Image talk:Country positions Iraq war.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Jordan

Please change Jordans color from blue to purple (or at least grey). Although the government of King Abdullah gave antiwar lipservice, Jordan actually allowed more than 25000 US troops (mostly Special Forces and Marines ´hammer´-brigades) to invade iraqi Al-Anbar province. This kind of hypocritical behaviour was quite common between most pro US arab regimes but King Abdallah was the most blunt arab ruler in this regard.

Perhaps the british ´investment´ in Abdallahs military education at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst was eventually paying off. Obviously the jordanian monarch had successfully learned his lesson about obeying orders from ´superior officers´; at least if they are given in authoritative intimidating british snarl. G.R.S 7. Aug. 2005

[edit] Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic

Shouldn't Honduras be in purple too? I heard that they backed out after the Spanish did. Earl Andrew 09:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Dominican Republic, too. Get-back-world-respect 14:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenia, Turkey and the Philippines

I think the same is true with the Philippines. They retreated their troops as well (in order to save the life of a hostage). And I think Slovenia should be blue, I remember the government rejected the US claim that they are part of the "coalition". Gugganij 15:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would be glad if someone could make my proposed changes (in the case of Slovenia I am now sure, the even forgoed US military aid). Unfortunately I can't do the changes on my own. Gugganij 15:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for your statements and work them into the article? We cannot change the picture to contradict what we write. Get-back-world-respect 21:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Those are some of the sources available in the net:
  • With regard to the Philippines see [1].
  • With regard to Slovenia theres is already the following statement in the article Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq: Rumsfeld also stated that Slovenia and Croatia were members of America's coalition. Slovenia's government rejected this statement; and Croatia's President Stjepan Mesic called the war illegal. However, it is uncertain whether the governments of these two nations might have been some of covert supporters of the war who wished to remain publicly anonymous. see also:
  • [2] (Quote from the article: As Rop has been reiterating for some time, Slovenia has conditioned this decision upon a UN Security Council go-ahead to the attack. and The PM stressed that Slovenia is not taking and will not be taking part in the war with its armed forces.
  • [3]
  • [4] (Quote from the article: Slovene politicians desperately tried to steer a middle course between U.S. pressure and the unpopularity of the war with the majority of the Slovene population. First, Slovenia signed the infamous Vilnius declaration for which it was praised by Rumsfeld and others as part of the “new Europe” of the “coalition of the willing” in the war against Iraq. However, after the foreign minister signed the document, there ensued a true comedy of denials: The minister claimed that, before signing the document, he consulted the president of the republic and other dignitaries, who promptly denied that they knew anything about it; then, all concerned claimed that the document in no way supported the unilateral US attack on Iraq, but called for the key role of the United Nations. The specification was that Slovenia supported the disarmament of Iraq, but not the war on Iraq. However, a couple of days later, there was a bad surprise from the United States: Slovenia was not only explicitly named among the countries participating in the “coalition of the willing,” but was even designated as the recipient of financial aid from the United States to its war partners. What ensued was pure comedy: Slovenia proudly declared that it did not participate in the war against Iraq and demanded to be stricken from the list.)
Gugganij 00:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, I think Turkey cannot be regarded as a country supporting the war (it should be either grey or blue) See for example: [5] (Quote: This was not the only foreign policy complication that the United States faced. The United States had hoped to open a northern front against Iraq from neighboring Turkey. The plan was to use Turkish soil as a staging area for a drive south by the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division, which would complement a larger ground attack mounted from Kuwait, in the southeast. However, the newly elected Turkish government was reluctant to agree to this due to overwhelming opposition from the Turkish public. The United States offered $6 billion in grants and additional billions in credits if Turkey agreed to its plan, but Turkey’s parliament rejected the plan. Turkey’s decision represented a major setback for the Bush administration, not only because it interfered with U.S. military strategy.

Regarding the Philippines I agree that this information should be covered in the text and the colour should change to violet. Regarding Slovenia I cannot see anything new. They did not want to be counted as member of the Coalition of the Willing, but they did not actively oppose the war either. Regarding Turkey, they did not allow some US troops to operate as they wanted, they however backed the war, sent own troops and gave the US access to some of its ports and airports. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changing legend?

Could we change the legend? It's just that some countries down as having supported the war were, as a population as a whole, against it. Chewyman 23:40, 26 Oct 2004 (NZT)

So you think it should be "government positions" rather than "country positions"? Get-back-world-respect 23:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] China

In another article (China's peaceful rise) that China was neutral on Iraq.

"One consequence of this doctrine is that the PRC has remained neutral over U.S. foreign policy initiatives such as its invasion of Iraq."

"China joins France, Russia, and Germany in putting itself officially on record as opposing a US-led war. Jiang Zemin is quoted as saying, "The door of peace should not be closed."" (from Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003).
The People's Republic of China pressed for continued U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq after two arms inspectors told the Security Council they had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.[27] Although it stated its wish that the situation be resolved peacefully, China did not threaten to exercise its Security Council veto and had abstained in many previous decisions on Iraq. Demonstrations were reported from Hong Kong and Taiwan, and even in mainland China, where exercising free speech is usually shunned, some protests were tolerated. [28] (from Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq#China)
Overall, it is quite safe to say that this is more than neutrality. Rama 22:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Canada didnt oppose the war. It just didnt support it. Big difference i think.

