Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"We have won, and now we have to start working to implement our program and unify the country," Romano Prodi told Italians after the official count confirmed from that country's national elections confirmed exit polls showing Prodi's center-left coalition had deposed the government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who had allied Italy with George W. Bush's foreign policies.
With his Olive Tree coalition of moderate Christian Democrats, liberals, Greens, Socialists, former Communists and Communists on track to gain solid control of the lower of the two houses of the Italian Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, and a narrow majority in the upper house, the Senate, Prodi says he is positioned to begin to implement an ambitious agenda. If all goes as planned, one of the new prime minister's first moves will be to pull Italy's contingent of 2,600 troops out of Iraq.
That will deprive the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" occupation force in Iraq of its fourth largest contingent.
The Italian withdrawal will be the latest blow to the administration spin that suggests the occupation is a multinational initiative. A score of countries have withdrawn their troops or are in the process of doing so. Many of the exits were hastened by elections that -- as in Italy this week -- saw voters chose political leaders and parties that promised to quit the coalition.
With Italy out, only three countries -- the U.S., Great Britain and South Korea -- will have more than 1,000 troops on the ground in Iraq.
The Italian exit is expected to come quickly.
Prodi's coalition promised during the campaign to implement an immediate withdrawal and, in nationally-televised debate last week he spelled out how it will work. "When we go to the government we'll decide for a speedy pullout of the troops, in secure conditions, talking with the Iraqi authorities," said Prodi, who explained that his priority would be to implement the exit strategy "as soon as possible."
Prodi could have a hard time implementing much of his program, as the close divide in the Senate and his own unwieldy coalition are likely to make governing difficult. But the process of getting Italian troops home will be eased by the fact that many member of Berlusconi's coalition also favor withdrawal. Indeed, in an attempt to diffuse the war issue during the recent campaign, Berlusconi, himself, had suggested that he would try to get Italian troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his supporters spent a great deal of time talking about a "coalition of the willing" that at one time included four dozen countries. The president's use of the term "coalition" was always something of a misnomer, as it suggested a great deal of shared responsibility, when in fact the overwhelming majority of troops on the ground were from the U.S. Aside from the U.S. and Great Britain, no country ever had more than 5,000 troops in Iraq, and many of the coalition "partners" never had more than 100 troops in the country. Additionally, some of the largest troops contingents came from countries in eastern and central Europe that had been coerced to join the coalition by the U.S., which promised support for their efforts to integrate into international economic and political organizations in return for the commitment of troops to Iraq.
The president makes few references to his "coalition of the willing" these days because the coalition has been crumbling. Among the countries that have exited the coalition are Singapore (in January 2004), Nicaragua (February 2004); Spain (April 2004); Dominican Republic (May 2004); Honduras (May 2004); Norway (June 2004), Philippines (July 2004); Thailand (August 2004); New Zealand (September 2004); Tonga (December 2004) Hungary (December 2004); Portugal (February 2005); Moldova (February 2005); Netherlands (June 2005), Ukraine (December 2005) and Bulgaria (January 2006). Compared with the U.S. casualty rate, the Italians have suffered relatively few losses in Iraq.
But those losses have been deeply felt, as they have been in other coalition countries. Twenty-seven Italian soldiers died in Iraq, according to a CNN count. That's out of a coalition death toll, as of April 10 of 2,560 -- 2,353 of them Americans, one Australian, 103 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, three Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians.
Prodi has always said that the Italian death toll was 27 too many.
Prodi, a former prime minister, reentered Italian politics two years ago -- after serving as president of the European Commission -- when he backed a campaign against Italian participation in the coalition that used the slogan: "Iraq: A Wrongful War." Now, as the prime minister once more, Prodi will be able to implement the promise of that campaign by withdrawing Italian troops from the coalition and by further confirming that the ongoing occupation of Iraq is George W. Bush's project -- as opposed to that of a genuine "coalition of the willing."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
This isn't surprising. I always regarded the "multinational coalition" label as bullshit. Unfortunately, most Americans that still support the war will not care that it's becoming more uninational. They are still blinded by falsities that got us into it in the first place. I just hope the U.S. can find a feasible way out of this war. Right now we're damned if we stay and damned if we leave.
Posted by k330k at 04/11/2006 @ 1:17pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/11/2006 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person What a very strange worldview you have . . .
Posted by LClaire at 04/11/2006 @ 1:48pm
Wait a minute.....
1. Insurgency as strong as ever.
2. Polls show support for war below 50%
3. Bush approvals below 40%
4. Repubs looking for SOME beginning of exit strategy by November.
But the ITALIANS leaving is the "straw that breaks the camel's back"?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 1:51pm
Wow, I didn't know Italy was dying.? How come they told LVLIBERTY and noone else?
