benefits to Spain will outlast his premiership.


Britain
Confirmed as the most influential ally of the world’s No 1 power. Its troops are recognised as the world’s most effective in winning battles as well as hearts and minds. Has emerged as natural leader of “new Europe”. And France no longer wants to have anything to do with the UK

Losers: Countries

Belgium
In the first Gulf War, Brussels refused to supply Nato allies with ammo. In the second Gulf War, Brussels refused to give its Nato allies any support at all. As a consequence, Belgium is now as relevant as Andorra, but without the pleasant climate. And as respected as Burkina Faso, but without the geopolitical weight.

Syria
Who do you think you are kidding, President Assad? The man who claimed to be an Arab moderniser was Saddam’s best buddy throughout the war. Now that one national socialist Arab tyranny has gone, is it too much to hope that the Damascus regime will face an early Baath?

Germany
Konrad Adenauer built modern Germany on two solid pillars. He pledged that his country would never again follow its own “special path” and promised to stick close to the United States as the nation that guaranteed German security. Gerhard Schröder’s Germany has broken both golden rules by going out on an anti-American limb. It’ll take time to pick up the pieces.

Russia
The weapons that it sold Saddam are a smoking heap, its revived friendship with the United States has been compromised, its oil resources are suddenly worth a lot less now. Come back Yeltsin, all is forgiven.

Saudi Arabia
With Saddam gone, attention now turns to the family oil firm masquerading as a nation to the south. How much longer can this theocratic museum-piece resist the pressure for change?

Zimbabwe
While the world’s attention has been elsewhere, President Mugabe has piled additional miseries on his own people. How much longer can he be allowed to get away with it?

Pakistan
Now that the wind is in the sails of those arguing for democratisation of the Muslim world, how will General Musharraf respond? And as if that, and problems in Kashmir, weren’t worrying enough, pressure is growing for the traditional rival India to be given a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. In place of ...

France
Saddam’s demise deprives President Chirac of a close personal friend and a reliable purchaser of traditional Gallic produce such as nuclear weapons facilities, Mirage jets, Sam missiles and assorted Exocets.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-641183,00.html

JonBcn
Apr 12th, 2003, 11:06 AM
I broadly agree with those now, but things will change very quickly. If we look back in 6 months or a year it will be interesting too. In the case of Spain, for example, I'd be really surprised to see the PP survive into another term in office.

Central
Apr 12th, 2003, 11:50 AM
I can't agree more with JonBcn.
He might be considered as a important leader by the US and Great Britain, but, the rest of the world has some doubts on his behaviour (f.ex., Why?); and, also, you just can't act as if you don't give a fuck what the 90% of the population of your country thinks. He might have acted right, but he did it alone.

bee
Apr 12th, 2003, 01:22 PM
If Iraq doesn't not have any oil, the US won't even waste its time bombing it!!!
:D :D :D :D

Nemesis
Apr 12th, 2003, 02:13 PM
Yeah right: Belgium, France and Germany are losers ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Those countries did what the majority of population thought. So 3/4 so the world's population are losers too ...

The biggest loser here is the regime of Saddam Hussein. PERIOD!

Volcana
Apr 12th, 2003, 02:17 PM
Winners: Any country with weapons of mass destruction, and the delivery systems necessary to reach the United States.

Losers: Any country with that doesn't.

The peoples of the former are relatively safe from invasion. The peoples of the latter are not.

Freewoman33
Apr 12th, 2003, 02:26 PM
Loser: The United States of America.They are now saying that they don't have enough people to keep the peace and stop the anarchy that is going on in Iraq right now. They could deploy thousands of troops to invade Iraq, but they can't provide enough troops to bring stability to the country. This is a definite sign of things to come.

Freewoman33
Apr 12th, 2003, 02:32 PM
Rumsfeld cracks jokes, but Iraqis aren't laughing

Lawrence Smallman

At a Pentagon briefing, the US defence secretary faced questions about the rapidly deteriorating security situation, amid calls by aid agencies to allow them to do their job.