[edit] Costa Rica II

Costa Rica was orginally on the White House's list of allies, however the Costa Rican government formally requested that the White House delete Costa Rica from that list. This took place after a Costa Rican court found support of America's war volitive of Costa Rica's pacifist constitution. The unique sitation really can't be represented by any of the colors on the map.

[edit] Content moved from Image page

I have changed the colours so I... well... could see something ! ^^;; Sorry about that... the map should now be mostly colourblind-proof. Rama 22:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenia II

Slovenia was not supporting the war in Iraq.

I was arguing that a couple of months ago (see discussion page). IMHO Slovenia should be coloured either as a neutral, or as a opposing country. Gugganij 18:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland

Greenland should technically be colored light pink, as its foreign affrairs are the responsibility by Denmark. That map also lists the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad as having supported the war and withdrawn troops, however, it is part of the Russian Federation, so therefore opposed the war. MRowlinson

[edit] Costa Rica III

Costa Rica should not be colored as having withdrawn its troops, since its military has been abolished over fifty years ago. --Bletch 22:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarification — IIRC, in Fahrenheit 911, Costa Rica was identified along with Palau and a handful of other places as members of the "Coalition of the Willing" but didn't actually have militaries. While such an endorsement boils down to mere lip service, it doesn't qualify as "indeterminate". --Bletch 17:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

Where are the references to this informtation? New Zealand never had troops in Iraq, nor did it support the action, as the text would have me believe. And I didn't think Poland had troops as part of the initial invasion, but only later. Daniel Collins 01:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Modification... NZ had military engineers in Iraq for a time (not at the start), but I believe they were not to be involved in combat (ie. not part of the coalition), just involved in reconstruction. There may well be other nuances I'm missing. A useful information source is GlobalSecurity.org. Daniel Collins 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
That's correct - there was strong condemnation for the invasion from Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, at the time. New Zealand was committed not to be involved without a UN resolution. Later there were plans to send 60 non-combat engineers and 100 soldiers to accompany them: the engineers are still there, not sure if the soldiers were ever sent. --Dom 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries having troops in Iraq and change of map

What does the explanation mean: countries that supported the war and may have contributed troops at later date. Either the contributed troops or they didn't.

According to [6]:

  • Countries currently having troops in Iraq: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.
  • Countries which had troops but have pulled out: 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) Hungary (end Dec. 2004); Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); Moldova (Feb. 2005);

Gugganij 20:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed the map in the following way: I added Bosnia and Herzegovina to the supporters, since they contribute troops to Iraq, I colored Slovenia blue, since they didn't support the war (but I am happy to add them to the neutral countries as well, most definitely they were NOT supporters), I deleted the following: may have contributed troops at a later date Gugganij 20:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone cite proof that all those African countries have clearly opposed the war? I would suspect a lot of them had no opinion one way or the other. user:J.J.

As can be read in the text, the African Union and the Arab League both condemned the war, both speak for most African countries, further information can be found there. Get-back-world-respect 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither the African Union or the Arab League control the foreign policy of all their member states. Besides, certain member states of both supported the war. J.J. 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China II

Why is China coloured neutral. They did oppose the war, didn't they? Gugganij 12:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen in the text. Some just cannot face the facts. Get-back-world-respect 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand II

New Zealand didn't commit troops to Iraq, unless army engineers count as troops. Personally, I'd take "troops" to mean "soldiers", or at least people involved in military operations somehow. NZ's engineers were, according to the press releases at the time, there only for "humanitarian and reconstruction work". New Zealand's official line was (and remained) to oppose any military action that wasn't sactioned by the UN Security Council, as stated in this press release at the time. I would say that New Zealand should be coloured blue, as it originally was — it may have sent engineers to help with reconstruction, but it opposed the war itself. -- Vardion 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland

I know this is minor, but please note that Greenland is not actually a sovereign region, but merely a province, as it were, of Denmark. 140.142.175.56 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, can somebody please rectify? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
ok, its now colored the same as Denmark. --Astrokey44 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Does that remotely make sense seeing as Greenland has regional autonomy? Did politicians from the region support the War? Did soldiers from there participate? At best, surely it should be coloured neutral. Better still, scrap this map as using colours for what were often complex positions is dubious to say the least. zoney ♣ talk 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK & Guatemala

I don't see why the UK is pink -- aren't UK troops widely deployed in the south of Iraq, and isn't Blair still backing the war? Twinxor t 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter, what's going on in Guatemala? Twinxor t 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China

As stated above, as well as in the article and in the source linked to in the article, the PRC opposed invasion of Iraq. I've fixed the map. yandman 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Image_talk%7ECountry_positions_Iraq_war.png_18c6.html"