Where's the "rest" of the world? - Post-9/11 Era

Where's the "rest" of the world?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Sayzak

Joining the U.S. by the thousands. Gaining momentum, perhaps?


South Korea to Send 3,000 Troops to Iraq

56 minutes ago


By HANS GREIMEL, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea (news - web sites) finalized plans Wednesday to send 3,000 troops to Iraq (news - web sites) as Asian governments expressed optimism for peace and the U.S.-led reconstruction following Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s capture.
_

Japan plans to send its first main troop contingent in late February after months of delay, a major Japanese newspaper reported Wednesday. And Thailand reportedly will keep hundreds of its troops in Iraq with hopes that security will improve following Saturday's seizure of Saddam by U.S. forces.


The emboldened military plans among Washington's allies underscore the growing sense of optimism for Iraq since the capture, despite the official wariness voiced by many leaders.


"It is hard to judge how the security situation will change short term," South Korean Defense Minister Cho Young-kil said while announcing the decision on the troops. "But in the long term, I believe the resistance will falter and weaken in the absence of their leader."


South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi have defended troop dispatches as a duty to both their top ally (news - web sites), the United States, and to regional stability in the Middle East.


But sending troops is deeply unpopular with the public in both countries. And the plans have drawn further criticism since late last month when Japanese diplomats and South Korean reconstruction engineers were killed in separate attacks amid spiraling violence.


Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai said earlier that 422 Thai troops on humanitarian duties in Iraq might have to be withdrawn if the violence against coalition forces continued.


But after Saddam's capture, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra predicted a new era of opportunity for Iraqi reconstruction and confirmed his nation's humanitarian mission would continue until its one-year agreement with the United States ends next year.


"International efforts to rehabilitate and reconstruct Iraq can, from now on, be accelerated," he was quoted as saying Monday by the Thai News Agency. "I believe that the world situation will improve ... after the arrest of the former Iraqi leader, especially the situation in war-torn Iraq."


In Japan, Koizumi's Cabinet had already approved a basic blueprint to send 1,000 military personnel to southern Iraq for reconstruction work and other non-combat duties.


On Tuesday, the Defense Agency reportedly stepped up those plans by submitting a proposed dispatch schedule to the Liberal Democratic Party-led ruling bloc for approval, the national Mainichi newspaper said.


An advance team would go to Iraq next month to prepare for the arrival of 135 soldiers in the southern city of Samawah. Those troops will leave for Iraq on Feb. 21 and stay at the Dutch military's base.


About 550 others, who will make up the bulk of the deployment, are expected to be in Iraq by late March, the daily said. An advance team of 78 soldiers would leave on Jan. 31 to pitch camp for them.


Still, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo ***uda warned Wednesday that his country was on the alert for possible retaliatory attacks by loyalists of the fallen Iraqi leader.


South Korea finalized its plans to send 3,000 troops, including combat-ready special operations soldiers and marines. Yet underlining Seoul's cautious approach, defense chief Cho said they wouldn't be dispatched for at least another four months. Extra time was needed for further training, he said.


A team of South Korean military officials left for Washington to discuss when and where their soldiers should be dispatched.


Seoul wants its troops to be responsible for an entire region of Iraq, handling both security and reconstruction. South Korea's opposition-controlled National Assembly needs to approve the dispatch and is expected to support it. The plan is expected to be sent to parliament next week.


Another staunch U.S. ally, Australia has about 800 non-combat troops in Iraq and the Gulf region after sending 2,000 to fight in the war. It also has no plans to waver. "Our present approach is we will be in there for years," Chief of the Defense Force, Gen. Peter Cosgrove, said earlier. "We will evolve from whatever we are doing at the moment to whatever is useful at the time."

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

They are trying to figure out how to help without incriminating themselves.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oneofpeace

Well the damage is done so the nations that wants to help should, but it should be their decision. If they don't, then I don't see them doing anything wrong. They didn't fight the war, the US did.

Iraq needs stability now. This has to happen to stop our G.I.'s from being killed along with the citizens over there.

But don't break out the champagne just yet Sayzak. We're going to have a surge of violence there first because they want to hit us because we got Saddam. It's going to be a while before any nation feels safe in sending their troops there and the UN civilians and Red Cross return.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dragonhalitosis

Our Government has troops there helping to rebuild. its our Governments position it didn't approve of the way the war was started but it approves of the goal of rebuilding Iraq.
It doesn't hurt that we'd like a trade deal with America too.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Charles

I do feel kinda sorry for kofi annan.

His position is becoming rather pathetic. Not that he is a bad guy, but he is in charge of the UN that postures that it is THE international organization to get things done but he is afraid to participate because its dangerous. He knows too well that if they went in, and got hit, he would have to pull out again because of lack of commitment, and then he would look like a double ass.

He won't act because he knows the UN is fickle and he has no real power.

Someone toss him a bone.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dragonhalitosis

quote:
Charles said this in post #5 :
I do feel kinda sorry for kofi annan.

His position is becoming rather pathetic. Not that he is a bad guy, but he is in charge of the UN that postures that it is THE international organization to get things done but he is afraid to participate because its dangerous. He knows too well that if they went in, and got hit, he would have to pull out again because of lack of commitment, and then he would look like a double ass.

He won't act because he knows the UN is fickle and he has no real power.

Someone toss him a bone.



Oh stop whinning! The way the U.N. works can be entirely blamed on it's set up. For which the U.S. is as much to blame andd exploits more than, anybody. it has as you say no power if its own (for which you deserve some credit). It's collective decisions are only the result of the agreements of the sectional interests of the various governments who make it up its NO wonder that its fickle! More than this, five of the most powerrful members have their own vetos which they are allowed to use in their own interests.
Give the U.N. a job Give it some power and seperate it's decisions a bit from the control of the variouis states who make it up. Then if it does a bad job you'll have reason to complain.
Watching the right wingers attack the U.N. on this site is like watching a wife beater mocking his wife that ' shes always plays the victim!'
The truth is the country that benefits the most from this system the one with the most power has least reason to change.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Dragonhalitosis said this in post #6 :


Oh stop whinning!


No, YOU stop whining (one 'n', genius)! That's ALL you lefties and anti-Americans DO is whine. Those who can, do—and those who can't, WHINE. It's as simple as it is pathetic.... and it's always something with you 'much-maligned,' malcontents....

Now go pound sand some more!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: devildog

Ya gotta love that signature

What has the U.N. ever done? Anyone?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Charles

quote:
devildog said this in post #8 :
Ya gotta love that signature

What has the U.N. ever done? Anyone?


Let's not completely bash the UN. Let's just understand what it is and isn't.

It does provide a mantle of legitimacy that can be important in many situations.

It functions as a speed bump to nations with good intentions - both to slow down escalation, and to slow down action. It is ignored by countries that don't give a damn.

It does not "DO" anything.

Its agents are member states who execute operations under its mantle when they want to.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dragonhalitosis

Charles will you stop saying things I agree with! I'll have to find you reasonable if you do that!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: devildog

I agree also Charles. They should be limited to those types of activities and nothing else. In other words,"know your role".

Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Post-9/11 Era Forum: Where's the "rest" of the world?

Forum Forum Forum