“Stuff happens,” came the Rumsfeld reply.


U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld jokes while Baghdad suffers

"It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," his adroit fingers this time pointing at no particular member of the press. Lawlessness, closed hospitals and fires burning in Baghdad and other cities are a freed people venting their frustrations, apparently.



If ever an Oscar was deserved for minimizing catastrophic reports coming out of Iraq with jocular "henny penny" disbelief, then Rumsfeld has a date with Hollywood.



“Television is merely running the same footage of the same man stealing a vase over and over,” he joked, adding he didn't think there were that many vases in Iraq. The US may be the strongest nation in the world, but their history is incomparable to that of Iraq – a region that has been described as the cradle of civilization.



Flippant remarks cannot replace priceless artefacts that have disappeared from the National Museum in Baghdad, or the books of the University of Mosul – one of the oldest and best universities in the whole of the Middle East.



But Secretary Rumsfeld has "a lot of confidence in the American people" not to believe TV footage from Iraq. Widespread theft across Iraq, reported in every language on screens worldwide, is an acceptable expression of freedom and really just the same picture shown again and again, he claimed. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera correspondents in Tikrit, Mosul, Basra and Baghdad confirm that US troops are still just watching looters steal private property and destroy any feelings of public safety.



The International Committee of the Red Cross and World Health Organizations issued appeals today to the US and British military to restore order, as the Geneva Convention requires.



US and British commanders say they don't have the troops to do this, or play a policing role. President Bush reinforced Rumsfeld's view on Friday, saying that "out of chaos that takes place there now ... the Iraqi people will run their own country."



"I reminded them that war in Iraq is really about peace," said Bush. "This victory in Iraq, when it happens, will make the world more peaceful." Iraqis who have been starved by sanctions for 12 years, bombed for three weeks and now robbed for three days must be beginning to wonder when this peace will begin.



"Tommy tells us what is necessary to achieve the objective. We gave Tommy the tools necessary to win," said Bush. "And when Tommy says we've achieved our objectives, that's when we've achieved our objectives. The war will end when Tommy says we've achieved our objectives.'' Let’s hope Tommy decides to impose some law and order soon.



"Freedom is a gift from the Almighty God," President Bush added, failing to define what General Frank’s objectives were, when asked.



At the Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld said the US does feel an obligation to assist in providing security: "We're looking for the police" in Iraqi towns and villages, he added. Concerns expressed before the war look likely to be fulfilled, those best able to police Iraq now might be those who have had the most experience – namely Ba’athists and supporters of the old regime. Calling into question, the logic of much of the war.



Appeals for quick solutions may exacerbate a terrible problem. US troops "should be doing something because (the chaos) destroys our image as the liberators and the people who are going to bring a new order to Iraq," foreign affairs analyst Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington. It’s not nice for Iraqi civilians either.



There has been some crucial action to bring peace. Central Command in Qatar said it was issuing decks of `Saddam regime' cards to troops to help them spot Saddam and his supporters – showing a US-blacklisted 55 personalities. The American military has also rushed to dispatch 2,000 troops to secure northern Iraq's oilfields, which will alleviate Turkish political concerns – though probably not aid Kurdish interests.



The Pentagon has also been busy, admitting yesterday that it had awarded - without competition - a contract worth up to $7 billion, to the subsidiary of a company run until three years ago by Vice-President Dick Cheney.



Democrat Representative Henry Waxman of California, from the government reform committee, called for an investigation into the deal with oil services giant Halliburton, saying he could understand the contract if it had been issued in an emergency.



"But it's harder to understand what the rationale would be for a sole-source contract that has a multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar price tag," he said. --Al Jazeera

kiwifan
Apr 12th, 2003, 03:08 PM
Biggest loser by far is Syria. In the eyes of the American public, they were an "Enemy of Israel" but now they will have a hard road to travel to establish that they are not an "Enemy of the US" as well.

France has rendered itself irrelevant to the US. Not an enemy, but no longer an ally. The French have always been difficult politically but I doubt the US will even place them in a position to be a pain in our ass politically in the future.

