Its Not Just The United States..........

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What have you to say about this, Eddie:
I think, perhaps, saying 'the coalition' instead of 'we' is more of an attempt to spread the responsibility around when that belongs squarely in OUR lap. We may be 'part of a team', but we started the team, we set the agenda of the game, we decided the rules, we structured the field, we paid for the uniforms, and we coach the game.

OK. the responsibility lies with all the "coalition" then. We all went went into this War blind, or on some false premise by our relevant Governments.

The US called the shots so to speak, but they couldn't have done that without the support from other nations. The US was not strong enough, hence the start of the coalition. If it was strong enough, then it wouldn't have needed the likes of the UK to intervene.

This goes back to the politics of the War. One in, all in.

Originally posted by vincere7
I remember, how's your boy getting along?

He doing just fine thanks. Iraq again ,or Afghanistan in November. S**t eh?

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
a whole unified force showing that we can kick some butt. Its blame is very hard to put on just one country because the eventual good will be spread with our partners and is not going to just one country either the U.S. or England. We are lucky to have the coilation members we do have at the moment. I guess the main message that I'm trying to get across is we all will, with the help of God, be able to get this situation corrected and return to some sembilance of normality in the Middle Eastern Region of our world. We should all be giving "high fives" instead of trying to point blame. If England had a 9/11 or something as such that drove us to war there would be many willing to go and stand beside the English as they have for us. God save both of our Great countries and help us get through it with the mim. of harm.

It scares me to hear people speaking terms of God and then say 'the Middle East Region our world.'

JMHO but it sounds so.....so........contrived by a belief system that whoever the powers are have control over others.

Count me out. I don't have the need to control. I would rather live in peace than in distrust and greed, corruption and killing.

Originally posted by garyo1954
Count me out. I don't have the need to control. I would rather live in peace than in distrust and greed, corruption and killing.

Good point. Wouldn't we all eh?

I bet the Brits are also saying 'we' as well as the ozzies...
(look at the brit above me, he said it.... )

It is the "Royal" we.....in reference to all and sundry that have got themselves into this pile of dog poo that is Iraq.

I think, to end this argument, that "We", when said by members, is referring to firstly their own country, but everyone acknoledges the contribution from every other member state in that as well and refers to them also when they say "We".

In short, "we" is all of us mugs who have been dragged into it!

We = The entire coalition regardless of creed, colour, religion or amount of troops posted to help the "cause".

Originally posted by Bikereddie
OK. the responsibility lies with all the "coalition" then. We all went went into this War blind, or on some false premise by our relevant Governments.

This is probably just my stubbornness and my dislike of the current administration, but I'm going to have to say the US is responsible. Other countries are not entirely innocent, but to me, it's like a college kid gathering up a bunch of 13 and 14 year-olds to go rob a store.

We (the US) have the influence, the money, the power and it was our idea. Others followed, yes, but they never would have done it without the US and I'm convinced that the US (BushCo) WOULD have gone even if everybody turned their backs.

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But I sure appreciate the discussion. It wasn't something I had really considered until now, so thanks. When I say 'we' I mean the US. That's default for me. If I mean the coalition, I'll say that.

I agree the UK played a major role in the invasion of Iraq and should not be underminded along with our allies.

But the US is mainly used on this board when they scream "bloody hell!" about Iraq.

The coalition is never mentioned; however, im trying to use the allies as a scapegoat.

I just think were all in this together, and to bicker on whos fault this all is, isn't going to get us anywhere.
Thats my take.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by evanfitz]

Never mind eddie, guess your son and the hundreds of honourable men and women like him fought and some died for what it seems is the US's war and it seems now that once the US is done with them, hey you can leave and get no credit on this board.

Oh and BTW, tell your son good luck from me, and hope ur well 2.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
We = The entire coalition regardless of creed, colour, religion or amount of troops posted to help the "cause".

Originally posted by devilwasp
Never mind eddie, guess your son and the hundreds of honourable men and women like him fought and some died for what it seems is the US's war and it seems now that once the US is done with them, hey you can leave and get no credit on this board.

I don't know if your post is directed at me or not, but just to clarify my opinion, when I say' the US' or 'we' in relation to starting the war, I'm talking about the government, BushCo, not the servicemen. This conversation (as far as my side of it) had nothing to do with the troops other than the government put the troops there.

If you're talking the about the troops who are fighting for their countries in foreign lands, then absolutely they get all the glory (if there's any glory to be had). I have the utmost respect for soldiers of any country.

Believe me, I don't want credit for this fiasco and I don't hold the troops responsible for the trainwreck it has become.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know if your post is directed at me or not, but just to clarify my opinion, when I say' the US' or 'we' in relation to starting the war, I'm talking about the government, BushCo, not the servicemen. This conversation (as far as my side of it) had nothing to do with the troops other than the government put the troops there.

