# 30 Nation Coalition for War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526 "2003-03-19T13:29:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/61 "2003-03-21T00:00:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by klas \* > \*\*It was originally stated that only 30 countries supported the US. This comment stated a number ONLY, with no mention of the percentage of the total number of countires existing throughout the world at the time. \*\* Hmmm… now where could that lack of context I mentioned be, I wonder? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/62 "2003-03-21T00:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Either you or him, or more likely both, are rather poor historians. There were less than 50 soverign states in the world prior to WWI, now there is close to 200. A coalition of 30 or more meant unheard of consensus then. Now all it means is we have handful of true allies (UK, Aussies, and Spain), and a gaggle of half-hearted bit players afraid to piss off an economic and military powerhouse. I’m sure that Japan, with the 2nd largest economy and 4th largest military budget in the world, would just love to hear you lump it in with a ‘gaggle of bit players’. Or Italy, which has a GDP 50% bigger than the UK’s. You can make your point without resorting to hyperbole. Especially if you want to sneer at other people for taking things out of context. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/63 "2003-03-21T00:58:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by klas \* > \*\*I did no such thing. It was originally stated that only 30 countries supported the US. This comment stated a number ONLY, with no mention of the percentage of the total number of countires existing throughout the world at the time. I stated a number, to be consistent with the original question - do you understand ? > > Even using your “logic”, this is still the 2nd highest “coalition” since the Gulf War - the “war on terror” in Bin Laden’s country being the highest, using the number of countries now existing in the world. Does that make you feel better ? > > Perhaps you should read the format of the question before passing judgements on responses. \*\* Insults aside, I think the point is that comparing the sizes of coalitions today to those of history is misleading, and in the case of those public figures who use it to prove the legitimacy of their actions, deliberately so. It’s rather like saying that Gulf War I caused ‘The most damage ever’, because it caused $30 Billion in property damage, and WWI caused $9 Billion. If you consider inflation, the price of WWI goes up tremendously, and trying to pass off GWI war as more destructive simply because of the price is clearly not appropriate. (I made those numbers up… I dont know the real values) As has been mentioned, Eritrea didn’t exist just a few years ago (it was under Ethiopian control, as I recall)… it certainly wouldn’t have been on any coalition in the past. There are plenty of countries like this in the world. Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and many more are in the same situation. As for the OP, according to the CBC Radio just a few minutes ago: Gulf War I: 16 countries sent troops. Gulf War II: USA, Britain, Australia send troops. The numbers in yesterday’s National Post newspaper give 250,000 American troops, 30,000 from UK, 2,000 Australian this time around. This gives about 87% American troops. For last time, they giv a breakdown of which troops came from which countries. Troop numbers quoted here do not appear to include ship crews or air force personnel in support of air operations. Adding up the mubers, I get: 425,000 American troops, 245,681 troops from other countries. This gives about 63% American troops. It should be noted that many of the countries who contributed to the 1991 coalition are not included in my ‘other troops’ number, since it looks like only ground trops were counted in the Post’s totals. For example, the British entry is “\<7th Army brigade [and some other army stuff] (42,000 troops); 58 warplanes (Tornado and Jaguar fighter-bombers); 17 warships.” And the Italian entry is “10 Tornado fighter-bombers; 5 warships.” This suggests they aren’t counting the air or naval personnel as ‘troops’. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/64 "2003-03-21T00:59:28Z")
While I’m at it, let’s consider this: Taking the U.S. out of the equation, the rest of the world has a GDP of about 20 trillion dollars. The coalition, not including the U.S., has a GDP of half of that amount. Total world military spending, not including the U.S., is about 450 billion dollars. The military spending of the coalition, not including the U.S., is about 180 billion dollars, or almost half of the entire non-US military budget of the world. And, today five more countries joined the list, and there are 15 countries who are ‘silent supporters’. So a more accurate statement to make would be that the MAJORITY of the world supports the U.S., considering economic output and military spending. A majority of the world opposes the U.S. when considered by population. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/65 "2003-03-21T01:01:36Z")
