« zzzzz | Main | bomb porn »

Q & A

Q: How many countries does it take to make a unilateral invasion a multilateral one?

A: I don't know, but we are up to 45 and it's still being called a unilateral war.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Q & A:

» How many licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop? from Inoperable Terran
Michele wants to know how many allies you need before something isn't unilateral. We have 45 countries on board now. There were 47 Allies in World War 2...... [Read More]


The Allies in WWII had 47, I imagine that was "unilateral" as well. Oh yes, it must have been: Germany was on the other side, as was France for a while.

Well the French seem to think it only takes one country to be multilateral: France.

We could assemble the largest coalition ever seen and they would still turn their noses up to it.

Liberals count it as multilateral if France, Ted Kennedy, the NY Times and Tom Dashcle are for it. Other than that is unilateral.

Now Michele, you know that only three of those countries are providing much of anything other than flyover rights, and 15 of them won't even admit to being among the "willing".

The only country providing any real number of troops is Britain, and even they are a small group compared to the American forces.

Still, I hope that they are succesful in this war, regardless of who comes along for the ride, and get the fighting over with the least amount of casualties possible.

I didn't know that "right" equals "popular." Indeed, I think there's a lot of evidence that's not always the case. After all 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam Hussein ...

It would seem to me that the number of countries that support or oppose this war is somewhat meaningless unless you look closely at the motivations for those decisions. You do realize that most of these countries have sided with the US for purely economic reasons? The citizens of many of these countries oppose the conflict. But their leaders know that there is too much at stake to risk opposition. That is how political games are played. With peoples lives at stake, I just don't see this as being relevant.

It's quite relevant. It reveals that the anti-war types are lying fuckheads.

If they'll lie about the war being unilateral, what else are they lying about?

Maybe I'm just a rightwing knuckle-head, but I can't think of any reason for Denmark to join the fight other than they think it's the right thing to do.

The USA, UK and Australia provide the first-in forces because we're the only countries in the world who can. While we welcome small specialized units from other allies, most countries can't provide major forces until we clear a port and open an airfield. If, for instance, Portugal wanted to contribute an infantry brigade, we'd have to tote them to Iraq and integrate them with an established english speaking army. There's no time for that in the initial stages but we will see many countries help us occupy Iraq once it's conquered.

Don't kid yourselves. We are doing this unilaterally in the same way 4 Scuds that Saddam did not possess were not fired at us today.

And if they're just saying "We're behind you", that still is something. To me, it proves that Dasshole is wrong in GWB's attempts as being a pollitical failure.

Re: Australian contribution to the war: In terms of numbers of people, it's trifling. But considering that they're the only troops with specialised equipment and training for dealing with Sandstorms, it's actually quite significant. The Air contingent is trained to operate in exactly the current conditions from forward bases, when other aircraft can't. The naval contingent at last count shouldered about 20% of the burden of blockade. And the land contingent consists of SAS "behind the lines" recon troops, essentially uniformed spies and armed covert operatives.
It's the largest force we've deployed since Korea, in the 50's. And is approximately 20% of our total military strength, and 10% of our total military personnel. But more significantly, it's probably at least 30% of the total special forces capable of operating in Iraqi conditions.

Yeah -- the US, plus even just one other country, is NOT uni-fuckin-lateral. 'Kay?

As for Denmark: come on, you know they are doing it to corner the huge Havarti cheese and pickled herring market with us.

Other countries are with us for only economic reasons?

And France (the country making the world safe for chocolate) is not supporting Saddam for economic reasons?

Give me a fucking break.