If I was Bush, once the shooting in Iraq ends, I would play two cards:

Everyone who was so opposed to the war but claimed to "care about Iraqi women and children", head on over to Iraq and put up or shut up. Volunteer to help rebuild Iraq into a great democracy.

The second card is a little more risky, I'd pull all non-essential $$$ out of economic aid for every country that didn't support us and divert it to continuing the War On Terrorism, next target Syria. Not saying I'd attack Syria, but they would be next under the microscope.

I think Middle Eastern countries may be ready to stop talking trash and instead giving up terrorists. The precident has been set. They now know that we aren't going to respect their borders or their governments when it comes to chasing after the bad guys.

Besides I think there are plenty of people who would like to dance in the streets and loot the Oil families of other Middle Eastern countries.

I have no problem with "liberating" them all.

Since the world "hates us" anyway now; might as well keep on going.

Anybody nervous??? :p :devil: :p :devil: :p

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 12th, 2003, 03:33 PM
Biggest loser by far is Syria. In the eyes of the American public, they were an "Enemy of Israel" but now they will have a hard road to travel to establish that they are not an "Enemy of the US" as well.

France has rendered itself irrelevant to the US. Not an enemy, but no longer an ally. The French have always been difficult politically but I doubt the US will even place them in a position to be a pain in our ass politically in the future.

If I was Bush, once the shooting in Iraq ends, I would play two cards:

Everyone who was so opposed to the war but claimed to "care about Iraqi women and children", head on over to Iraq and put up or shut up. Volunteer to help rebuild Iraq into a great democracy.

The second card is a little more risky, I'd pull all non-essential $$$ out of economic aid for every country that didn't support us and divert it to continuing the War On Terrorism, next target Syria. Not saying I'd attack Syria, but they would be next under the microscope.

I think Middle Eastern countries may be ready to stop talking trash and instead giving up terrorists. The precident has been set. They now know that we aren't going to respect their borders or their governments when it comes to chasing after the bad guys.

Besides I think there are plenty of people who would like to dance in the streets and loot the Oil families of other Middle Eastern countries.

I have no problem with "liberating" them all.

Since the world "hates us" anyway now; might as well keep on going.

Anybody nervous??? :p :devil: :p :devil: :p


Great post...I think the two biggest winners are GW BUSH and Blair...I think that the Bush administration has been fully vindicated and the anti war turds have eggs on their faces...

France and Germany should be made to crawl on their bellies and begg..."DONT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU"... :devil:

kiwifan
Apr 12th, 2003, 04:08 PM
Great post...I think the two biggest winners are GW BUSH and Blair...I think that the Bush administration has been fully vindicated and the anti war turds have eggs on their faces...

France and Germany should be made to crawl on their bellies and begg..."DONT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU"... :devil:

LOL :p

Actually I think that it isn't a matter of them begging us for anything.

Just let them do their thing without us, like they clearly seem to want to do.

There are many other nations who would like a little help and we should help those who want to be out allies when we really need them to stand by us.

I'm not even mad at the French or the Germans; I just think that our resources are better off being used to help our interests.

Those nations aren't going to fall apart without us, so why give them the love when they give none back :cool:

Now Poland should get the love. All those countries that France was threatening because they supported us should get the love.

And the love should come directly from the "USA's Franco-Deutch Love Account" :p :devil: :p

Carrot and Stick baby, Carrot and Stick. :cool: :cool: :cool:

mboyle
Apr 12th, 2003, 04:20 PM
Winner: US (but we were already winners anyways)
All countries that supported us (particularly UK and Spain)

Loser: Germany, Belgium, all other Peace Tard Nations

Biggest Loser of them all: FRANCE (but they have been loosers throughout history. Honestly the only war they ever won took 137 years and a schitzophrenic teenager)

Monique
Apr 13th, 2003, 12:41 AM
Biggest Loser of them all: FRANCE (but they have been loosers throughout history. Honestly the only war they ever won took 137 years and a schitzophrenic teenager)

I sincerely hope you're trying to be ironic, otherwise I'd be appalled at your lack of French history knowledge and tactless opinions...

