Indeed. I am not always right. Often I am wrong.

For example, I may be wrong about Denmark's willingness to continue to contribute to the coalition.

The various party's in the folketing (Denmark's parliment) have discussed the continuation of Danish troops remaining in Iraq. An interparty meeting was held to debate the recent events in Iraq and the heightened danger to Danish personnel. The big fear is of a Danish soldier, or soldiers being taken hostage. The PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen dismissed any such fears as 'nothing new', but the central party noted that unless the troops were actually involved in rebuilding Iraq, then there was no point to them being there. The opposition (social democrats, socialists, and the central party) all called for a new report to be made by Army Command as to the dangers for the troops versus the benefits of their presence. It was noted that there is wide spread opposition to the coalition in the Danish and European people, though this in itself was not cited as reason enough to demand a withdrawal. The minority government (the liberal conservatives and the conservatices) as well as their non government ally, (the nationalists) agreed to have such a report drawn up and to await its findings before any decision was to be made.

The danger for the government is that it can only maintain the troops in Iraq for as long as there is a majority in the folketing for doing so, and since the government is a minority coalition, then the final decision rests with the Nationalists, who are notoriously conservative, but who have a scarcely veiled disregard (some say hatred) of Muslims. The fear is that the nationalists may vote against the government if they feel that Danish soldiers are too vulnerable. If one were blunt one could say they do not believe Denmarks young men and women should die to bring freedom to a largely indifferent Iraq*

There is however one other avenue for the government to continue its support of the coalition in Iraq, and that comes from the Central party. They say they would be willing to support any extended deployment of Danish troops, if Denmark does more to help the Iraqi's re-build their nation. The original understanding and reason given for Denmark's contribution to the coalition was as security for the re-building process and not to take part in any 'US led wars' (I paraphrase only slightly).

Anders Fog Rasmussen therefore has two options and neither are much to smile about. Either he can hope the military provides him with a sterling case that no Danes will be kidnapped or very few killed, (which Army Command probably won't do) or he can try to send more help and support to Iraq. (Which he already tried and which failed due to Iraqi corruption and intimidation, and the withdrawal from Iraq of the various aid organisations)

Either way is unlikely, and it looks like the Danish troops in Iraq may not be there for as long as Fogh Rasmussen had hoped.

editted to add:

Bucket

I'm afraid Iraq can indeed continue in this course of violence. One only has to look at Afghanistan and Somalia to see how long a state of war can continue.

edit ends


* Iraqi indifferent has been noted by the Danish service personnel in Iraq, where they have met with a general indifference on behalf of those Iraqis upon whose shoulders the reconstruction efforts are placed. Whilst many people in the streets appear to be positive and even friendly, getting anything at all done (even something as basic as joint patrols with the ING) has proven difficult even to the point of being ridiculously so. There is simply little enthusiasm in Iraq for the concept of a democracy. This has been widely reported by Denmark's service personnel on a weekly TV programme called Battalionen where by the Danish soldiers speak freely and openly about their experiences. Today's episode was a case in point. A joint Danish and Iraqi patrol had been organised but when the Danes turned up at the ING base, there was no one to meet them. Instead they went off and played football with some locals.

Moif



Well there is one. Mutual support is not necessarily mutually beneficial. (That isn't as facetious as it sounds, as it does pertain to my argument).



No, you said that



We seem to be in broad agreement that countries support the US in Iraq because they gain from doing so. However your argument is that the US is expressly rewarding countries for helping them in Iraq through favours of some sort or another I am arguing that countries are supporting in Iraq because they benefit - but that how they benefit can vary and it may well be that they feel they benefit from having a democratic Iraq or that they want to show America that they support what it does..or it may be about money....or it may be about morality.





To free people from tyranny strikes me as a good reason.
(And you can be as cynical as you like, but at the end of the day, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and now he's gone. Sure, the Bush administration spent a lot of time planning the war and not enough time planning the clean-up, but there was still a good moral reason for the Iraq war.)

I will accept that a good moral reason is not enough and that Iraq's position in the ME probably played a factor.