Posted by k330k at 04/11/2006 @ 1:52pm
K330K
No doubt the information was GOP double-secrect declassified and then transmitted via WingNut walkie-talkies to the faithful.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 2:09pm
"I am being smeared because I have a new car and I have "blown" through "$250,000.00" dollars of Casey's insurance money."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/11/2006 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person
What's odd about that is.....she doesn't DENY it. Read the rest of the paragraph. She goes off onto Bush, but doesn't say "No, here's what I did with the money and UPFJ bought me the car".
I realize that Cindy is sacrosanct, not to be touched by mortal hands and only looked upon with bowed heads....but is it possible to perhaps question her apotheosis a bit?
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 2:22pm
To: letters@washpost.com ; oped@washpost.com Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:31 AM
"Sometimes we can predict the future if someone just wants to believe it."
IRAQ -the Votes, the Tally, the War:
"The Inevitable"
The Bush Administration keeps stating that "we" cannot leave Iraq: until the votes for democracy are complete; until Iraqis establish a democratic government, until Iraqi forces can protect their citizens, not until...
Well, not until we realize The Inevitable will the true Iraqi solution come forth. It's the obvious one, the one that Iraqis are in the midst of forming themselves through violence.
This "insurgency" is not going to end until the most important lines are finally drawn, --- the boundary lines, separating each "tribe" into their own ruling domains.
Mankind has always and will always fight to the end for their country, their territory, their religion, their everything....
That is a Truth of any country, any heritage. Call it nationalism, call it anything you want except an untruth.
Presently, lines already mark territories guarded by numerous militias that answer only to their own leaders.
Therefore --- The INEVITABLE --- divide Iraq into three countries: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. And most important, divide the wealth equally. Then and only then can true nation building take place. That should have been the goal from the beginning.
Iran will control the south no matter what. If Turkey invades the Kurdish "nation" then NATO is nothing more than a farce. Central Iran (Sunni) can then play out it's power over itself, as will the others.
If it's still not too late, perhaps it's worth diverting our efforts towards that solution.
But would the Bush Administration condone such a change in its policy, it would mean admitting a mistake --- and aren't they all infallible --- in their own words, in their own minds, it's always someone else's fault - (does "faulty intelligence" come to mind?)
"Stay the Course" has been their eternal mantra, a course mapped by lies.
Truth requires Courage, while Strength requires character, and Wisdom will ensure a lasting and true peace. Yet none of those qualities can be in effect until the curtain of lies is lifted. And that is where Courage still waits its turn.
Does the Administration have the Strength, Courage, and Wisdom to understand the future --- and not use the excuse of, "...nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined."
Republicans used that excuse in their past, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the insurgency in Iraq. It's become an idiot's answer to the very end of time.
If they only saw the Truth..... they could predict the future!
Posted by bohdan yuri at 04/11/2006 @ 2:42pm
But the ITALIANS leaving is the "straw that breaks the camel's back"?!?!??
Posted by MASK 04/11/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person
Read the fucking article and stop making things up - no, the Italians leaving is NOT the "straw that broke the camels back" (fyi, when you're referring to an article, and you use quotation marks, the words inside ARE SUPPOSED TO COME FROM THE ARTICLE), the Italians leaving "will deprive the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" occupation force in Iraq of its fourth largest contingent" (note how that comes FROM THE ARTICLE) and also the 2,600 troops that the Italians have in Iraq.
Posted by LClaire at 04/11/2006 @ 2:51pm
LVLIBIERTY now thinks that Italy is descending into decay and further into third world status.
In other words, if you don't agree with Bush and you don't want to be part of the "coalition of the willing" anymore LVLIBERTY is more than happy to smear you. Not only is this very Godlike behaiviour, but it was not his stated opinion 48 hours ago.
Since I am sure you (Love Laugherty) will deny having changed your opinion of a country's Macro economic direction on the basis of a democratic election, perhaps you better state for the record your opinion on all the countries still part of the "coalition of the willing" so that we can see if and how your attitude changes when (not if) they pull out.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/11/2006 @ 3:04pm
MASK, How do you feel about the way our fallen servicemen re-enter the country they died for?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/11/2006 @ 2:26pm
Frank - well stated.
Our honorable, fallen servicemen are brought back to their homeland like so much used-up equipment; not noticed and quickly sent to a final resting place.
The handling of a nation's deceased warriors is usually indicative of how much the public supports the war in which these warriors gave their all.
Hiding the return of our brave, deceased warriors invalidates Bush's Iraq War of Choice; otherwise these deceased warriors would receive public and appropriate reception on return to their homeland.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 3:16pm
ORA,
Aww c'mon. I support the troops, I bought a $1 magnetic ribbon to put on my car to prove it, but you can't make me see the death cost of war for myself and you certainly can't raise my taxes to pay for the war. I mean I support the troops and the war and all that stuff, but don't be in my face about it or nuffin dude!