I’d still like to see a credible justification for the inclusion of Japan in the list of coalition members. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/66 "2003-03-21T01:04:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*I’m sure that Japan, with the 2nd largest economy and 4th largest military budget in the world, would just love to hear you lump it in with a ‘gaggle of bit players’. Or Italy, which has a GDP 50% bigger than the UK’s. > > You can make your point without resorting to hyperbole. Especially if you want to sneer at other people for taking things out of context. \*\* Hyperbole rarely helps, but one excuse for marginalising the contribution of Japan might be the extreme restrictions placed on their contribution by their own constitution. As I understand it, they can’t participate directly in offensive actions, but they can (in the government’s present interpretation) promise to help in the reconstruction, or send ships to indirectly help by freeing up American ships from other missions. Apparently the Japanese public isn’t too pleased with the idea, though. Big GDP or no, I don’t expect there will be Japanese missiles landing in Baghdad, or Japanese troops marching in the desert. (Chances are, most of the hardware used in the war will have been ‘Made in Japan’, though, so I guess they are major players ;)) ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/67 "2003-03-21T01:08:13Z")
Sam Stone Just a niggle. Have you a link to the figures that show the Italian GDP to be 50% more than the UK. I’m a great Italophile but I do find that figure rather difficult to swallow. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/68 "2003-03-21T01:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*So a more accurate statement to make would be that the MAJORITY of the world supports the U.S., considering economic output and military spending. A majority of the world opposes the U.S. when considered by population. \*\* Isn’t that just like Bush to support a wealthy minority against a poor majority? Tax cut anyone? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/69 "2003-03-21T01:58:57Z")
**Candida:** I was using the figures on the list linked on the previous page, which showed the UK’s GDP at just over 1 trillion, and Italy’s at almost 1.5 trillion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/70 "2003-03-21T02:01:49Z")
Wolf: I doubt our military gets much hardware from Japan. Pure speculation on my part, but it really wouldn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/71 "2003-03-21T02:09:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Wolf: > > I doubt our military gets much hardware from Japan. Pure speculation on my part, but it really wouldn’t make sense. \*\* Yeah, you’re probably right. I bet the military tries to buy as much as it can from American companies, and the fancy weapons it uses were probably mostly developed and built in the US. It was just a joke… you know, “American components, Russian components, all made in TAIWAN!” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/72 "2003-03-21T02:11:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*I’d still like to see a credible justification for the inclusion of Japan in the list of coalition members. \*\* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60602-2003Mar20.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60602-2003Mar20.html) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/73 "2003-03-21T02:27:16Z")
Ahh. > [@](#): > > Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said his government’s support is the price for U.S. protection in case of conflict with North Korea. ```auto When I consider how my light is spent Ere half my days in this dark world and wide, And that one talent which is death to hide Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent To serve therewith my Maker, and present My true account, lest he returning chide, "Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?" I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need Either man's work or his own gifts: who best Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed And post o'er land and ocean without rest: **They also serve who only stand and wait.**" ``` That seems a bit of a stretch for a wartime partnership. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/74 "2003-03-21T04:11:25Z")
I think this is pretty accurate. Countries “for” are in bold. Did I miss anyone? **Afghanistan** **Albania** Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia **Australia** Austria **Azerbaijan** Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma (Myanmar) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China **Colombia** Comoros Congo Congo, Democratic Republic of the Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus **Czech Republic** **Denmark** Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt **El Salvador** Equatorial Guinea **Eritrea** **Estonia** **Ethiopia** Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia **Georgia** Germany Ghana **Great Britain (U.K.)** Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras **Hungary** Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel **Italy** Jamaica **Japan** Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, North **Korea, South** Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos **Latvia** Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein **Lithuania** Luxembourg **Macedonia** Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal **The Netherlands** New Zealand **Nicaragua** Niger Nigeria Northern Ireland (U.K.) Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian State\* Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru **The Philippines** **Poland** **Portugal** Qatar **Romania** Russia Rwanda St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino São Tomé and Príncipe Saudi Arabia Scotland (U.K.) Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone **Singapore** **Slovakia** Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa **Spain** Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia **Turkey** Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Uruguay **Uzbekistan** Vanuatu Vatican City (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Wales (U.K.) Western Sahara\* Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe - Proposed States ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/75 "2003-03-21T04:21:55Z")