You can argue that France saw no benefit to itself in the Iraq war and objected to it. Or perhaps the French voters had a strong moral objection to war because a lot of people die. Morality plays a part in the decisions of elected governments - because most people have morals and will vote on them and act on them.



I disagree. Democratic nations are run by elected people, who are people. They have their own morals and they act on them. They make errors of judgement, they make mistakes. Some are better at doing their job than others. Many have views which you or I disagree with. But they are people, rather than the stereotypical manipulators of nations. Of course there are factors which may limit how far morality can go before it hits the walls of practicality, but that does not mean that the moral element is not there.



Political suicide...I said political suicide.  It is political suicide to send troops to another country where they might die, simply because the USA gave your country a large amount of money to do so. No one is going to vote for a politician who does that .....there has to be support amongst the population for sending the troops - but I guess we will see when elections happen..

Bucket said



And that is exactly what has happened. No one is suggesting that Iraq is going well and no doubt there is resentment that the rebuilding of Iraq was clearly unplanned. But there is still a huge amount of support for America and its place in the world regardless. Otherwise countries would not have sent troops in the first place. Admittedly there is less support for Bush - but that could change if Iraq improves (and Guantanamo is always going to be a huge issue).

But as far as Europe is concerned, the one place (comparbable in size, population etc) outside of Europe that really shares European values is America. And by that I mean the idea that governments should be elected democratically, that people should basically be free to do what they like (so long as other people are not hurt) and that war is best avoided. Yes, there are issues which European and Americans do not see eye-to-eye on, but these are really minor details when looking at the big picture. America and Europe will work together in the future because it is natural that they do so and it is in everyone's best interest.

Edited to add:

Britain attacks US Abuses in Iraq & Guantanamo Bay

Ptarmigan

Are we finished splitting hairs now?

...not quite.

I'm saying the nations of the coalition expect to get something in return for their support. I don't believe any single coalition member is in Iraq simply on the basis of a humanitarian desire to help Iraq become free.


It is about money, morality and support and all of these things combined. But at no point is it only a matter of charity.


Yes. Saddam Hussein has been removed and good riddance to him!

But, have we freed any one from tyranny yet? Iraq is a nation on the brink of civil war and the only law in the land is maintained by the coalition forces, which basically means, the USA. And for how long can the USA contain the pressure when it has already spent 60% of its war fighting capabilities? The US military, as powerful as it may be, is not capable of a sustained campaign without a constant flow of new troops. Like an engine, it needs fuel, and without a draft, then there is a very real time limit to how long the USA can continue to provide security for the Iraqi's.

Given the level of hostility and given the chances for international Islamic terrorists to now operate freely in Iraq (as opposed to prior to the invasion) can we really say we have freed these people from tyranny?

As for France: France had its own initiatives and deals with Saddam Hussein.

The French people can think and demonstrate about what ever they please, but the French government did not do a deal with Saddam Hussein because the French people felt anything about it. In fact the vast majority probably had no idea that such a deal even existed (and if I know the French at all, they probably still don't) France did not participate in the coalition for the simple reason that the coalition was and is destroying every thing the French had just spent the last decade setting up. Once again, there is nothing new or unusual about this. All nations do dirty deals with unscrupulous and down right nasty dictators. Just look at how close America and Saudi Arabia are, or how eager our democratically elected leaders were to forgive Khaddafi. As if Khaddafi was not a terrorist supporter and military dictator!!!

The only morality that really counts for politicians is to do what must be done for the good of the state.


And since when did 'people' mean anything at all? The Khmer rouge were 'people', the catholic church is 'people', medicines sans frontiers is 'people', the SS were all 'people'.

Are you trying to make out that because democratically elected governments are made up up of individuals that these individuals never do what they have to do for the good of the state? Have you never heard, for example of the internment of American citizens simply on the basis of their Japanese ethnicity, the mass deportation of the Palestinians on the basis of Israeli security or the remorseless dismantling of Britains coal industry by the Thatcher government? How about the fire bombing of Dresden? All of these actions and a good many others like them were performed by democratically elected indivduals, (or 'people' if you like) for the good of the nation.