Posted by freedomplease at 04/11/2006 @ 3:23pm
Scroll through this Newt thread:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/11/newt-gingrich-it-was-an_n_18895 .html?p=5#comments
Posted by plunger at 04/11/2006 @ 3:51pm
No doubt the information was GOP double-secrect declassified and then transmitted via WingNut walkie-talkies to the faithful.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/11/2006 @ 2:09pm
They don't need walkie talkies - the vibrations enter their heads magically, carried along by the ether
Posted by skeletonman at 04/11/2006 @ 5:02pm
Skel
Guess they clack their fillings together to change the channels...
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 5:05pm
Free & Lclaire
Of course Italy is descending into decay....now that "il loro presidente" is not a Bush suporter, that is surely the end of Italian civilization as we know it. Guess now Homeland Gestapo will start deporting Italians...too bad, I'll miss the food. Wait...I know, we can rename it something "patriotic" and American! Spaghetti will become "Texas Red Noodles" and Pizza will of course become "Freedom Pie!"
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 5:13pm
Skel
Guess they clack their fillings together to change the channels...
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/11/2006 @ 5:05pm
Are you sure? I thought that if they clacked their (false) teeth three times and said 'there's no place like home...there's no place like home...' they'd be taken to the heart of hamsterland (aka Kansas).
Posted by skeletonman at 04/11/2006 @ 5:28pm
Posted by LCLAIRE 04/11/2006 @ 2:51pm: Read the fucking article and stop making things up - no, the Italians leaving is NOT the "straw that broke the camels back" (fyi, when you're referring to an article, and you use quotation marks, the words inside ARE SUPPOSED TO COME FROM THE ARTICLE)
LCLAIRE, Mask uses quotation marks differently than most people. In Mask's world, quotation marks are used to indicate that the quoted phrase is something that Mask just made up.
Posted by orwell2005 at 04/11/2006 @ 5:31pm
This is off topic, but every time you tell a neo-con to get back to his trailer park, or make cracks about the south or about rednecks and cousin-fucking or Kansas or crackers or whatever, you're: 1) needlessly insulting a whole class of people who 2) would be probably be better off voting for the Dems but think that we're a bunch of elitist, hypocritical bastards which 3) you're proving is true.
Posted by LClaire at 04/11/2006 @ 6:07pm
Came across this today,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4897960.stm As stated in the article,this officer states he made his decision after researching,mid 2004. I hope this is only the first of many. regards all
Posted by nick164 at 04/11/2006 @ 6:08pm
The initial Coalition of the Willing:
Us, UK, Australia, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Iceland, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Fiji, Romania, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Portugal, New Zealand, Philippines, Norway.
So it appears that Italy would have defined itself as a Third World country when its Prime Minister decided to toss his military into this coalition. Retrieving its military from this top-notch operation seems a step on the road to Italy's return to First World status.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/11/2006 @ 6:43pm
If Italy is no longer in the First World, who's left? I say that any country who understands the value of a leisurely dinner filled with good fresh food and the locally made wines, if not in the official First World, certainly ranks in the Top Ten in my world.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/11/2006 @ 6:46pm
Uh once again LIBZ rewriting history...The stupid bitch ran a checkpoint...There were warning shots fired then the engine was fired upon to stop the car...Just like your beloved Cynthia Mckinney...if you run a checkpoint you will be stopped...Even if your a LIB moron or an Italian communist party reporter
Posted by libzsuk at 04/11/2006 @ 9:50pm
Uh once again LIBZ rewriting history...The stupid bitch ran a checkpoint...There were warning shots fired then the engine was fired upon to stop the car...Just like your beloved Cynthia Mckinney...if you run a checkpoint you will be stopped...Even if your a LIB moron or an Italian communist party reporter
Posted by LIBZSUK 04/11/2006 @ 9:50pm
And if you shoot an important and wealthy Texan in the face and don't contact the authorities immediately, you are a) arrested, b) suspended from your government job (what are his duties again?, and c) probably executed (this is Texas after all).
Fight your little fight all you want to, little man. You and your mindless minions have lost the war. You may feel free to join the American side at any time--lord knows who you've been fighting for, but you've surely been fighting against America. We are moving on with or without the Bushies.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/11/2006 @ 10:57pm
Libsucker, The drunken idiot, just rolled out of his filthy bed, scratching his ass, groping for the bottle of Thunderbird. Need I say more?
Ah Spring!,, Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 04/11/2006 @ 11:35pm
wait!
you guys don't understand
Ol Gee Dubya decoalitioned the list
so it's OK
Posted by Will C. at 04/12/2006 @ 12:48am
.
What do we have here? An Italian election producing a left coalition so unstable that new elections will be a must within a year.
Out of that Nichols, like a bird swooping on the droppings of a cow, finds a fly larva to relish. The Italians will be withdrawing their regiment from Iraq. A tasty thought for his belly. At least the Italian elections are good for something.
Exposed here again is this ideologue's hatred. It is such that any event that helps the insurgency and debilitates the US effort in Iraq makes Nichols happy.