The article is from the British publication The Times, and is tinted with provocative jabs at the French all over its subjective lines... God only knows how these countries domestic tabloids like to play this little European rivalry up, and every other bombastic headline has to be taken with the usual grain of amusement and nonsense reality...

The war might be over and Saddam's loyalist forces resistance only sporadic, but consequences of this operation will be felt in years to come...The first Gulf War was also officially over after a rapid and conclusive military victory by the part of the Allied Forces, but issues that should have been dealt with then, remained open more than 10 years later...

A list of winners & losers to be done now is maybe too simplistic to address all the tangential changes that may/will occur later on, and we don't know how History will see and analyse all the involving parties in the future, but I would like to add my own personal view with a few names :

Winners to include Rumsfeld, Bush, U.S. Military, Kuwait, Blair, America's Corporate World, Israel and Washington's Jewish lobby...

Losers to include Collin Powell, Syria, American regular taxpayers, all victims, POW's and their families, freedom of expression and North Korea...

Central
Apr 13th, 2003, 12:48 AM
I can't really believ anyone consider Spain as a winner country... Could you explain me why? What have we won?

It's so embarrassing that sucks

Sam L
Apr 13th, 2003, 12:51 AM
I can't believe that only one person has mentioned Israel as a winner. Am I the only one who thinks Israel is the BIGGEST winner here by far? And they lost nothing in the process. Iraq was a HUGE threat to Israel's security. Saddam Hussein is gone, the weapons gone. Israel's position is much improved. Note that now a lot of hate in the region is directed towards US/UK, there's actually less focus on Israel too.

Anyway, back to Australia. Hopefully this will mean better trade ties with US and other incentives. Something good has to come out of this for us. Geez.

disposablehero
Apr 13th, 2003, 12:56 AM
The biggest winner of all is Blair. He defied public opinion in his own country, then won many of them over, all the while looking the consummate statesman.

Bush did OK, but the military planning part was recognized as US responsibility, and this looting would not have been even half as severe if it had been planned for.

Poland did very well.

The big losers are France, Syria, and Russia. Add Saudi Arabia to that list if the Americans actually manage to pull off democracy in Iraq.

Individual losers include Saddam Hussein, Vlad Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Peter Arnett.

Italy it seems to me comes out of this rather well. I don't think their quiet support for the Americans hurt their relationship with Begefra that badly, but it certainly helped them with the US and Britain.

spyro
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:07 AM
If Iraq doesn't not have any oil, the US won't even waste its time bombing it!!!
:D :D :D :D

Agree Bee. In 1 year we will see so many American, British, Australia Oil Company will operate in Iraq, They will dig any Iraq Richness :sad:

There is no winner in a war :mad:

Rollo
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:07 AM
LOL@Mboyle-was that an original quote? If so you've got talent. The French managed to shoot themselves in the foot again IMO. There was nothing wrong with being anti-war or opposing the US or using the French veto, but Chirac pushed his course beyond what was necessary.
Unless the French believe that taking this course will spare them being targets of terrorism (and that's debatable) they've only hastened their irrelevence within and without Europe. If the US pulls the rug on the UN as it did the League of Nations you can bet France will never again sit on the Security Council. Within Europe Germany is better positioned now to lead.

Saudi Arabia may be the biggest loser. The House of Saud is in real danger and it's enemies will only be inflamed be having a Western power
occupying the next door neighbor's land.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:11 AM
From an American point of view - the Top 5 winners and losers up to know

(non-nations)
Winners
1-Embedded reporters
2-Donald Rumsfield
3-Iraqi citizens
4-FOX News (ugh)
5-Palestine, West Virginia

Losers
1-UN
2-Arab anti-warers
3-Al-Jazeera
4-Republican Guard that fought
5-CNN




Nations

Winners
1-USA-Despite the "dramatic" news events, USA is the big winner with the takeover of a nation that probably involved the least deaths ever in the history of a war (that involved combat)
2-Iraq-Finally they have freedom of speech. Congratulations!
3-Britain-A true best friend to Americans, Britain (in addition to Canada) are seen as America's 2 biggest allies
4-Kuwait-Not following the trend of anti-Americanism, Kuwait knew who saved them 12 years ago. We got their back, they got ours.
5-Israel-Without having to lift a finger, Sharon got rid of one of the biggest threat in the Arab world in regards to Israel.