I don't know how to respond to this without implying you are very naive, so please forgive me. I believe you are fundamentally mistaken.

You only have to look at the motives of the various eastern European nations since the break up of the Soviet Union. They are all clamouring to join NATO, the EU and to form lucrative alliances with the USA. Not one of these nations is remotely interested in a peaceful Iraq, except as a means to the end of strengthening their nation by establishing as many political and economic ties to America and the rest of Europe as possible.

It is not political suicide for eastern European nations to do a deal with the USA for these reasons, nor anything close. In fact it would be political suicide for these eastern European politicians to not do so!


I know this was not directed to me, but I feel compelled to ask you; Have you really not noted how America is becoming more aggressive in its foreign policy as Europe becomes more unified?

There is an old psychobabble phrase that goes, "For a person to be helped, first that person must be willing to be helped." That sums it up rather well.

Just as a few years ago when Saudi women and female students were not allowed to exit a burning school because they weren't dressed in conservative female Muslim garb, the insurgents in Iraq are not willing for their own people to be helped by the "infidels."

The expectation humanitarians have is to have the inhabitants of a country willing to receive the humanitarian assistance. Now maybe there will be a couple of people willing to go there under these dire circumstances, but do not expect them to go en masse.

Now, will you please tell me what humanitarian groups have decided to go in since Care International and Physicans Without Borders have pulled out?


Is it the fault of the American troops under General Tommy Franks that this mission is lasting longer than what they were promised? So why should they stay there--since their terms of enlistment are coming to an end. Why should they be subject to stop-loss and, in one case of a man who had been out of the Reserves for eight years, be reinstated or held over there indefinitely?

They stay in because they do what they are ordered to do. Some may want to stay because they really believe in the cause, too, but there are many who just want to go home to their spouses and children. And it's not fair that they have to stay there, either.

The politicians who start the wars should have much more firsthand experience of war--maybe they wouldn't be so willing to start them then.


Correction: this is Bush's war, not mine. I am an anti-war activist. Not in my name. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Iraqi people have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.


It matters/mattered that much to Bush and his cronies trying to answer to the criticism of the opposition in this country and internationally. Either their presence matters, or it doesn't.


That is my point. The mythical broad coalition of support is evaporating.


Show me one place in my posting where I belittled the Iraqis who are actually trying to become a sovereign nation again.


Iraq can stay on this course of violence until thousands more of their countrymen and our soldiers are dead. For them, the humanitarian aid will be too little, too late.

How do you know your feelings are right, for that matter? Do you feel disposed to leave your family and your peaceful country to deliberately go into danger on the chance that you'll find a few people who will accept your assistance and not turn you over to the terrorists?

But these were the questions for this topic:

Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

Ah I see..well, I disagree and think that countries have sent troops there because they believe it is the right thing to do. Possibly I have too much faith in humanity - but I would rather have that than too little.

But I maintain that in the case of a situation where a government has risked the lives of troops purely for economic benefit would be voted out at the next election - because people like to believe (however naive you may think they are) that their countrymen's lives are being spent for something 'good and worthwhile'.

It isn't splitting hairs - there is a profound difference in the two definitions which relates directly to what we are discussing. But I digress...



Why not? What makes you so suspicious of countries motives? People know right from wrong and more often than not they try to do what is right. Why should elected governments behave differently?
As I have said before - the opinions of Denmark are not necessarily those of Eastern Europe. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I am not automatically going to assume the worst of their motives.




So you think that a government cannot oppose a war because its voters might think war is a terrible thing? Perhaps I just have a higher opinion of the French voter than you do. After all, the French were rather accurate in their prediction that Iraq would be difficult to rebuild...to put it mildly. I do not accept this whole 'Chirac was in bed with Saddam' argument, simply because a government so opportunistic to be prepared to tolerate Saddam's style of rule would then have very little problem in dropping him and supporting the US once it became clear that the path to war was set.



Yes, that is hypocritical - but dealing with Khaddafi is by far the best way to improve the lives of the Libyans. Had Saddam been as co-operative (i.e. terrified) as Khaddafi, then war would have been avoided. There is a strong argument for taking the pragmatic route, dealing with Khaddafi and bringing Libya into the international community, despite the fact that he himself is vile. It is the lesser of two evils.