But has he asked himself, how will it all end? Isn't it likely that it will end in one of two ways? The US attempt to create an Arab govt that is not a police state either succeeds or fails. In the latter case fanatics will give the Iraqi people a sad and pitiful future. Those who supported the insurgency will have much to be ashamed of, either way.
But not to worry. Nichols will fix that easily. He will completely disown and deny any sympathy for the insurgency. He never opposed the effort to give Iraq a healthy govt. He never sought the victory of those fighting the Coalition. Nichols and his friends were just opposed to US excesses, but of course their steadfast hope was for the triumph of a decent Iraqi govt.
The scoundrels.
Posted by nacl at 04/12/2006 @ 03:57am
Iran is flanked on both sides by US forces and we're supposed to believe that the first act of the Newly (installed) President is to call for the destruction of Israel while throwing in his denial of the Holocaust for good measure...and throwing out the nuclear inspectors? I mean really, this is ridiculous on its face, right?
And now, in order to dial it up a notch, he proclaims that they are successfully enriching uranium...appearing to stick his finger in the eye of the giant and daring him to attack. A warmonger's wet dream!
The planning to attack Iran was done during the planning to invade Iraq. Larry Franklin (convicted for passing secret information on Iran to Israel) ran the Iran desk inside the Office Of Special Plans.
What was to be the PRETEXT for this plan? What was the excuse they would require to implement their plan? How about the election of a new leader who threatens the world with nuclear development? Who helped him get elected?
Who put the Shah in power? Who put Noriega in Power? Who put Saddam in power?
Do you REALLY believe this guy's not working for us and Israel? Why would you?
THINK
Posted by plunger at 04/12/2006 @ 08:36am
.
If anyone has a fitting handle it's PLUNGER.
But he hasn't plunged far enough. There is the news that just on the day when Iran scored its uranium enrichment breakthrough the Mafia's Boss of Bosses, Bernardo Provenzano, who had been hunted for years, was suddenly collared. Now isn't that a coincidence.
Obviously, the US and the Jews are enlisting the Mafia into their plot to throttle Iran. Before long Sicilians will be slicing people up all across Tehran. Keep an eye out for a rapid depletion of Iran's race horses.
.
Posted by nacl at 04/12/2006 @ 09:26am
The Bush Administration and its supporters are unable to accept that democracy really does mean letting the majority of the people, within the rules of law, direct its government. The Italian people never wanted to take part in the Iraq invasion and occupation. Yet their "leader" took them there. Now the bum has been rightly thrown out of office. Bush supporters must ask themselves if they really believe in Democracy, or they do only on the condition that the people elect governments that ally themselves with Bush. The whole world sees the hypocrisy of the Bush party, and the damage this is and will do to ordinary our government doesn't stop bankrupting itself both morally and financially. The People of the US need to assert themselves and "throw the bums" out just as the Italians did. Unfortunately, most of the current crop of Democrats also support the basic (harmful and expensive) policies of military intervention abroad. The US needs more than just a change from Republicans to Democrats - it needs to clean house.
Posted by mzoshchenko at 04/12/2006 @ 09:43am
But not to worry. Nichols will fix that easily. He will completely disown and deny any sympathy for the insurgency. He never opposed the effort to give Iraq a healthy govt. He never sought the victory of those fighting the Coalition. Nichols and his friends were just opposed to US excesses, but of course their steadfast hope was for the triumph of a decent Iraqi govt.
Of course you have no proof of that except your own bile. The idea that anyone outside of, perhaps, ANSWER is pro-insurgency is rubbish. The idea that the US could establish a working government was blundered away by the US during the days of Garner and Bremer. It was blundered away when Rumsfeld went in with insufficient troops (not even allowing time for the 4th Division to redeploy after Turkey bowed out), when allowed looting except for the Oil Ministry building, when Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army instead of doing a selective de-Baathification, when the various arms depots weren't protected. You ideologues on the right have no one to blame for the probable failure of Bush's policy except yourselves.
The point of noting Italy's withdrawal is that is further removes the fig-leaf of the "coalition of the willing", one that was donned in the first place to hide Bush's unilaterism.
Posted by brunowe at 04/12/2006 @ 10:29am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/11/2006 @ 11:16pm
Damn, RB. I find myself in the surprising position of being with agreement one of your posts, specifically with your general take on Europe. Good post. FYI, you may want to check out The Economist's piece on the election at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GRDNSSG. As it points out, Berlusconi didn't do much reforming either.
Posted by brunowe at 04/12/2006 @ 10:34am
First of all there was no coalition...
The US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq was a virtually unilateral decision by the US Congressional and Executive Branch Republicans, who dragged, kicking and screaming, a few sucker DEMS, and a few sucker world leaders (who caved from political extortion by the administration).
A coalition can only crumble if there was, indeed, a coalition.
