seriously though folks, ya got to stop and remember, we, The United States of America, are one of the youngest Nations in existence, if not THE youngest. If you look at the USA in respect of age, we are still teenagers if we are lucky, compared to most of the rest of the world, and yet we are one of the most powerful countries in existence, and have been for most of our time as a Nation.

I have not paid attention to world power in the last decade or so, but last time I listened in we were one of the top three superpowers, along with China and the Former Soviet Union (tells ya how long since I listened in, lol). To hazard a guess, I would say we are a toss-up with China now as far as the most powerful, goes.

Now, how old is China, as a Nation? How old is the former Soviet Union? England? Britain? France? All the other major Nations of the world, how old are they compared to us? Britain is our father, seeing as we left British soil to claim our own Nationality, and even they are fairly young on a worldy based timeline.

It all boils down to fear and jealousy, as to why so many are against us. And righteousness. The world watched us run away as a child, build our own fort, and then watched us become so powerful by the time we were teenagers that no one dared go against us, without fear of destroying the world by doing so (the cold war is a good referance). Now, we, as a Nation (and a young teenager) are sticking our noses into the "adult worlds" business and telling them how to behave and act. Yes in many cases we are justified in doing so. In some cases we have not been. But if you look at it as us being young teenagers (about 14 years of age), from a parents stand point, how would you feel and act if we were doing exactly what we are doing?

And dont get me wrong, Iw ould change very little of what we have done, but we DO need to learn how to work in the "adult world", and how to do so without stepping on as many feet as we have. AND WE NEED TO LOSE OUR ARROGANCE

Bush is the one who put Saddam on the radar after 9/11, no other countries initiated that effort.

Maybe not, but I defintiely remember England backing up our intelligence reports and stating they had the smae verified information, insofar as wmd's being moved through Iraq.

There is also information out there that Blair did not have any information beside the intel that Bush was using. They had a meeting that warned that the attack on Iraq could be considered a war crime.

I have friends in England and Blairs favor of the war was one of the pushes for him to resign.

I have heard people discuss this before. They suspect it's because other countries perceive us as being arrogant and because other countries think that we tell them what to do.

Double post.

Don;t you just love when the site double posts something for ya? As if it is trying to say "this is a real important post you better pay attention!!!" lol.

How about those double emails?!

the war on Iraq is just one single thing that adds up to the whole.

couchs americam was founded by english people

Because the world knows that England is our dog on a leash, our puppet. IMO, If it weren't for America they wouldn't survive!

Now, the world hates us, and blames us for everything because we are the Big boys on the block. As the world most powerful military, economical, and technological country on the face of the Earth, a little of it just comes with the territory!

But,

The Bush Administration has exasperated the problem with their war-mongering attitude.
While the world will always be jealous of our dominance, they are now confused.
The US has always been fairly humane and honest with them, and has never invaded another country unprovoked until Bush invaded Iraq!
He turned on the French when their intelligence told them Bush was lying and they refused to be a part of it.
When he started throwing out phrases like, "you're either with us or an enemy", and labeling countries as the axis of evil , they all begin to wonder who and what is next!
They dont hate Americans, They hate Bush!!

Damn Republicans

well i must disagree fanta and here is why


-----------------------

hart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock


http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Personally,
I think we should cut the English loose.
Cut the apron strings, per say!

Their government and its Empire building are directly linked to every single problem area in the world. From the ME, Southern Asia, and the African continent.

By taking advantage of countries, while they were still in their infancy, they were able to build a power.
By the end of two world wars they were so weakened that they were required to pull back from most, leaving a power vacuum that if we hadn't filled the Russians would have.
Using them as a surrogate, while paying to rebuild most of Europe, we managed (dont know why) to help them maintain what they have today!
They still refuse to use the Euro as currency and are the only major player in Europe to not grasp the EU.
When a little bitty Island with no natural resources left, and a small insignificant military, are able to maintain the economic strength that they have. You know, (using common sense), that something isn't quite right!

I think we should either annex them, (can anyone say 51 st State), or cut the apron strings!

check the treaty for ending the war of 1812

kind of interesting

Give me a link!
I'm to busy for a search. Studying for a Calculus final tomorrow.

Does it have to do with why protective tariffs were put into place in the first place?
Cause I already know about that!

http://www.bartleby.com/43/26.html

what i thought was in there i could not find

i thought there was a mutual protection clause but i seem t have been mistaken

oh well

at least i can admit it

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm



Military
Iraq Coalition Troops

Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration.

As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

In addition, that same Weekly Status Report listed 34 countries (including the US) as maintaining personnel in Iraq (as part of the Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO). The State Department reported that Fiji was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland, Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission. However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee on August 3, 2006, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld described the coalition in Iraq as composed of 34 allies (plus the US).

As of June 13, 2006, MNF-I reported that 27 countries (including the US) maintained responsibility over the six major areas of Iraq. Since that time, Japan has withdrawn all of its forces from Iraq.

For the purposes of this tally, only countries that contribute troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom are counted.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.

Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.

Countries supporting UNAMI: Fiji (150); Georgia (550)

YEP, good old USA is such a tyrant!! NO other country participated or participates in the war in Iraq.

There is a ton of more information at the link I posted above. Wonder what all the leftie libbers have to say about this? HMMMMMM

Lindyy

Good luck with the final.

Hi winx!

Why did you leave this out Lindy?

Around 93% of the troops in Iraq as of April, 2008 are from the United States.
The majority of nations either confined their men to their bases due to widespread violence, or issued specific orders to avoid hostile engagement (especially true of the Spanish commanded Plus Ultra Brigade).

CURRENT DEPLOYMENT BY COUNTRY


South Korea: 3,600 peak—933 current (12/07; deployed 5/03)
Romania: 730 peak—397 current (11/07; deployed 7/03)
El Salvador: 380 peak—280 current (12/07; deployed 8/03)
Czech Republic: 300 peak—99 current (11/07)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak—88 current (9/07)
Georgia: 2,000 troops (12/07; deployed 8/03)
Denmark: 545 peak—50 current (12/07, deployed 4/03)
Mongolia: 180 peak—100 current (2/07; deployed 8/03)
Albania: 120 peak—70 current(10/07; deployed 4/03)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 37 troops (9/07; deployed 6/05)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak-37 current (2/08; deployed 8/03)
Estonia: 40 troops (12/07; deployed 6/05)
Macedonia: 40 troops (7/07; deployed 7/03)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (12/07; deployed 9/03)
Moldova: 24 peak—11 current (9/07; deployed 9/03)
Bulgaria: 485 peak—155 current (2/08; deployed 5/03)
Armenia: 46 troops(07/07; deployed 1/05)
Latvia: 136 peak—3 current(10/07; deployed 4/04)


Active Troops; and date of last count!

United States: 250,000 invasion—158,000 current (1/08)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion—4,000 current (4/08)
Poland: 194 invasion—2,500 peak—900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion—~900 current (11/07)