Losers
1-France-by far and large....Always a long-time American friend, France is now identified as one of our top 3 enemies according to public opinion. Paired with :eek: Iraq and North Korea :eek:
2-China-Always viewed as suspicous by Americans, even moreso after the war
3-Syria-They're heeeere
4-Turkey-Lost a substantial amount of aid for not letting coalition forces use ground. Instead, got no money and Kurds still aren't bothering Turkey.
5-North Korea-Attention seeking Kim was ignored mostly during the past month.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:12 AM
Agree Bee. In 1 year we will see so many American, British, Australia Oil Company will operate in Iraq, They will dig any Iraq Richness :sad:

There is no winner in a war :mad:
Oooh.....like France was with Sadaam?

Fingon
Apr 13th, 2003, 02:14 AM
Winners: Any country with weapons of mass destruction, and the delivery systems necessary to reach the United States.

Losers: Any country with that doesn't.

The peoples of the former are relatively safe from invasion. The peoples of the latter are not.

well that depends on what you consider delivery systems.

it's by delivery system you mean ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles), submarine lunched ballistic or cruise missile, or bomber sophisticated enough to breah the american defenses and drop a bomb.

that really makes a short list: UK, Russia, China and maybe France.

if you consider they could send a group of terrorists with the bomb defused and somehow assemble it in the US, or more realistic, countries that have chemical or biological weapons and send a group of terrorists to drop them in the water system or spread them with an airplane or in a subway system or malls, then that includes a very large number of countries, including North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Pakistan, India, probably all eastern european countries, probably Spain, Italy, Israel, and virtually any country capable of developping chemical weapons which with the exception of extremely poor countries in Africa includes the whole world.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 13th, 2003, 02:14 AM
3-Britain-A true best friend to Americans, Britain (in addition to Canada) are seen as America's 2 biggest allies


So wtf did Canada do? Right now it looks like America's best allies are the UK, Australia and Poland.

Sheeesh, I had problems about my country being involved in this war, as I've said on numerous threads. But it also worries me if Americans are not even going to notice that it happened, which is the trend with some of these posts. :rolleyes:

spyro
Apr 13th, 2003, 04:00 AM
Now is the time for the US to find the Mass Destructive Weapon...Is it really exist ?

kiwifan
Apr 13th, 2003, 04:35 AM
So wtf did Canada do? Right now it looks like America's best allies are the UK, Australia and Poland.

Sheeesh, I had problems about my country being involved in this war, as I've said on numerous threads. But it also worries me if Americans are not even going to notice that it happened, which is the trend with some of these posts. :rolleyes: :cool:

Canadian Support = French Resistance during WW II?

Well the French were at least there surrendering to and having parties for both sides in WW II.

Canada didn't even supply any alcohol.

Canada always tries to play "Switzerland" on US foriegn policy and then claim some of the UK's credit when things go well (see for example: every war the Brits have won since Canada became Canada).

I wonder if we need to "liberate" Canada too?

PS. To the stupid article quoted above:

I guarantee you if we imposed martial law that dork would complain.

If we guarded the museum and ended up having to shoot a few looters that dork would have complained.

So screw him.

PPS. Its not an issue of Americans having respect for the alleged "cradle of civilization", its the Iraqi people that are disrespecting their own culture/history.

No one is making them act like hooligans, its their own free will.

I don't recall the Euros having much respect for the cultures they conquered when they were in charge. :rolleyes:

Critics will criticize regardless of the facts, its their job. :p

Our job was the get rid of Saddam. Mission accomplished.

