An interesting group. I'm delighted that Eritrea are on board. 15 other countries are willing but want to remain anonymous.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Yeah yeah make fun of Eritrea if you want, but at least those countries want to fight for Freedom(©) and Peace(©) in the World ! They are in the axis of Good(©) !

Not like those Coward Weasels(©) that see only their own interests and don't want the world to be Realeased Of The Terrorism (©).

Without Eritrea, I don't think this would have been possible. :D

Anonymous Countries....how can that be...and why ?

What Masklinn said! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-19-2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

If the war goes quickly, we'll find out who they were. Heck, if the war goes well, alot more than 15 nations will come forward saying they were supporting the action. ;)

[ 03-19-2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Well let me see! 300,000 troops massing in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait but their not willing. And where is that steadfast friend Israel - you'd think they would be willing. Also there is no sign of the Pitcairn Islands, another glaring anomaly!

To be serious though - no Canada or Mexico, no Norway or Belgium.

Maybe it's a spelling error and should read unanimous... ;)

Strange indeed! :confused:

I think France is among the anonymous ones...

( [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
( :D )

You may be joking but you may well be right. France may have agreed to allow fly over rights.

Israel has been asked to keep a low profile. So they ARE one of the anonomous ones.

The reason they have been asked not to take part is because it would make it a lot more difficult for them after it is over. Sharon isn't thrilled, but he is playing along, for now.

If they are directly attacked, however, all bets are off.

IMO France acted consciencously throughout this whole ordeal (I respect anyone who has a reasonable dissenting opinion, communicates it intelligently, and sticks to it).

I think it would be totally consistant for France to support action if it turns out that Saddam starts using chemical weapons... but I think overflight rights for attack aircraft VERY unlikely unless this happens.

Chirac already said a week or two ago that he would allow over-flights by the US - "it's what allies do".

He also said special teams and equipment would be available if Saddam uses WoMD.

Masklinn, you may well be right. ;) :D

If Saddam can hit them, he will try. I hope this time, like last time, they can be convinced not to retaliate.

If you are talking about French Airspace, it has been already discussed on another thread : Chirac has clearly stated that the French Airspace will be open to US. "It goes without saying" he said, "USA are still our allies".

If you are talking about French Airspace, it has been already discussed on another thread : Chirac has clearly stated that the French Airspace will be open to US. "It goes without saying" he said, "USA are still our allies".</font>[/QUOTE]well... that's interesting. Didn't France block US overflight for the attack on Libya some years back? Perhaps my memory is faulty (quite possible), but it appears that this is a different policy from past French positions.

Well, all world know that Spain will help to USA to attack Irak, but, the spaniard don't like this attack, the most of spaniard (the 90%) dont like this attack, but Aznar (the first minister) say: Spain will help them to fight Sadam... and he didnt ask us.
This is the reason for we are in desagree with a War for oil.

Hey Masklinn, Spaniard are with La France

There is no war for oil, so there is no reason to disagree. :D

Yeah yeah, rub it in... ;) 89% of the people in our country is against a war in Iraq, and still the Government decides to do the exact opposite... Oh well. Maybe we should just change the definition of "democracy" in the dictionary one of these days. :D

There is no war for oil, so there is no reason to disagree. :D </font>[/QUOTE]Those that say this is a war for oil are naive, as are the people that say it isn't [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It's one of many reasons and to deny that oil is not a factor is to be disingenuous at best. One of the early analysis I read is that once the Iraqi oil is controlled it will give the administration leverage in 'reforming' the other oil-rich countries in the area without fear of an embargo.

edit:spelling

[ 03-19-2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Lest us forget, Bush's fortune is in oil. It is a subject he knows well.

You are right, it is in the equation.

I am just wondering if Saddam is going to light some more fields on fire. Man, that ticked me off the first time he did it! Talk about an enviornmental hazard!! Idiot.

Yeah yeah, rub it in... ;) 89% of the people in our country is against a war in Iraq, and still the Government decides to do the exact opposite... Oh well. Maybe we should just change the definition of "democracy" in the dictionary one of these days. :D </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> We dont live in a democracy, so we dont really need to change its definition. And isnt The Netherlands a Constiutional Monarchy? Maybe I am thinking of someone else. But it seems like I read somewhere thats what they are catagorized under. </font>

Canada is one countries that could belong to the 15 willing but want to remain anonymous.

Chrétien is a slimy creature with less backbone than a jellyfish. He's taking the stance against the war strictly because the polls tell him that's what most Canadians want. The truth is, we couldn't send any troops anyway, we've committed all that we've got already.

Meanwhile, the Canadian ships in the Persian gulf "will continue to provide support and escort to American and British warships bound for the war on Iraq". In other words, we'll do everything we are capable of to support the war on Iraq. Except come out and say so, because that might cost the Liberals some votes.

[ 03-19-2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have been clearer... I wasn't directly talking about the form of Government, more the concept of democracy itself ("everyone has a say"). Technically the Netherlands is indeed a Constitutional Monarchy. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I was referring to the part under 3 in my Longman Dictionary which I was referring to as some sort of "right" people mistakenly think they have over here:

Of course it's still the Government itself who has the final say, but people here just don't really understand why their representatives don't, well, represent them. ;) If we're talking about close call odds (49%-51% or 40%-60%, or heck, perhaps even 30%-70%), I can understand why the Government doesn't necessarily take the side of the majority, but with 89%? :(
But anyways... My initial post was phrased a bit shaky, so my excuses for the misunderstanding. I'll give it a rest now. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's bedtime for me now, anyways. ;)

[ 03-19-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Actually, I thought this was the one time that Chretien is actually showing a backbone. He declared that if the UN decided that war was the only option, he would support the action, but didn't want to defy the UN. A bit of a moot point, now.

The fact that Chretien still shows respect for the UN is in no way related to votes. I for one, am quite happy to see him take this stand, as I thought he would join with the US at the drop of a hat.

The interesting thing that some of you point out is how many countries are backing the US, however many countries are not backing the US. Just because their nations leader backs the actions of the Bush administration, doesn't mean the country as a whole does. I think you'll find (although I'm not positive, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that most citizens outside of the US, don't support their governments actions in conducting a pre-emptive strike.