In March 2003 there were forty-nine countries (=10% of the forces) publicly committed to the Coalition in Iraq, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

All self appointed or is that a contradiction?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6355412,00.html

kind of shows Cheney's arrogant attitude again and again.

Fact is, if people stopped talking to anyone who has made
outrageous statements as Iran has, then there would be alot
more fighting. I remind you that Clinton sat down with Arafat
and got a long way, despite Arafat's past history. People
skills matter in politics! History has shown that the US
can't run its foreign policy anymore, by simply threatening
to bomb the heejeebies out of some place. Its a dismal failure.

Yes, lots of countries nominally put their name down to
support George's war, after lots of diplomatic pressure
etc. Those who refused, as some European countries did,
were not exactly treated nicely. Lots of flawed intelligence
was used too.

A country like the US, who claims to be a world leader, should
at least have halfway intelligent leaders. History shows
that George and Dick have so far been dismal failures.
Most Americans now agree with that. Just look at the polls.

Cowboy - sure, there's a lot of nations on that list.

How many are committing substantial numbers of troops to actual combat, aside from the US and the UK?
Yes the US is the world superpower - they need people to back them up so they don't look appear to be alone in Iraq - even if it's a token effort at assistance.
Why wouldn't these nations, if it means buying some favour with the US at little cost?

(If Australia was really in this war, don't you think we'd have had some combat fatalities by now? I'm not saying this is a bad thing, on the contrary, but it is a relevant point.)

In any case, I have digressed from the central topic here, which as I see it, is whether or not the checks and balances of the US system of government are sufficient.

To Cowboy Joe and Col... I ask your views as to how much latitude the US administration should have?
What is going "too far" in the following issues:

Legal: i.e. The US justice system was founded on precepts such as trial by jury and habeus corpus. These have been jettisoned by the Bush administration. Is this acceptable in the 'war on terror' and if so, who should decide if it's acceptable? Should they be scrutinised by other institutions?

General policy: i.e. How should other institutions be able to curb the actions of a president in the event a president is acting outside the constitution? What institutions should decide this? How can it be ensured they are not pawns of those in power?

Corruption: The US administration is often perceived as a 'revolving door' between corporate industries and high positions in the executive. Should there be requirements to prevent individuals such as Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties to Halliburton (who are no longer operating in Iraq and have been widely criticised) being in a position where they can promote these corporations?

I'm curious as to the views of those who favour the approach used by the Bush administration in these areas.

TLTR
“The US justice system” is overseen by the US Supreme Court who sits as a separate authority outside of the President / Administration , The Congress or the Senate.

“What institutions should decide this” I thought Congress does decide and when needed, has impeached Presidents.
The Congressional committee on oversight and reform, as its name suggests, oversees.

It always amazes me that people see USA and the see GWB and think, pretty much that is it, ignoring the other institutions, federal and state and county which comprise the bureaucracy of USA.

Just the same as Australians do not vote just for John Howard versus whoever the opposition tries to stand against him, the US electoral cycle does not simply evolve around who will be the President.

I always step back from suggesting a US president is going too far, I think Americans are in a far better position to decide that for themselves, it is, after all their taxes and their forces who the president is going too far with.

Col... I take your point about other institutions, but the fact of the matter was that checks and balances are only as effective as the people enforcing them.

As I recall, the supreme court found that a great deal of what was going on at Guantanamo was unconstitutional.

And yet... little seems to have changed. Bush was given a rap over the knuckles. That was about it.

Were it not for the fact that the democrats are now gaining influence, I rather suspect there would be little change at all.

Joe, How many today?

Col. Step back. US election doesn't revolve around the President? Get real.