Another Gutless Nation; Honduras to withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq ASAP

[tnitsuj]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CJWKGUOWYETG0CRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=4872302

 

[Perknose]

Damn gutless Honduras.

Meanwile, the last three paragraphs in the article:




"Nicaraguan troops came home earlier this year as part of a normal rotation but a new contingent has not been sent to Iraq because the government says it is short of cash.


Once the scene of bitter conflicts in the Cold War, Central American countries have been eager to build on close trade and immigration ties with the United States by cooperating in the occupation of Iraq.


Honduras, a small banana-exporting country, allowed pro-U.S. Nicaraguan "Contra" rebels to operate from its soil in the 1980s. It also sponsored a resolution at a U.N. human rights body last week that condemned Communist-run Cuba's rights record."

 

[conjur]

The troops were due home in July anyway.

Perhaps if Bush didn't ram us into Iraq like a bull in a china shop, he'd have had a true coalition instead of countries going along only with the promise of aid in return.


Just another inflammatory topic title from a Bush-God fanboy.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: conjur
The troops were due home in July anyway.

Perhaps if Bush didn't ram us into Iraq like a bull in a china shop, he'd have had a true coalition instead of countries going along only with the promise of aid in return.


Just another inflammatory topic title from a Bush-God fanboy.

What exactly do you mean by "Bush-God"? Are you insinuating that there is an "Imperial Cult" style worshipment of Godly Bush going on? If so sign me up!!!!!111

Zephyr

 

[Infohawk]

Countries that withdraw from Iraq are not being gutless. They are being courageous: they're saying no to George. It takes courage to say you will not fight. It's the primitive, animal instinct that seeks to fight first. It takes wisdom to understand that fighting is not the answer.

Anyway, the war is wrong. Those who were too slow to figure that out at first are now coming around. They understand this is an occupation and that they are unwelcome. The Iraqi people haven't done anything to deserve occupation. Hence, they're leaving. It makes sense. Too bad they didn't figure it out sooner.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Countries that withdraw from Iraq are not being gutless. They are being courageous: they're saying no to George. It takes courage to say you will not fight. It's the primitive, animal instinct that seeks to fight first. It takes wisdom to understand that fighting is not the answer. Anyway, the war is wrong. Those who were too slow to figure that out at first are now coming around. They understand this is an occupation and that they are unwelcome. The Iraqi people haven't done anything to deserve occupation. Hence, they're leaving. It makes sense. Too bad they didn't figure it out sooner.

No, no, no, they're gutless. Didn't you read the title?

 

[Infohawk]

I don't believe everything I read. I don't believe everything pin-wearing officials say either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh no, maybe the Coalition of the Bought and Paid for is falling aprt!

 

[smashp]

Lets Be honest. Besides Britain, The members of the Coalition of the Willing were in it for the Easy victory and To stay on the US's good side for their own advantage which is fine. Now that the Job is Becoming ever difficult, Many are questioning their current involvement and pulling out when possible to get out of the mess ASAP. When countries pull out now, It shows how little they were really dedicated to the job at hand and how they were just lending their support to the US.

 

[chess9]

Conjur:

I may be wrong, but I don't think Justin is Bush's tool. Perhaps he thinks every foreign troop is one less American boy in harm's way? If we're going to be there, yes, it would be great to have help.

But, I now believe it's time to bring the troops home because we aren't going to win, but simply get in deeper. Why should another U.S. soldier die for a hopeless cause and for people who don't want us there?

-Robert

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chess9
Conjur:



I may be wrong, but I don't think Justin is Bush's tool. Perhaps he thinks every foreign troop is one less American boy in harm's way? If we're going to be there, yes, it would be great to have help.



But, I now believe it's time to bring the troops home because we aren't going to win, but simply get in deeper. Why should another U.S. soldier die for a hopeless cause and for people who don't want us there?



-Robert

After the mess we made there we cannot just cut and run. We have to try to make Iraq stable, hopefull with the help of both NATO and the UN.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

After the mess we made there we cannot just cut and run. We have to try to make Iraq stable, hopefull with the help of both NATO and the UN.

Yea, the UN is great at making regions stable..like here . Once the shooting starts, the UN cuts and run (or is taken as shields)...show me one military action the UN has led and led with success...my memory clearly is failing me. What a joke.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn



After the mess we made there we cannot just cut and run. We have to try to make Iraq stable, hopefull with the help of both NATO and the UN.

Yea, the UN is great at making regions stable..like here . Once the shooting starts, the UN cuts and run (or is taken as shields)...show me one military action the UN has led and led with success...my memory clearly is failing me. What a joke.

Korea ring a bell?

As part of the UN we no doubtedly would still be the main Military force there (hell we should as we caused the mess) However there are a lot of things that the UN could do there that would relieve the finacial costs and also free up our soldiers. Having NATO in the Mix like they are in Afghanistan would also help a great deal. Us going it alone along with Britian and the Coalition of the Bought and Paid for is too much of a financial and and Human cost for both us and the Brits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: chess9
Conjur:



I may be wrong, but I don't think Justin is Bush's tool. Perhaps he thinks every foreign troop is one less American boy in harm's way? If we're going to be there, yes, it would be great to have help.



But, I now believe it's time to bring the troops home because we aren't going to win, but simply get in deeper. Why should another U.S. soldier die for a hopeless cause and for people who don't want us there?



