As a technical matter, if we include Japan in the “coalition of the willing” on the basis of its escort duties in the gulf, shouldn’t Canada and France also be included ?
-Just asking 
You might want to get your calculator out again. You’re off by a few decimal places.
U.S. GDP is about 10 trillion, Japan is 3 trillion, Italy is 1.5 trillion, the UK is about 1 trillion.
So just the next three allies alone have a GDP over half the size of the U.S’s.
But hey, this is a fun game. Let’s try it this way:
Total world GDP: ~30 trillion
GDP of coalition: 20.34 trillion
So the coalition countries make up 2/3 of the entire economic output of the world.
How about military spending?
Total world military spending: $839 Billion
Military spending of coalition: $550.23 Billion
So the coalition countries make up 65% of all the military spending in the world.
I know you guys want to minimize the size of this coalition by sneering at these smaller countries, but at least get your numbers straight.
What’s the point of this numbers game? To prove that only the rich developed nations can afford to build stealth bombers and deploy thousands of troops to invade countries on the other side of the globe?
To prove that the US spends lots of money on its military?
How about the number of people in the world who support the war? How about the number of governments who do? How about the number of countries where these two aren’t both the case?
Well, that was my point - that playing games with numbers is pointless. You can always conjure up some combination of statistics to ‘prove’ your point.
The fact is, the coalition consists of 30 countries (now 35, apparently), plus 15 more that are offering ‘quiet’ support.
This is not insignificant. It’s not a joke. And they aren’t all pipsqueak countries, either. Spain, Italy, Australia, the U.K, and Japan are part of this coalition, and they are among the largest economic powers in the world.
I mentioned this on another thread, but I find it very interesting that Denmark is in the CotW. They were nominated as the winner by quite a few posters on the “which country is the most free” thread.
Missing Germany, China, and Russia is a big loss for the US. France has seldon sided with the US, so really no surprise there.
Apologies to those “smaller countries” I don’t mention, but the UK, Spain, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, is a group not to be taken lightly.
As I said earlier, just because the government supports the US, it does not mean their people do. According to this article, Britain is the only European country where the majority of the population supports the US war on Iraq:
Its not that bad.
A security council vote only requires 9 of 15 countries, with no vetos.
the gulf war coalition was 32 nations
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html
NATO is 19 countries
Where does that article say anything about the British population supporting a U.S. led war on Iraq? The closest it comes is saying that the British population does not believe that its ties with the U.S. are having a negative effect upon their country. As for Britain’s rating of the U.S. it states that the proportion of the population with a favorable view has dropped from 75% to 48%, and that’s not even specifically on the topic of going to war. Also see this statement from your linked article: “All nine countries show a majority against the war”, which one would assume would include GB.
According to this Washington Post article only 39% of GB’s citizens favor going to war.
The only plus I found for the Bush administration in either of those articles is that U.S. citizens support for the war and Bush’s approval rating have both gone up in the last few days.
Sorry, I was a bit hasty there. I was looking at several articles, and the one I didn’t quote (this one) did say:
But you are right, it appears that this does not specifically ask about the war.
The Guardian has its faults, but it has damn good ideas: Emma Brockes phones the embassies of the ‘coalition of the willing’
Why is Canada being accused of this ? Didn’t America change the status quo by forcing military action ? Shouldn’t they be the country that is risking the relationship ? Am I missing something ?
We’ve been aware for a while now that Canada’s government is not exactly sympathetic to all things American, and vice versa. I doubt this will change the overall long-standing relationship. We know the level of opposition in Quebec does not necessarily represent the view in Alberta, just as the view in Los Angeles may not match that of most Texans, and so forth…we know the state of the military is also a cause for concern among many Canadians.
So we don’t agree on things but if the shit really hits the fan in this country, they will be the first ones there for us, and that counts for a lot. We’re fine.
Re: the coalition of the unwilling:
Just because they’re not for us doesn’t mean they’re against us. Well, if you discount the oft-misinterpreted Bush quote, that is. 
Good question… anyone know what happened there?
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.
Neither - stating facts doesn’t make a poor historian.
Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durão Barroso is in big trouble over the summit:
The Canadian goverment is being accused of this mainly by two groups: the US goverment, and some Canadian opposition parties, most notably the one called ‘Canadian Alliance’, which holds the second-largest number of seats in the House of Commons, and represents mostly constituencies in the western part of the country.
The US goverments says it’s ‘very disappointed’ with Canada (Colin Powell, in a conversation with the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, reported on CBC Radio)
The Canadian Alliance party’s leader has suggested that the government has, in not joining the war, ‘turned its back on our allies’ and that in doing so, if the Prime Minister ‘is in fact cheering on Saddam, he should make that clear’. (S. Harper, Alliance leader, as heard in a report on CBC Radio).
Two other opposition parties, the Bloc Québecois, which represents some constituencies in the mid-eastern province of Québec, and the New Democratic Party, which is a smaller party with members from constituencies scattered around the country, gave the Prime Minister a standing ovation in the House when he declared Canada’s intention not to join a war not sancitoned by the UN. The last major opposition party, the Progressive Conservative, did not join in the applause, but I haven’t heard a statement from their leader.
Critics suggest Canada will have even more difficulty in recent trade disputes with the US, and that Canada may lose favour with the American administration. They also charge that the Prime Minister is ‘Doing whatever he pleases’ and hurting trade and diplomatic relations with the US.
Supporters suggest that the the PM is making his position clear, and not bowing down to pressure to comply with the US for simply political reasons.
The PM has responded that war is a last resort to be taken only when sanctioned by the UN Security Council. He has said that a policy of effecting regime change is untenable, asking “Where does it stop? Who is next? Show me the list!” of those who support removing the Iraqi dictator. (Again, I got this from CBC Radio)
Stating them deliberately out of context does.
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.
I heard that Antarctica has joined Bush’s “coalition” in return for $50 and some heavy sweaters.