Now lets get back to killing terrorists. :devil: :devil: :devil:

[Kiwifan places 3 Coke bottles on his fingers and start "clinking" them together]

"Syria, come out and play-ya." :devil:

"Syria, come out and play-ya." :mad:

"Syyyyyyyyyyrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrria, come out and Plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay- yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!" :fiery: :p :fiery:

"Burning Down The House" - Talking Heads

Hazy
Apr 13th, 2003, 08:34 AM
Winners : The US created a few 10.000 potential Osama bin Ladens and countless chances for new 9/11's for decades to come. Congrats guys!

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:28 PM
So wtf did Canada do? Right now it looks like America's best allies are the UK, Australia and Poland.

Sheeesh, I had problems about my country being involved in this war, as I've said on numerous threads. But it also worries me if Americans are not even going to notice that it happened, which is the trend with some of these posts. :rolleyes:
Wow.....you insulted me over something I did not even say. I said Canada was an ally of the USA. In fact, behind Britain, they are seen as our best ally.

I did not say they helped us fight in the war, I simply stated they are a good friend of the USA. Americans have always had a tremendous amount of respect for our nothern friends and despite their anti-war stance, USA and Canada have terrific diplomatic relations.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:32 PM
I agree.....the coalition forces were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Had we sufficient patrols over Baghdad, it would have been an "occupation" waah waah waah.

But we didn't, and it ended up being a rouge city.

Basically, no matter WHAT the coalition forces do, if you are against this war, you will ALWAYS find something to point out that's wrong and extrapolate it to the point that it will weaken the efforts (in some eyes) going on in Iraq.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 13th, 2003, 01:46 PM
How did I insult you? I asked a pointed question and expressed a concern. That's not an insult. I don't normally go around insulting people and I don't think I have done so this time. :confused:

kiwifan
Apr 13th, 2003, 02:36 PM
I agree.....the coalition forces were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Had we sufficient patrols over Baghdad, it would have been an "occupation" waah waah waah.

But we didn't, and it ended up being a rouge city.

Basically, no matter WHAT the coalition forces do, if you are against this war, you will ALWAYS find something to point out that's wrong and extrapolate it to the point that it will weaken the efforts (in some eyes) going on in Iraq. :worship: :worship: :worship:

When I said above that I don't hate France but it has rendered itself politically irrelevant in the eyes of the US. This is what I meant.

In the future France may have all the best ideas and solutions to the USA's problems (Yes, I doubt that too, guys) but all we will register is....

..."oh, France is bitching about something again, waah waah waah."

Just interested, with respect to the distinguished poster with Australian sympathies, is their anyone else who we may be missing among the "winners"?

PS. I will pause my permanent HAKA for a couple of seconds to shout, "Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oy Oy Oy!!!" for jouissant. [Kiwifan chugs a VB for the Aussie troops]

By the way, at work I usually followed the war on smh.com.au instead of the local stuff (our reporters "Monday Morning Quarterback" too much for me but if smh is bitching about something, I'll take note).

Cheers to all, even the sacastic frustrated posters above.

"Coward Of The County" - Kenny Rogers

*JR*
Apr 13th, 2003, 03:19 PM
"Sometimes you don't know what you don't know" (author unknown). The expected stiff resistance in Tikrit (from whence Saddam and his inner circle came) wasn't there. To what extent did Saddam's loyalists blend into the population, or disperse to other countries to fight another day? If Saddam DID have billion$ in shell companies around the world, that buys ALOT of protection, weapons (inc. even WMD), soldiers (inc. suicide bombers), you name it. As it's alleged that he was so tight with terrorists, do we know that even if he's dead, he didn't first give the secret account #'s to some of them to avenge him? Lastly, historical note: biggest winner of 1991 Gulf War? The consensus, besides "Q8, Inc." was (the envelope please): President George Bush! (Oh, yeah, that other one).

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 14th, 2003, 12:20 AM
So wtf did Canada do? Right now it looks like America's best allies are the UK, Australia and Poland.

