HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Blogfest 2005 - Nov 21, 2005 - Printable Version
- Coalition....What Coalition?
by Mark Faulk
The Big Lies. They've been documented since the beginning of the Iraqi War. The list seems to grow on a daily basis, as lie after lie is exposed to the American public. Iraq had ties to 9/11 (Big Lie). Saddam has chemical weapons (no....that would be us). Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa (didn't happen). And of course, the biggest lie of all, the lie that this entire tragic fiasco is based on: weapons of mass destruction (don't exist.....DON'T EXIST). Here are just a few of the Big Lies we've been force fed by the Bush Administration over the past 5 years:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” ~State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq.
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” ~State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq.
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq.
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." ~State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." ~Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. ~IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ~State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ~VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." ~IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." ~Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.
And on and on and on and on....and on and on.....
Things aren't all bad, though. Are they? Throughout the entire "War on Terror," we've at least been able to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that we're not in this alone, and that Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" is standing shoulder to shoulder with us against the Iraqi insurgents. For every American soldier laying their life on the line in Iraq, there's a British soldier fighting beside him, and to a lesser degree, a South Korean soldier, an Italian soldier, and yes...even a Mongolian soldier.
Just this past week, President Bush was praising South Korea for their commitment to "The Cause," for maintaining the third highest number of troops in Iraq (behind the two main "partners," the US and Britain). And today? While General Motors announced that they are closing nine of their plants and laying off 30,000 workers "back home", our president is in Mongolia (of all places), talking up the huge Mongolian contingency in Iraq. "Mongolia and the United States are standing together as brothers in the cause of freedom," Bush told Mongolian troops and lawmakers as he became the first US president ever to visit Mongolia.
Thank God for Mongolia....thank God for South Korea....thank God for the Coalition.
So, without peaking at the answer at the bottom of this article, how many troops do you believe that South Korea has in Iraq? I'll give you a hint, like one of those math word problems: the US has over 150,000 total troops on the ground, and South Korea has approximately 40% of the number of troops that Britain has.
So what do you think? Since Britain is arm in arm with the US in this conflict, they must have about the same number of troops as the US does risking their lives on the front lines in the "War on Terror," right? No? Okay, at least half as many troops, I mean, it's only fair that since Tony Blair has talked such a good game that he'd commit 80,000 troops to our 160,000. Isn't it? So, using our little word problem, that would give South Korea 32,000 troops on the ground.
Sorry, not even close. Our "ally" Great Britain? When it comes to walking the walk, they aren't that great at all. Total British troops fighting in Iraq?
8,500
That's right.....for every Brit putting their life on the line, there are 20 Americans in the trenches. Not exactly an equal partner. Never were.
South Korean troops?
3,300
And how about Mongolia, the country that Bush took time out from running our country to pay a personal visit to, how many of them are actually "standing together as brothers" with American troops?
160
One....hundred.....and.....sixty. Total.
And sadly, the US has also borne the brunt of casualties in Iraq as well. According to a CNN count, as of November 21, 2005, "there have been 2,291 coalition deaths, 2,093 Americans, one Australian, 97 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq."
That's one Coalition soldier lost for every ten Americans killed in combat, and our "equal partner," Britain, has lost only one soldier for every twenty American deaths. I'm not suggesting that the Coaltion forces should suffer higher casualties than they have, but the discrepancy between American and Coalition casualties is a disturbing one, to say the least.
After years of hearing the Big Lies, Americans, and even Congress, are finally seeing the truth about Iraq. And even Iraq has finally had enough, as a coalition of Iraqi leaders (um, that would be a real coalition, as opposed to our token military coalition) has reached a tentative agreement to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from their war-torn country no later than November of 2006. The truth is out: there was never a "Coalition of the Willing," in fact, there was never really a true coalition at all. The truth is out, and it can't be denied any longer. We are the occupiers of Iraq, not the imaginary Coalition of the Willing.
In this case, the truth doesn't just hurt, it kills.
THE NUMBERS GAME:
Top 10 countries with personnel committed to Iraq
US ... 160,000
Britain ... 8,500
South Korea ... 3,300
Italy ... 3,169*
Poland ... 1,500*
Ukraine ... 950*
Australia ... 570
Georgia ... 850
Japan ... 600
Romania ... 730
* Troops to be withdrawn
Source: www.globalsecurity.org
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).