The aftermath was unplanned and the Bush administration clearly made a huge error of judgement in predicting the ease by which Iraq would be made democratic. A tragedy and all the worse for being easily avoidable. But removing Saddam Hussein was still a valid reason for the Iraq war.


People under certain conditions are capable of great evil, but IMO these are the exceptions. People generally don't do what the SS, Khmer Rouge etc did. By the same token I could argue that everyone is likely to be a murderer, because murderers exist. Murderers are the exception. And leave the Catholic church out of it. Every religion has had dodgy moments in its past - doesn't make the religion in itself 'bad'.



I can see you're not one for moral relativism.

Other than the Thatcher argument (which is mostly an economic issue) these were all actions taken by people under attack. Sure we may realise now that they were mistakes, but people panic. Again exceptions to the general rule.
And as for the Thatcher issue, those were protected industries....are we going to argue whether removal of government protection from industry is a heinous act of a cold, calculating and evil government? (And no, we're not, so don't try).




It was kinda directed at you actually (I'm not Tony Blair - ever desperate to please the Americans audience! )

No - America does what America does. I fail to see how Europe becoming more unified (although that process itself is debatable) really bothers it at all. Its not like an EU army is going to start dominating the globe any time soon, or that the EU economy is suddenly going to miraculously overthrow America and take the crown. Thats not what Europe is about.

I am sure there are plenty..Red Crescent I would imagine is functioning in Iraq. There are other saviors in the world other than westerners. The hospital the marines bombed before they went into Fallujah was all a humanitarian project from the KSA.
Have a look for yourself...
Relief Web: Iraq The Latest




We are not discussing the American troops deployments and the conditions/status of them. We are discussing foreign nations troop deployments. Why have you corrected me on the questions asked but then twisted my comments so you could present this? Confusing.


Exactly so why when one nation increases their presence or extends it it goes unnoticed?





First I don't know if Paladin was aware but Iraq has suffered for many years now void of humanitarian aid. Violence and death can and do come in varying forms.

I disagree with you both tho..being Iraq has the world's second largest proven (this is just proven!) oil reserves it can not remain on this course of violence. It will not be allowed off the leash much like Somalia or Afghanistan because the world as a whole has too much to lose.

Oh, Paladin is aware of the problems the Iraqis faced under Saddam Hussein's regime. But not all of it was due to what Saddam was doing. Some of it was due to the fact that the United States had a continuing embargo against them, which was hurting the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein.

I am sorry you feel I twisted what you were saying. I was responding to this:

In case I did not state it well enough in the original posting you responded to, I am not blaming any nation that is pulling out as the date approaches. I did not blame Spain for pulling out early--it's what Spain's people wanted.

I blame Bush. I blame Blair. It is the smoke and mirrors way they got us into this. Now it is possible that these leaders actually didn't know that the information they were going on was bogus, except that the CIA gave Bush the heads-up about it months before the invasion took place. Just like the PDB that Bush was supposed to have read in August of 2001 entitled, Bin Laden Plans to Attack United States. That was either not read or fell on deaf ears as well, as evidenced by September 11, 2001.

I do not think we are on opposite sides of this issue, bucket.

What I am saying is that although George Walker Bush is going to have another four years to impose his will on the world, the world does not necessarily have to snap to attention and do his bidding. To the contrary: there are many citable reasons for the nations not to.

(And incidentally, members of the Red Crescent have been victims of the violence in Iraq as well. But they are about the only group that stands a chance of being allowed to carry on humanitarian work, because the Red Crescent is Muslim.)

1. Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

France said it's ready to help Iraq, but it won't help by sending troops. This is not fresh news here. For others matters like Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism, nothing has changed and we're just as committed to helping the US as ever. it's just business as usual.

2. Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

A positive view of America from the world will come from positive actions. Hopefully, much can be done. Working together more and trusting each other would be a good start.

Yes true but it was actually the whole world that did this not just the US alone...they are not always so unwilling to go along with us.


Probably not..I think we just view a few things a little differently.