Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (176475)	11/30/2005 10:33:06 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Theoretically its multilateral but when you consider that the US is supplying ~ 85% of the forces and all of the casualties, the words "token coalition" come to my mind. Hasn't that almost always beent the case? WWII? Primarily American and British, despite the fact that many other nations supported the Allies against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Korea? The French, Turks, Greeks, and of course, the British and US, were the primary forces. Desert Storm? Primarily the US and British, once again. The French, Syrians, and Egyptians didn't see much action, nor suffer many casualties. That's the price we pay for being the sole superpower in the world. We're the only nation with the means, as well as the will, to conduct military operations in support of upholding UNSC resolutions. Btw, currently watching Bush's speech at Annapolis while I'm here in the Cadiz, Spain area on vacation.. Kind of surreal.. But he's doing a GREAT job, FINALLY.. in getting the message out. Thats not THEIR problem.....its actually OUR problem! Hindsight again is a beautiful thing but don't you think that those nations' skepticism of our pre-war intelligence was somewhat justified?!? The Germans were shocked that we used this Curveball character's "intel" when they had already proven it false long before it was presented to the UN as evidence! Apparently their "shock and dismay" was not sufficient to cause the French or Russians to veto UNSC 1441 which declared Iraq in material breach. Haven't you forgotten that Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR basically got all the no bid contracts for the nation-building?? Of course not!! I've already stated that it's time to re-examine the contracting process so that competitive bids are includd in providing services for US forces in Iraq. At the very least, there needs to be major regulations and oversight placed upon how sub-contracts are being awarded to Iraqis and other non-US companies, given the lack of market incentive to keep costs down. But at the beginning of the war? Sole Source contracts to US companies already possessing established infrastructure in the region was the only policy that made sense at THAT time. Hawk