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/12/2006 @ 10:36am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/11/2006 @ 11:16pm
Excellent post. Is does indeed look like Italy will become the country it was before Berlusconi's government brought some sort of stability (in that it actually completed its full term; no small feat for an Italian government). In the words of P.J. O'Rourke: "Italy isn't part of the Third World, technically, but no-one has told the Italians."
Despite the fact that Italy is one of the six founder-members of the European Community, it has never been a part of civilised society and never will be. It's a banana republic, where corruption is an important part of national culture and the ability to scheme, scam and bribe is considered a virtue. Countries like Italy are the reason the European Union is certain to collapse.
The 'coalition of the willing' has, of course, collapsed a long time ago. If there ever was such a thing, that is. The only European country in which the government's decision to go to war with the US was backed by the population, was Poland. Of course, the Poles aren't as gung-ho anymore - they feel cheated.
Italy's imminent withdrawal of troops from Iraq doesn't really matter. It will make an uncontrollable mess a tiny bit more uncontrollable - that's all.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/12/2006 @ 12:27pm
.
Granted, Plunger is a mean bigot and hopelessly paranoid. Still, I didn't realize you were an archbishop with the power to doom and cast out. Of course I know that you consider yourself the leader of these fora. Moreover, there wouldn't be much harm in ignoring a creature like PLUNGER to please you. But it is your mental health that I am considering. Believe me, it won't do you any good to see your edicts obeyed.
And please, take off that mitre, and be careful you don't sit on it!
.
Posted by nacl at 04/12/2006 @ 4:16pm
brunowe and amsterdam, i don't think rio wrote any of that except the first sentence where he mentions an editorial. i think the rest of his post is a cut and paste of the editorial he mentions.
Posted by loveloki at 04/12/2006 @ 5:23pm
frankgrits, thanks for posting cindy's words. it's funny, not humorous funny, that i never see any justification for the "lack-of-crediblility" light she is often cast in. i've heard her speak a few times and i've read her words. i find no justification.
and if she didn't steal the $250,000, then whose business is it what she did with it? why should she publicly explain where the money is? and i believe she pointed out that the media is not allowed to look at her bank accounts--that's all the refutation she needed to give. the rest of her words were far more important than the talk of money.
anyone who loves a child knows the value of that child compared to $250,000.
Posted by loveloki at 04/12/2006 @ 5:31pm
.
There is truth in that. It has been a largely US/UK effort, with the US much the bigger partner. But that is how it was throughout the Cold War too, and in WWII as well, certainly in the West.
Sure, when FDR spoke of United Nations forces landing in Hitler's Europe on D-Day, he was being misleading. He pretended everybody from Iceland to Brazil and the Isles of Langerhans were our solid allies. In fact, on June 6 and for a long time afterward, it was just the North Americans and Britons. We were acting unilaterally. The vast majority of Europeans had made their peace with Hitler and did not want their continent battered and bloodied a day longer. Two thirds either supported the Nazis outright, or did not prefer a US/UK victory.
And again, during the Cold War. If left on its own Europe would have buckled to Stalin and his heirs. Slogans like, "Yankee go Home" and "Better Red than Dead" were the dominant sentiments for decades. US propaganda, CIA manipulations, and lots of money held an anti-Soviet alliance together that was mainly the US/UK.
In short, what we have in Iraq is what we have had in all of living memory. If there is a difference it is that today's media is technically more capable and thus more influential. Had it existed seventy years ago Hitler would have won.
No proof that Nichols and the whole Nation crowd hopes for a US defeat in Iraq? No proof that you fellows fought Saddam's ejection and sided with him in the long saga that led up to the invasion?
That is not a question of bile but chutzpah. Is that expression in used where you live, Bruno?
.
Posted by nacl at 04/12/2006 @ 5:35pm
MBB
Actually you are quoting the Total Fertility Rates (not crude birth rates) and while the US is ~2.1 (2.08 actually....per Nationamster.com) the highest is Somalia (only marginally above Niger) and the lowest....Hong Kong at 0.91. However, a better measure might be population growth rates....(takes into account births, infant mortaility, deaths, immigration, emmigration) and is expressed as %change. Highest: (oddly) Afghanistan at 4.77%, the lowest Bulgaria at -0.89%. In contrast Italy is at 0.07% and the US is at 0.92% (both increasing, but one moreso than the other). One might consider that closeness to ZPG (zero ppl growth) to be the desirable state.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/12/2006 @ 6:44pm
Am actually teaching popualtion growth in my Env Sci class this week...
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/12/2006 @ 6:45pm
another dying European nation just descends further into decay and 3rd world status.
Except for the Europe part, it sounds like you're describing the US
Posted by pizzmoe at 04/12/2006 @ 7:00pm
That is not a question of bile but chutzpah. Is that expression in used where you live, Bruno?
Yes it is.
No proof that Nichols and the whole Nation crowd hopes for a US defeat in Iraq? No proof that you fellows fought Saddam's ejection and sided with him in the long saga that led up to the invasion?
