Or did it ever rise?


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/coalition1.jpg

The so called Bush’s coalition of the willing will fall some time this year and if it doesn’t (partly because we reelected Bush), it will turn into something more messy more ugly.

Aznar and the PP party have learned that an elected government (even with majority in parliament) can not simply ignore the opinion of the people against own personal agenda.

It is very irresponsible for head of governments to bully and open their big mouths on public media against terrorism simply because they have the largest own personal security around themselves paid by tax-payers. What about the population? Seating ducks!

Bush’s “you are either with me or against me” it is now registered on medical books as a crucial and important symptom of irreversible mental disorder.
;-)

The coalition or the REAL axis of evil are falling apart, EVIL never last forever.

The coalition or the REAL axis of evil are falling apart, EVIL never last forever.
Yep, look at sadam

If it falls it will be for the sole reason it is too soft.
Evil shmevil, even if it were evil, it would be irrelevent.
Your idea of evil can and does succeed on earth, often.
Being soft or too 'nice' to act does not.

I just can't believe people complain about bush like he's ruthless and bloodthirsty. Do you think any empire in history would be as tolerant as the us is right now and has been? No. Any other empire in history already would have relentlessly attacked the general area the disturbance was coming from with all the force they could muster.
Traditionally Empires fall when another is greater, this empire may be the first to fall in the name of political correctness and ethics.
How pathetic. In a way the coalition deserves to fall, but at the same time the islamic extremists have done nothing to deserve a rise, or even anything to deserve to be allowed to remain in existence.
I hope viruses win.

Yep, look at sadam

Or look at AZNAR of Spain...

How pathetic. In a way the coalition deserves to fall, but at the same time the islamic extremists have done nothing to deserve a rise, or even anything to deserve to be allowed to remain in existence.
I hope viruses win.

Every Empire will fall down, the days of the American empire are numbered, soon, RED CHINA will take over the command of this world.

As for the so called Islamic extremists, they are like the Germanic Barbaric tribes that brought down ROME, so take them very seriously, dont repeat the mistake of the roman empire, dont margenalize Muslims all over the world, listen to us before it is too late.

It will be interesting to see how this weekend's global demonstrations against the war impact the situation. If the marches are big enough -- and there are indications that in many countries they will be huge -- they could drive a wedge further into the so-called coalition of the willing. President Bush urged wavering members of the U.S. led-coalition Tuesday to keep their troops in Iraq, but his plea did not win over at least two nations that are considering joining Spain in plans to withdraw their forces this summer. a

As the White House downplayed suggestions that its coalition was beginning to fray, Bush lobbied the Dutch prime minister on the issue but won no commitment that 1,300 troops from the Netherlands would remain in Iraq beyond June. At the same time, Honduran officials said Tuesday that they would pull their 370 troops out of Iraq during the summer, and diplomats speculated that El Salvador and Guatemala might follow suit. (Full text here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bush17mar17,1,5552488.story)) Typical of the intimidation efforts now being undertaken by the corporate media pundits, the word "appeasement" is now being thrown about regarding the Spanish decision by the shills of the Bush administration. It is even broadly hinted by toadies like Robert Kagan and others that Spain is now pro-terrorism. What is not said on CNN and FOX is that Spain has said it is strongly supportive of a united front against terrorism. The problem was, is and remains Iraq, the unjustified war and the disaster of the occupation (and, for many Europeans, the United States’ continued pro-Likud stance).

Europeans are not against fighting terrorism. They have done it for decades and, unlike the "land of the free and the home of the brave", still protect and maintain civil liberties. They are against illegal and unjustified wars and occupations based on lies and deceptions.

:m: Peace.

"Europeans are not against fighting terrorism."

Correct

"They have done it for decades and,"

Yup.

"unlike the "land of the free and the home of the brave", still protect and maintain civil liberties. They are against illegal and unjustified wars and occupations based on lies and deceptions."

Weeelllll, sort of. It depends how much Blunket gets his way.

" Muslims all over the world, listen to us before it is too late."

I think that's exactely what these extremists say to their mind slaves,...


Lately there was a small documentary on tv: they let fathers of suïcide bombers speak and what they had to say about this matter was verry honest: and I quote:

"I'll never forgive those bastards who BRAINWASHED my son"
"They have a totally wrong perception of what religion means"
"He changed completely, went to private meetings and he looked down upon his own family and others"

Still think your 'extremists' should be listened to? --> then you are a murderer.

About the coalition now, not to get of topic to much here:

To Hell with that friggin coalition! Those neo-modern neo-Imperialistic pseudo-machiavelli's really think they can induce a martial law upon this world?
Then they themselves are no better than those blood-thirsty-terrorists!!