Sheeesh, I had problems about my country being involved in this war, as I've said on numerous threads. But it also worries me if Americans are not even going to notice that it happened, which is the trend with some of these posts. :rolleyes:
I took it as an insult and you didn't mean it as one. Apologies, maybe I was just ultra-sensitive.

BUT, I understand your frustration (I'm assuming you are Australian). The reason why I did not put them in the winners list is because it was an American point of view (not necessarily mine, but just Americans in general). Your fears have validity because not many know that Australia was involved with the war.

In fact, I think only USA, England, and Australia sent troops.....am I right?

Car Key Boi
Apr 14th, 2003, 12:25 AM
Poland sent troops as well, but the Polish govt. kept it quiet from their public, or they didn't keep it quiet but told them they were only 'support troops' and not front line combat troops

so when the pics came out showing that they were Polish Special Forces and they were fighting side by side with our Special Forces, there was a lot of pissing & moaning in Poland because their govt. lied to them

HAHAHAHA

- Car Key Boi :)

Josh
Apr 14th, 2003, 12:32 AM
I can't believe that only one person has mentioned Israel as a winner. Am I the only one who thinks Israel is the BIGGEST winner here by far? And they lost nothing in the process. Iraq was a HUGE threat to Israel's security. Saddam Hussein is gone, the weapons gone. Israel's position is much improved. Note that now a lot of hate in the region is directed towards US/UK, there's actually less focus on Israel too.

Anyway, back to Australia. Hopefully this will mean better trade ties with US and other incentives. Something good has to come out of this for us. Geez.

It's no surprise that Sharon announced today that he was prepared to dismantle a few Jewish colonies in exchange for peace talks with the Palestinians.

BTW I believe the Czech Republic also sent troops to the Gulf.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 14th, 2003, 02:17 AM
I took it as an insult and you didn't mean it as one. Apologies, maybe I was just ultra-sensitive.

BUT, I understand your frustration (I'm assuming you are Australian). The reason why I did not put them in the winners list is because it was an American point of view (not necessarily mine, but just Americans in general). Your fears have validity because not many know that Australia was involved with the war.

In fact, I think only USA, England, and Australia sent troops.....am I right?

Well no hard feelings, and perhaps I worded my own post too harshly. Sorry to upset you. :angel:

The whole issue of the war is a difficult and sensitive one for me and I'm still not sure what Australia (yes, I am Australian) should have done once America acted. I still maintain that the war was in breach of the international obligations of the countries concerned and should not have been initiated when and how it was. That will be reinforced if we find no significant WMDs that were in Iraq's possession. But, with Saddam playing cat and mouse with the inspectors and France etc seemingly unwilling to ever agree to military enforcement of Iraqi disarmament, a war without UN backing was probably inevitable and a point probably would have come when I would have supported it. It's hard to be sure about something that didn't happen when so much else has happened.

I don't think I ever took seriously the option of Australia keeping out of the war once it started. At that point, the overwhelming need was for Saddam to be overthrown as quickly as possible.

In a way, I feel uncomfortable at the idea of Australia being a winner from this war. I don't take any moral high ground about it. But I am self-interested and patriotic enough to want it to benefit, given that it did go out on a limb, largely for the sake of the alliance with the US...something that Canada (perhaps rightly, I dunno :) ) did not do.

disposablehero
Apr 14th, 2003, 02:40 AM
Canada always tries to play "Switzerland" on US foriegn policy and then claim some of the UK's credit when things go well (see for example: every war the Brits have won since Canada became Canada).

I wonder if we need to "liberate" Canada too?


Canada has two World Wars full of saving Europe until the Americans felt like showing up to finish the job. We had a reputation as bad bad mothers that the Germans wanted no part of. The French can Canada for the fact that Paris wasn't occupied in the FIRST war. So don't give Canada any crap about our military history.

Unfortunately, our military history (other than chopper crashes) ended in 1993 when the current regime arrived. If you want to liberate Canada, go ahead. I'll ditch MY weapons and blend into the civilian population. Gladly.