No, what Nichols and the whole Nation crowd hoped for was that this bonehead play of invading Iraq wouldn't be done in the first place. We knew that the war was unjustified and were rightly sceptical when Wolfowitz said that he couldn't imagine that we'd need more troops in the occupation then we did in the invasion. I can't speak for Nichols but I argue that Bush & Co. have made such a mess of the occupation that our further presence their will excerbate the situation. That's not hoping for US defeat, that's hoping to keep a deep hole from being dug deeper.
The vast majority of Europeans had made their peace with Hitler and did not want their continent battered and bloodied a day longer. Two thirds either supported the Nazis outright, or did not prefer a US/UK victory.
Your history is way off. First, the Russians had a lot to do with defeating Hitler (for their own entirely selfish reasons). Second, where do you get this two-thirds number? I would also point out that Europe was occupied so you can't really say they gave up. That statement would also come as a surprise to the French resistance, the partisans in Yugoslavia, the Danes who smuggled Jews out of their country to safety, the Polish and Free French forces that fought in Italy and France, etc.
Slogans like, "Yankee go Home" and "Better Red than Dead" were the dominant sentiments for decades.
Certainly not among the Germans who elected Kohl when the main issue was the Pershing missiles.
The bottom line is that we didn't need a fig leaf in WWII or the Cold War because there was no reason to lie about why we were fighting. Rather different in this case. That's also why your "Had it existed seventy years ago Hitler would have won" is nonsense. There was no lie about why we were in WWII.
Posted by brunowe at 04/12/2006 @ 9:29pm
.
Really?
Are you really unaware that 2/3 of the posters here believe that FDR tricked the Japanese into sinking the Pacific Fleet to force an unwilling America into the war? You've never heard of the America First isolationist movement of the 1930s?
Had today's electronic media existed and operated as it does now, back then, showing the Polish defeat on nightly TV in vivid color, the shattering of Warsaw, showing von Rundstedt's armored divisions reaching the channel and effectively licking France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark within two weeks, showing the evacuation at Dunkirk, the destruction of Rotterdam, etc., how interested would the US public have been in mixing it up with the Nazis? Would public opinion have even allowed FDR to support Britain with Lend Lease? The Left, at the time, opposed it. The line laid down by Moscow was that the capitalist English were imperialists and worse than the Nazis.
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade paper was saying:
At this time trainloads of Soviet iron ore and oil was being delivered daily to Germany, even as the Luftwaffe hammered London.
Would an unsupported Britain have been able to duke it out with Adolf, or would Halifax, Chamberlain and most of the Commons have demanded Churchill accept Hitler's peace deal: Britain retains her freedom of action in her empire, Germany her freedom of action on the Continent?
Imagine the US public seeing on the nightly TV news the thousands of casualties suffered at the hands of the French, as GIs landed in North Africa. Suppose they had seen Rommel's Afrika Korps in three days kill or take prisoner 10,700 GIs at Kassarine pass, and destroy 300 US tanks. Think of the bloody Anzio landings, or Omaha beach on TV. And all that was nothing to the bloodletting at Tarawa, Ivo Jimo, Okinawa, etc.
Don't you realize that our media was tightly controlled throughout that war. Every week the papers reported the same story about two cargo ships lost at sea. "In reality, the average for 1942 was 33 Allied ships sunk each week."
But not only radio and newspapers supported the war effort, there wasn't a comic strip, not a Hollywood movie, not a song from Tin Pan Alley that did not pitch in.
We did not need a fig leaf? We needed an enormous propaganda effort to gear Americans up for that fight, and it worked 24hours a day to retain public support. Today's media would have closed WWII down by September 1940. Hitler would have been left unopposed in the West. There would have been no bombers flattening Third Reich factories and cities, no convoys with food, trucks, planes and munitions to Archangel, no German fuel problems, nor a Rommel and his tank army off in Africa. Germany would have had its full industrial and military strength available to throw against Russia.
.
Posted by nacl at 04/13/2006 @ 05:10am
.
I have had this argument too often, I'm tired of it. Six hundred thousand Europeans volunteered for the Waffen SS. More Belgians, Dutchmen and Danes, yes Danes, died fighting for Hitler than in defense of their own country against the Wehrmacht. The last defenders of Hitler's Berlin bunker was a French Waffen SS battalion from the Charlemagne Division. There was not a single French uniform on Normandy on D-Day. Le Clerc only landed his 2nd Armored division in early August. He needed to recruit and train Spaniards in Algeria and Christian Lebanese to whiten his forces for the liberation of Paris. Virtual all of De Gaulle's Free French troops were colonial infantry from French Equatorial Africa. Of the 125,000 Pilou evacuated at Dunkirk almost none consented to remain in London and help Britain fight on, after the Franco/German Armistice. The Resistance was a tiny affair until the Normandy invasion showed the writing on the wall; also, the Germans then began drafting Frenchmen for German armament factories. Many Frenchmen preferred the hills and the Maquis. I don't want to deny that there were brave French resisters, but they were far fewer than we now assume. Even the French text books admit that one third of the French supported the Resistance, one third supported Vichy and one third didn't care. There you have two thirds either for the fascist or indifferent to the Allies.
