NATO Balking at Iraq Mission........(george..you broke it, you own it)

[RedEarth]

NATO Balking at Iraq Mission


Amid rising violence and public opposition to the occupation, allies want to delay a major commitment until after the U.S. election.


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's hopes for a major NATO military presence in Iraq this year appear doomed, interviews with allied defense officials and diplomats show.

The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.




The clear shift in NATO's stance deals another blow to U.S. efforts to spread the military burden as it grapples with a deadly insurgency in Iraq, fury in the region over its endorsement of Israeli plans for Palestinian territories and the unfolding abuse scandal at the American-run Abu Ghraib prison.

more.......

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops9may09,1,5346761.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[mike_c]

1. gee, what a surprise....

And here we all thought NATO allies would be lining up to take part in shrubya's grand cluster-f*ck. Just like we all thought the Iraqis would welcome the yoke of occupation with open arms and flowers.

[stellanoir]

2. Thank goodness. . .

no one should bail * out. But I fear for the safety of our troops after this week's revelations and the video that has yet to be released.

[jobendorfer]

3. that's logically straightforward

Why negotiate terms with a lunatic when waiting for eight
months will probably bring in a president who is grounded
in reality, understands reason, and who understands that
negotiating is a two-way street.

Frankly: even in the event Kerry wins, I doubt that we will
get much help out of Europe. Why should they help us? It's
our mess.

J.

[ant]

5. I think they'll help

The US certainly created this mess but it hurts everyone. We are not a world of isolated countries, and Europe has as much interest in a stable of not "democratic" Iraq as the US does.

Besides, blowing Bush off and then being all buddy-buddy with Kerry would probably be a great "fuck you" to the current admin.

[acmavm]

4. To me, this is as good as saying that NATO doesn't want anything to do

with the bush* administration. Now that should be pretty damning, that is if people really consider it. WE ARE ALONE (except for Blair, and he's got his own problems with the war).

How's that old kid's song go?:

Nobody likes me
Everybody hate me
I think I'll just go eat worms

[2cents]

6. Smart move on their part

My guess - the chimp is too stupid and too greedy to deal with. He's eager to share the hardship but probably not the plunder (oil).

Kerry is the saner choice. At least, he wouldn't need negotiations read to him.

[demgrrrll]

7. I read that they are not going to do anything at all until after the

election. That statement speaks volumes. I think they are making their position clear without saying a word. They want him out but
have left the door open a crack in case they have to work with him after the elections.

[huckleberry]

8. I read it as NATO knows bush is going to lose so

why bail out a loser? Kerry will win and work with NATO and the UN!

[Kemet]

9. It looks like

It's all in the hands of the american people now.

[Moderator]

10. duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=542150