If you're talking the about the troops who are fighting for their countries in foreign lands, then absolutely they get all the glory (if there's any glory to be had). I have the utmost respect for soldiers of any country.

Believe me, I don't want credit for this fiasco and I don't hold the troops responsible for the trainwreck it has become.

You said the US should take responsibility and that our forces are a token force, how can that be respecting them?
They played a major part in the liberation of iraq and are trying thier dammed hardest to help it.
So why should "we" be classified as just the US? The coalition frankly done the work, not the US alone, the coalition.
The US played a major role if not the most major role but that does not mean that the US alone holds responsibilty for the iraq war.

Originally posted by devilwasp
You said the US should take responsibility and that our forces are a token force, how can that be respecting them?

If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, I can only determine that it's because A) you don't want to and you're looking for some kind of patriotic drama OR B) you wich to connect non-support of the war with non-support of the troops.

I have said clearly that I was talking about the governments. I have also said clearly that I respect all troops and acknowledge them for any good that might come out of this mess in Iraq. If you want to think I dishonor the troops from your country, wherever that may be, because I pointed out the fact that the US has 10 times more troops there than anyone else, then have at it. Make that into whatever you want it to mean.

BikerEddie, I sincerely hope that you do understand my point and that I was in no way diminishing the efforts of any troops.

I declare that "WE" in reference to the Iraq war will always mean coalition of the willing/unwilling. I have made this proclomation before anyone else and it takes hold immediately. Even when you say "WE" to mean the U.S. , it will still mean the coalition just because I proclaimed it. Haha have at that!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
BikerEddie, I sincerely hope that you do understand my point and that I was in no way diminishing the efforts of any troops.

Your point was understood, and i take no offense from it. Like you said, its been a good discussion and it made you aware of the issue i initially started this thread with.

I wanted this discussion to happen. The thread has gone the way i hoped it would with differing opinions. Its been great to read.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
He doing just fine thanks. Iraq again ,or Afghanistan in November. S**t eh?

Buy the boy a drink for me and tell him a man on the other side of the world has his respect.

So what exactly is it your trying to say then bikerdie? Because there are other countries occupying Iraq that makes it okay for the U.S. to keep their troops there?

Originally posted by vincere7

Buy the boy a drink for me and tell him a man on the other side of the world has his respect.

Amen

/See Sig Line Below!

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Imperium Americana]

People say "United States" when talking about the Iraq war because we started it, we have over 15 times the amount of people there then the next closes country, and if we pulled out every other country would pull out. So I don't thinks it is unfair when people refer to the "United States" instead of the "coalition" when talking about the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, I can only determine that it's because A) you don't want to and you're looking for some kind of patriotic drama OR B) you wich to connect non-support of the war with non-support of the troops.

Your conclusion is flawed.
I frankly dont care if you support the war or not, I dont support it frankly but heh.

I have said clearly that I was talking about the governments. I have also said clearly that I respect all troops and acknowledge them for any good that might come out of this mess in Iraq. If you want to think I dishonor the troops from your country, wherever that may be, because I pointed out the fact that the US has 10 times more troops there than anyone else, then have at it. Make that into whatever you want it to mean.

If you respect them then why did you say that the US should take full responsibility for the action in iraq?
Because America has 10 times as many troops as anyone else?

Originally posted by devilwasp
If you respect them then why did you say that the US should take full responsibility for the action in iraq?
Because America has 10 times as many troops as anyone else?

I fail to see the correlation between the opinion that the US should take full responsibility for starting this war and the amount of respect that I have for all military troops. In my mind, there is no connection.

I don't understand what you're asking me. It sounds to me like you're saying, "If you love peanut butter, they why did you say you want a red car"?

I'll try one more time and that's it.

I believe the US government (BushCo) is responsible for starting this war. They 'recruited' as many allies around the world as they could, but it was they who led the fight, who set the agenda.

I believe that the US military is the main force in this war with 130,000 troops. I believe the US military are making the strategic planning, 'running' things under the direction of the US Commander in Chief. I believe there are other troops from other countries (known as the coalition of the willing) who, in their wish to help fight terrorism, are aiding and assisting the wishes of the US CinC.

I believe every single soldier who acts with honor deserves my respect. And he or she has it. I believe every honorable soldier shares in the glory (if there is any)

But the US government is responsible for starting this war and should be held accountable for the loss of life and the other negative consequenses, regardless of the other players.

These ideas do not conflict. They all exist in my brain in perfect harmony.

You may not believe me, you may not agree, but that's the way it is. I cannot be more clear. If you're still confused, BikerEddie understands, perhaps he can explain it to you.