I think I someone once stated: All evil needs to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

Where is the power of the people? hè?! In the first amendement of America? No,...I'll tell you where it is:

It's in those friggin SECRET BASEMENTS OF THE SCULL AND BONES F*CKING WITH AMERICAN SOULS

There you have it,....damn I lost my temper,.......




Peace,...

The coalition will not fall because there are enough countries on the coalition that can't afford to sour their relation with the US, and haven't actually contributed anything to the war, to make Bush's claim that there is a coalition valid for as long as he needs. It may well come to the point where there are only US troops in Iraq, and the coalition consists solely of countries who's governments are saying "yeah sure invade whoever you want, we're behind you, as long as we don't have to do anything, just keep the aid flowing"

Poland Wobbles

The bombing in Madrid continues to reverberate, with a new equivocation from the Polish president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, citing the WMD stockpile intelligence fiasco. "But naturally I also feel undomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction." (url=http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2027402,00.html]Full text here[/url]) A considerable number of Americans - including many in the pro-war camp - believe this administration has not been forthright enough about the reasons for the intelligence failure.

Bush made too much of the WMDs before the war as a casus belli not to confront this issue directly when it emerged he was wrong. Instead, he acted defensively. He first denied there was a problem, then he dismissed the problem, then he justified his actions regardless, without taking full responsibility for the errors. In a word, it made him look insecure and weak. Yes, there was a risk in fessing up directly to an intelligence failure. But it turns out that the risk of simply ducking and spinning was greater.

The reason he has lost standing is because insecurity is not something people look for in a war leader. There were many times that Churchill had to tell Britons of mistakes or failures or difficulties. When confronted with errors of the kind that Bush's intelligence made in Iraq, a good war leader steps up to the plate. When asked about the lack of stockpiles of WMDs as opposed to evidence of possible WMD programs, such a leader doesn't irritatedly respond, "What's the difference?"

Part of the Aznar lesson is that people don't like being bamboozled. If Bush doesn't learn that soon, he may learn it the hard way in November.

:m: Peace.

1 - it remains to be seen if people were "bamboozled", as you put it

2 - the Polish pres also said that although the WMD's "were never there", he is still committed to help America, because now the task is reconstruction, not invasion

3 - the coalition got a little more shaky. will it fall? no. but i know that certain people on this board get really horny when they think of that possibility

4 - this turned into a peace-keeping operation, like, for example, in Kosovo. the difference is that the UN is not that strongly involved, but the US is trying to involve them.
they're scared shitless to come into iraq but that's another thing.
there have also been certain allegations (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp) about UN's credibility (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraqi.money/) which the Iraqis themselves are not that happy about

apparently, the UN has investigated itself, and so far, found nothing wrong

Err What coalition?
We talking 'bout GW and his hired help?
That enough for a coalition these days?
Without the US none of those countries could fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Can I join? My old hound and my skinny little cat can help out too!
Dee Cee

I think the possibility of the European coalition falling is very real possibility. Unlike in Eritrea, or Palau they don't depend on US acquiescence to do things. Since that weird thing called Democracy is at work in Europe, the democratic overthrow of these gov't should start to happen. For France and Germany this is a victory, it shows that they were right to stay out. Frankly Canada's fmr. PM said that they has "no regrets" for not joining the US in her imperialistic (PNAC) battle in Iraq. Of course there leaders who have ignored public opinion should pay (does anyone disagree?). That is the whole premise of a democracy so that a leader who does not follow the lead of his ppl should be overthrown (social contract). If we want to live in a world in which leaders do as they wish then I welcome you to your future (http://heninen.net/gerb/ussr.gif). Surely I think we have advanced past that stage. The war in Iraq without a UN resolution and international concerted effort will remain to be seen by the Iraqi's and the Muslim world as an American adventure to steal and pillage their country of her riches. I remember watching that massive attack in Baghdad and the Iraqi's where pushing back the Americans. They were angry at the Americans; this is indicative of the way Americans are seen in Iraq. Sure you might see the occasional feel good story of American soldiers giving children school supplies, so did the USSR in Kabul in the 80's. Its rather sad how many ppl could be bought into intellectual bankruptcy on simple to decipher propaganda. The US in Iraq is one of the most authoritarian in terms of press freedom 135 United States of America (in Iraq) 41,00
Compare that to the US press within the US itself: 31 United States of America (American territory) 6,00. It becomes very obvious that there is dis-information and that there is a great deal of difficulty in believing the US. If we can't here in the West can’t believe what is being said, what makes us think that the Iraqi's will? I don’t think we really know the extent to how the Iraqi’s feel about what is going on in their own country. This rather undemocratic disregard for these ppl’s opinions will be lashed out if Iraq does get a “free, and unobstructed” election.