Opps. I forgot to bold **United States** ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/76 "2003-03-21T05:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wolfstu \* > **I bet the military tries to buy as much as it can from American companies…** I believe the official policy of Japan is that export of weapons are prohibited. However Japan has a substantial defense industry and most weapons owned by the Self Defence Force are produced in Japan, including F-15 fighters manufactured under license. And of course multi-purpose vehicles, electronic components and communications equipment are exported and used for military applications. [This article](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/industry.htm) gives a detailed (if somewhat outdated) description of Japan’s defence industry. In addition to that, Japan is planning to launch its first spy satellite next week. I think Japan’s contribution to the Iraq conflict will be minimal, and limited to logistical support at most. North Korea will be a different matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if attacking North Korea will be justified as a defensive action. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/77 "2003-03-21T05:21:48Z")
If some of the members of the coalition are continuing to critize the war, how willing are they, really? Whatever the numbers, I think that Rumsfeld is being misleading to say that Operation Iraqi Freedom is even bigger than the one behind Operation Desert Storm. Plenty of people, including Republicans and former Reagan administration officials are on record as thinking that description goes way too far, and gives a very false picture of the situation we confront. In 1991, our diplomacy in gathering together the coalition was widely praised. Even those who are part of our Coalition this time are critical this time around. We had 28-32 countries sending troops then, instead of just giving us transport rights, clean-up help, and emergency services. And there weren’t anywhere as many that were grousing, publicaly ambivalent and divided about it either. And unlike that war: -No Arab nations are sending troops, and even those that are helping us are fairly ambivalent -We are footing most of the bill -We have no decisive UN vote for war Also, there are only two nations where the majority of the population supports war: the U.S. and Israel. This shouldn’t be a strictly partisan issue, where we have to inflate the importance of the coalition to sell the war. Even people who support the war should be concerned about these sorts of differences, and the lack of attention the administration is paying, at least publically, to the wide dissent, is not a good thing. It represents something we have to work on, not something to dismissively brush under the rug. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/78 "2003-03-21T05:30:00Z")
The point to having this big coalition isn’t to get them to provide military hardware. The U.S. doesn’t need, or probably even want it. At some point, having 500 soldiers from Romania would just complicate the battle plan. No, the point to having that coalition is political. After the war, there will be a rebuilding. That requires money. And from that standpoint, the combined GDP of this countries IS highly relevant. Allies with a combined GDP of 10 trillion dollars makes a big difference. Having this big a coalition also makes a big difference politically. The more countries you have in your ‘corner’, the easier it is to gain world support for subsequent actions. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/79 "2003-03-21T05:34:13Z")
Just curious, is there a list anywhere of nations that have actually come out against the war? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526/80 "2003-03-21T05:44:09Z")
—The point to having this big coalition isn’t to get them to provide military hardware.— That’s partly true, but not exactly the point. In 1991, most of the Arab nations that fielded troops didn’t actually go into Iraq and fight. But they stood with us, guarding borders, securing positions that were under threat of missle attacks, and so on. It was a major statement of support from the Arab world that we are lacking this time around. I think that’s significant. —Having this big a coalition also makes a big difference politically.— So… are you really suggesting that the current sans-U.N. coalition is, in terms of being backed by wide political support, as good or better than the 1991 U.N.-led coalition? Because an attempt to compare the current coalition to that past one seems pretty silly. The current list seems a far more unofficial collection of nations, many of them jumping on and off the list as their governments fight over what they mean by “support.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/30-nation-coalition-for-war/162526.md?page=5)