Thailand Cited In Bushs' State Of The Union Addres

[Thaiquila]

Here is the Bush quote:

"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, THAILAND, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

Seems like the Bushinator is using the good will of smaller countries like Thailand to justify the war, in lieu of United Nations approval or the support of most Western European nations.

If I were a patriotic Thai, I think I would be appaled that this participation is being used in this context.

Go at it bears!

[pepe]

America's poodle dogs never have a say.

I like very much this part of the speech: "... and 17 other countries"

Mars ??? the moon ?? Monaco ?? Disneyland ?? Neverland ?? Wonderland ?? Texas ?? Antartica ??

[Axel]

Here is the Bush quote:

...and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.

This was one of the comments that gave me a nasty face by my wife. Must have uttered "id....t' or something.

Let's give the man a break. Before he became president, he had visited only one foreign country, Mexico and probably thought he was still in Europe.

Thailand he might remember favorably from his visit during APEC. He was the guy who had to be pulled off the balcony watching the Royal Barges and not wishing anybody else to have a chance.

All the other 17 countries. Jeez, he really has no idea who and where and for sure does not care about any.

[Boon Mee]

Man! Give the guy a break! He only mentioned Thailand because the US has been working with the Royal Thai Army tracking down scum like the Hamnabi dude up in Auytaya.

We've even got the Japanese army onboard now - I don't think you can call the Japanese "poodle-dogs"!

Boon Mee

[Thaiquila]

Man! Give the guy a break! He only mentioned Thailand because the US has been working with the Royal Thai Army tracking down scum like the Hamnabi dude up in Auytaya.

We've even got the Japanese army onboard now - I don't think you can call the Japanese "poodle-dogs"!

Boon Mee

The countries Bush mentioned including Thailand all decided to participate in the Iraq operation for whatever reasons of their national interest. That is their business.

However, don't you think it is sleazy of Bush to use this participation as part of his reelection campaign, when he did NOT mention the opposition of the UN, France, and Germany?

Many people want to give Bush a break. A very long break.

[Boon Mee]

Bush didn't mention the absence of France, Germany etc. because he's trying to "mend-fences"? Plus, he's trying a little diplomacy now to get the "Axis of Weasel" countries to pony up some $ for the reconstruction.

If we're talking sleaze, check out the brick-bats the Democrats are slinging. Comparing Bush to Hitler and he knew about 9/11 before it happened - unreal...

Boon Mee

[Axel]

Especially France and Germany warned about the unsanctioned attack and invasion of the Iraq. Russia warned. I think it feels good for all three countries to stand on the right side of the law.

Why should these countries now be paying for the mistakes done?

Fix the damages by whoever is liable for it. After that we can talk about the future.

The helpers for sure did it in their own national interest and are being paid for. Guess it is fair although the issue itself is not.

From an 'old' AP-report:

Fri, September 26, 2003

Some U.S. coalition partners seek favours before agreeing to troops for Iraq

By JIM KRANE

Mongolia, which has 174 troops in Iraq, wants a free-trade deal with the United States.

Turkey, which is considering sending 10,000 troops, won $8.5 billion US in loan guarantees.

Poland, Serbia, Romania, Latvia and others are pushing for contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Poles also have been negotiating the purchase of about 450 new Humvees in a deal worth $45 million, financed through a U.S. loan.

Macedonia and Estonia has given a valuable international stamp to a war that received no backing from the United Nations and is largely perceived as a unilateral act of the United States.

Albania expects U.S. support for military reforms aimed at qualifying for NATO membership. The country landed $3 million in U.S. military aid in exchange for sending its troops, and Washington also covered the costs of the deployment.

Bulgarians have a favour to ask the United States in return for sending 480 soldiers to Iraq: help in collecting a $1.7-billion debt from Iraq, as well as U.S. investment in Bulgaria.

Thailand? While Bush was in Bangkok talking about economics, he did not realize that he was on the wrong party and talked about war. Thaksin let him rumble along, with a polite grin on his face. The payback for Thailand, Non-NATO alliance.

Japan? Koizumi is playing a very dangerous game which can costs him his job.

Wait and see the renumerations, than we know if the gamble worked.

[Jeepz]

Axel~

Do you feel that it was really the lack of UN support that caused the French and German opposition to the USA/Iraq conflict? I wish that you were right, but I really think it was their financial interests with Iraq more than lack of UN agreement.

I think that NATO will cease to be in the not to distant future. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, the primary reason for NATO came to an end. A great vacuum of power was created. The big push for a European Union is in part simply a way to fill that vacuum. When the EU is fully functional, it will be uninterested in US military umbrella, or at least US military sittin en force on EU soil. My guess is ten to fifteen years and you will see NATO reduced to a paper exchange.

China will become a player on the world scene as it develops and begins to adopt more progressive policies in terms of economics and business. The world will realign and some will see some benefit to an Asian Solidarity movement, others will see more benefit from being on good terms with the US center of power, and others will connect to the EU power center.

It will be, as they say, an interesting time.

Jeepz

[Axel]

Jeepz,

no, the French side is against the US, whenever this is feasible. Bush made it, however, this time very easy for Chirac to be against.

In Germany, Schroeder had fired a cabinet-member, who, by a slip of tongue, had compared Bush with the Nazis and apologized to him. Shortly after this, Schroeder had a slip of tongue himself, when declaring during an election campaign, he will not agree to any commitment in Iraq. This gave him a tremendous upbeat in votes and in the end the win of the election, together with a flood in the Eastern part of the country, where he could play the saviour. (Mind you, I have no voting rights in either country)

In fact, Schroeder said, even with UN-support, he would not commit anything. He might have gotten away in case of a UN-support to change his mind. To send troops without the little blue caps would have been his political suicide.

So still at this moment, he got a big support within the country, even from right wing and center, just for standing up against Bush. (I blame him for this. )

Both countries can say a big thank you to GWB who brought them closer together since the 19th century.

Talking just on financial interests, I believe both, France and Germany, would have been better off by joining Bush and claiming the booty. Neither had a way to get any proceeds during the embargo and risk losing more now, although this subject is still very wide open.

The EU will be functional although it takes a few more years to get the 'old' and 'new' Europe together and make a central governing body workable. Who tried to split in old and new?

The introduction of the Euro-currency helped, although everybody is looking back to the old Francs, Marks etc. at this moment, which will pass.

(I am no talking about the Pound)

NATO, I agree will be phased out and there might be a closer co-operation between EU and the Russian Federation.

Hopefully this they can co-ordinate with the US. Great, if than need be, put US, EU and Russian forces together under blue helmets, chose the best to do a job, regardless of nationality. And this would help to hunt and close down any terrorist organization. But by all means get any permanent military presence for either side out of the Middle East. To make it work, make sure every member-country pays the dues, and the UN pays for each job done.

China used to be the big danger, or so I was told when still in school. I believe a military danger is gone. A scientific and economical potential is there and will be used. If I look around Asia, most of the 'expatriates' have disappeared and their jobs transferred to locals, who learned their skills over the last 20 odd years and have proper education. Let's hope they will use it properly.

So much for a Sunday afternoon. Hope I will not be flamed for having omitted Australia, NZ and neither talking about Africa.

But my main point is, let everybody work in the own house first and not trying to dominate others.