The Serbs were the only occupied people who never came to terms with the Nazis. They died in huge numbers, but managed in the end to eject the Germans and Austrians on their own. It is also true that a large Polish contingent fought with great bravery alongside the British, especially in Italy and at Arnhem. And intrepid Czech pilots distinguished themselves in the RAF. But on balance Europe had made its peace with Hitler until the US/UK disrupted it.
.
Posted by nacl at 04/13/2006 @ 05:17am
.
You and your friends knew Saddam tore out the tongues of his critics, you knew he had buried hundreds of thousands in mass graves, according to HRW and the UN, and had illegal unconventional weapons according to the best intelligence estimates.
You nevertheless were furious at the prospect of his ejection. Such an injustice, it took your breath away! You marched in the streets by the millions. You protested and agitated against his eviction. Don't deny it. I am talking about the Left, particularly the radical left that pullulates in the Nation. You supported a fascist murderer because you hated the US govt more. Even now you hope for the victory of an insurgency that despises democracy and freedom of speech, machine guns voters, and explodes crowds of people. You prefer they prevail rather than a US backed regime. President Bush and the war vindicated is a prospect more awful to you than an insurgent victory.
That puts you and your friends beyond the pale in my book.
.
Posted by nacl at 04/13/2006 @ 05:24am
NaCl
re:"Are you really unaware that 2/3 of the posters here believe that FDR tricked the Japanese into sinking the Pacific Fleet to force an unwilling America into the war?"
You prove that you are a loon by such nonsense....
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/13/2006 @ 07:50am
NACL
One lie after another from you
You nevertheless were furious at the prospect of his ejection. Such an injustice, it took your breath away! You marched in the streets by the millions. You protested and agitated against his eviction. Don't deny it.
No, what we were against was a war that had insufficient legal, strategic or moral justification. I sincerely doubt you can cite anyone on the left who said that it would be a bad thing of Saddam should drop dead on the spot. The protest was always against an unjustified war. I think you know this but have to, while foaming at the mouth, accuse us of being for Hussein because the arguements for the war have been shown to be, at best, exaggerations.
Six hundred thousand Europeans volunteered for the Waffen SS. More Belgians, Dutchmen and Danes, yes Danes, died fighting for Hitler than in defense of their own country against the Wehrmacht.
600,000 is 2/3s of Europe? That's an interesting bit of math. What numbers do you have for Europe as a whole, not just France.
Would public opinion have even allowed FDR to support Britain with Lend Lease?
Public opinion didn't support it, it took Pearl Harbor to finally mobilize public opinion, just as it would had there been electronic media. In fact, I would point out that footage of the raid or of the sunken battleships would've mobilized public opinion just as footage of 9/11 did.
Don't you realize that our media was tightly controlled throughout that war. Every week the papers reported the same story about two cargo ships lost at sea. "In reality, the average for 1942 was 33 Allied ships sunk each week."
But not only radio and newspapers supported the war effort, there wasn't a comic strip, not a Hollywood movie, not a song from Tin Pan Alley that did not pitch in.
We did not need a fig leaf? We needed an enormous propaganda effort to gear Americans up for that fight, and it worked 24hours a day to retain public support. Today's media would have closed WWII down by September 1940. Hitler would have been left unopposed in the West. There would have been no bombers flattening Third Reich factories and cities, no convoys with food, trucks, planes and munitions to Archangel, no German fuel problems, nor a Rommel and his tank army off in Africa. Germany would have had its full industrial and military strength available to throw against Russia.
The ranting paranoia of your hatemongering is almost palpable. The difference between WWII and Iraq isn't the availability of electronic media, its the justification for the war. Roosevelt didn't make up Pearl Harbor, he didn't make up the Nazis declaration of war. What mobilized public opinion was that, just as what depletes public opinion now is the fact that many of the reasons given for the Iraq war have been discredited. You just aren't honest enough to admit that so you blame the media, a media that pretty much flacked for this war from the get-go.
Another difference is expectation. FDR never said that this war would be a cakewalk, he never said that we didn't need mobilization or a draft. As to your assumption about what the American people would've done had the electronic media been present, you clearly think less of Americans than I do. Since our involvement in WWII was justified, they would've stuck with it. After all, it's not as if they didn't know of reverse such as Kasserine Pass, the fall of the Philippines, Anzio; it's not as they didn't know of the casualties.
But on balance Europe had made its peace with Hitler until the US/UK disrupted it.
Europe didn't make its peace, they were under the control of a police state, that's hardly acquiescence. The point is that people who could get out, did, and fought.