-Robert

After the mess we made there we cannot just cut and run. We have to try to make Iraq stable, hopefull with the help of both NATO and the UN.

And other Arab countries.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As part of the UN we no doubtedly would still be the main Military force there (hell we should as we caused the mess) However there are a lot of things that the UN could do there that would relieve the finacial costs and also free up our soldiers. Having NATO in the Mix like they are in Afghanistan would also help a great deal. Us going it alone along with Britian and the Coalition of the Bought and Paid for is too much of a financial and and Human cost for both us and the Brits.

We aren't the main military force in Korea? Again, name a mission the UN has, without America playing the major role, led and led with success...Korea? Pallllleeeaaasssseee..strike two.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn



As part of the UN we no doubtedly would still be the main Military force there (hell we should as we caused the mess) However there are a lot of things that the UN could do there that would relieve the finacial costs and also free up our soldiers. Having NATO in the Mix like they are in Afghanistan would also help a great deal. Us going it alone along with Britian and the Coalition of the Bought and Paid for is too much of a financial and and Human cost for both us and the Brits.

We aren't the main military force in Korea? Again, name a mission the UN has, without America playing the major role, led and led with success...Korea? Pallllleeeaaasssseee..strike two.

considering the UN was our creation and we are the largest finacial Backer of it, It would be Hard pressed to find any UN action with out some US involvement.


Plus that also means that since we are such a Leading force in the UN, Any failure by the Un is partially a failure on part of the US.

 

[chess9]

Red and Conjur:

Well, if Bush can talk Kofi and the members into some meaningful involvement, then yes that makes sense. But what makes you think that is going to happen? We've spent in excess of $160 billion in Iraq so far and have lost over 700 of our finest men and women. The more I see, the more I think Kucinich was right 6 months ago.

Also, by announcing we are leaving Iraq, I think the U.N. would have to step in. That may be the best way to actually get them involved.

All of which is nonsense of course, because Bush isn't pulling out of Iraq and the U.N. isn't pulling into Iraq.

-Robert

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn



As part of the UN we no doubtedly would still be the main Military force there (hell we should as we caused the mess) However there are a lot of things that the UN could do there that would relieve the finacial costs and also free up our soldiers. Having NATO in the Mix like they are in Afghanistan would also help a great deal. Us going it alone along with Britian and the Coalition of the Bought and Paid for is too much of a financial and and Human cost for both us and the Brits.

We aren't the main military force in Korea? Again, name a mission the UN has, without America playing the major role, led and led with success...Korea? Pallllleeeaaasssseee..strike two.

Strike two? WTF, is this some sort of game? Are you Sean Hannity in Drag? Who said that the US never played a role in military actions taken by the UN? I know I didn't. I also never stated that they were to play a Major role in military actions in Iraq. There is a lot they can do to help, including training the Iraqi Police, taking care of humanitarian situations, rebuilding the infrastructure,etc.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: smashp


Plus that also means that since we are such a Leading force in the UN, Any failure by the Un is partially a failure on part of the US.

That's what I was waiting for...the US is to blame for the UN's failures...funny how that works...why don't these others 'important' countries step up to the plate and take on a larger role in, say, Africa...France? Germany? Russia? Anyone? Beuller? Sheep? Baaaaaaaah? Syria? Canada?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn


Strike two? WTF, is this some sort of game? Are you Sean Hannity in Drag? Who said that the US never played a role in military actions taken by the UN? I know I didn't. I also never stated that they were to play a Major role in military actions in Iraq. There is a lot they can do to help, including training the Iraqi Police, taking care of humanitarian situations, rebuilding the infrastructure,etc.

Please elaborate on your Korean hypothesis, retro red.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: smashp





Plus that also means that since we are such a Leading force in the UN, Any failure by the Un is partially a failure on part of the US.

That's what I was waiting for...the US is to blame for the UN's failures...funny how that works...why don't these others 'important' countries step up to the plate and take on a larger role in, say, Africa...France? Germany? Russia? Anyone? Beuller? Sheep? Baaaaaaaah? Syria? Canada?

So one person fell into your trap:roll: WTF does that have to do with getting help from the UN and NATO to help relieve the enormous burden that invading and occupying Iraq has been laid on us?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: smashp





Plus that also means that since we are such a Leading force in the UN, Any failure by the Un is partially a failure on part of the US.

That's what I was waiting for...the US is to blame for the UN's failures...funny how that works...why don't these others 'important' countries step up to the plate and take on a larger role in, say, Africa...France? Germany? Russia? Anyone? Beuller? Sheep? Baaaaaaaah? Syria? Canada?

Its not just The Us, Its all member Coutries that are Involved in the UN that Fail when the UN fails.

Tell me how When the UN fails at something, The US isnt involved in that failure.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: smashp

Tell me how When the UN fails at something, The US isnt involved in that failure.

*cough*oil-for-food*cough*

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: smashp



Tell me how When the UN fails at something, The US isnt involved in that failure.

*cough*oil-for-food*cough*

HA


That Was OUR botch too. And INEFECTIVE one at that. everyone knew the oil for Food program was a joke. that never stoped the US or Britain from Taking the Oil now did it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: smashp



Tell me how When the UN fails at something, The US isnt involved in that failure.

*cough*oil-for-food*cough*

"cough"avoiding my question"cough"