Posted by brunowe at 04/13/2006 @ 10:06am
.
I've been patient. I have taken pains to be clear. I've shown sources for statements which you might think improbable. I've spoken with civility. This is my last post to you.
You keep repeating that. And I keep saying Saddam tore out tongues, murdered hundreds of thousands of his own population according to HRW and UN, was known to have avoided his UN promises for 12 years. He illegally kept WMDs - in everyone's opinion including Hans Blix's (read his book, Disarming Iraq). He constituted a time bomb sure to explode in that strategic region of the world, the moment the heat was off.
That was insufficient, legal, moral or strategic justification?
And even if it had been "insufficient," to support US intervention, what justified opposing it, and with such vigor, going to bat for such a creature, marching in the streets, tearing your hair out for a mass murderer?
The Left has no moral credentials remaining. However the war ends, whether it leaves the Arab Middle East with its first non-dictatorship or not, you proved yourselves collaborators with a fascist mass murderer.
Six hundred thousand Europeans, from Iberia to the Ukraine, from Scandinavia to the Balkans volunteered for the Waffen SS; that, when putting on a Nazi uniform meant hard fighting. It happened, it is an interesting bit of history which European text books do not happily flourish. But it is the truth.
Of course the Continent was under the thumb of Hitler, but why? Its resistance to Germany was effectively over in May 1940 after two weeks, when German armored divisions reached the channel. The entire Allied strength on the Continent was close to 4 million men. The Germans beat them in 2 weeks with half that number. Moreover in everything except aircraft the Allies were equal or superior to the Germans, most particularly in tanks. Still they collapsed after 2 weeks. In WWI the French had fought bravely for years. Why did they fall apart almost immediately in WWII?
Because they had made their piece before the war even began. They were impressed by the Nazis. They lacked the will or desire to oppose them. In their hearts they believed the Germans had found the answer for Europe, that they were right in their racial philosophy and that nature and providence meant them to prevail. That was why the Continent, particularly France, Belgium and Holland fell so quickly and were then occupied for so long, with such ease, with so few troops (mainly Gestapo). Europeans could submit to the Germans, because, as Aryans, they were still on the winning side.
You called me a liar, a paranoid and a hatemonger, but did not establish me in a factual lie or an insincere or illogical opinion.
I am through talking to you.
.
Posted by nacl at 04/13/2006 @ 1:54pm
. They had made their PEACE, not "piece", sorry.
Posted by nacl at 04/13/2006 @ 2:01pm
And I keep saying Saddam tore out tongues, murdered hundreds of thousands of his own population according to HRW and UN, was known to have avoided his UN promises for 12 years. He illegally kept WMDs - in everyone's opinion including Hans Blix's
I notice that you haven't favored going after other regimes that are oppressive. No calls for invasions of Belarus, North Korea or Burma? Further, Blix assumed that Iraq still had WMD, but found none in his inspections in 2003, coming up blank at every site that US intel gave him. The evidence did not support the idea that he had WMDs.
Six hundred thousand Europeans, from Iberia to the Ukraine, from Scandinavia to the Balkans volunteered for the Waffen SS; that, when putting on a Nazi uniform meant hard fighting. It happened, it is an interesting bit of history which European text books do not happily flourish. But it is the truth.
But you see, I never disputed the 600,000 figure, only the level of support it gives for a claim that 2/3s of Europe was behind Hitler or indifferent (and oppressed is not the same as indifferent).
Because they had made their piece before the war even began. They were impressed by the Nazis. They lacked the will or desire to oppose them. In their hearts they believed the Germans had found the answer for Europe, that they were right in their racial philosophy and that nature and providence meant them to prevail. That was why the Continent, particularly France, Belgium and Holland fell so quickly and were then occupied for so long, with such ease, with so few troops (mainly Gestapo). Europeans could submit to the Germans, because, as Aryans, they were still on the winning side.
That's absolute nonsense. They folded because they had just been shocked but the crushing of their armies in the north (which included most of their best units) that got pressed against the channel. They were defeatist precisely because of the casualties they suffered in WWI (which adversely effected their population growth in the coming decades--In 1940, their population was smaller and older than Germany's), the unexpectedly rapid defeat of Poland in the face of the new Blitzkrieg warfare, German air superiority during the campaign and the sense that they had delayed remarmament for too long. I see nothing in your posts that can substantiate the argument that more than a minority of W. Europeans embraced Nazi racial ideology.
I've spoken with civility. This is my last post to you.
You've done nothing of the kind. You've accused people opposed to the war in Iraq of being on the side of Saddam Hussein "going to bat for such a creature, marching in the streets, tearing your hair out for a mass murderer". There is nothing civil about that and you've provided no evidence that that was what motivated the majority of people who thought that the war was a bad idea. That is the lie, the paranoia, and the hatemongering.
Posted by brunowe at 04/13/2006 @ 3:01pm