I don’t recall making any comparison whatsoever to the 1991 coalition. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I was simply disputing the characterization of the coalition as a bunch of pipsqueak countries.
BTW, CNN is now saying that the ‘coalition of the willing’ has now grown to over 40 countries.
—I don’t recall making any comparison whatsoever to the 1991 coalition. Why are you putting words in my mouth? —
Sorry, I assumed you were replying to me. I can see now how that might not have been the case.
Japan also publicly and strongly encouraged the ten elected Security Council members to vote for the US/UK/Spain resolutions. Japan’s say matters because Japan makes such large foreign aid contributions.
As for Japan pledging support “only because” the US also protects it from North Korea, so what? I only pay for the police force on the next block over because it serves my block, too.
Call me a pinko, but I pay local taxes to pay for my local police, state taxes for my state troopers, and federal taxes for the FBI and ATF and such. I pay them so that EVERYONE is protected, not just myself.
But, I agree its absurd to assume world nations should be thinking anyway other than as totally self-interested actors. Japan wants US military backing, and their economy is strongly tied to ours. Turkey’s citizens don’t want to help, but the government badly needs the debt reduction and the cash. Portugal, apparently is equally concerned about pissing off Washington and Mecca. The EU candidate states are caught in a tough spot too.
The ones not yet accepted to the EU are divided 9 to 4 in favor of the US. Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, and Turkey are coalition members and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, and Slovenia are not. They all also want foreign aid, military backing, or favorable trade status from us, and it seems they are betting on the UK, Spain, and Italy over France and Germany within the EU. Russia and China have economic interests in Iraq, and China probably wouldn’t mind seeing America fail at something. France and Germany have compromising economic interests in Iraq as well, but I’m told they have an actual ideological conflict with Bush’s pan in addition to their political and economic interests.
Spain, the UK, and Australia, I’m told, all actually have strong ideological agreement with Bush’s plan in addition to their political and economic interests – go figure.
most of the countries on thelist are so anxious to crawl up the US’s ass and get some some cash that would applaud if Canada was invaded
The Irish parliament voted to continue allowing US military planes to use our air space and airport facilities(Shannon). So I guess you can add us to the list.
Are we neutral? Are we fuck?
The last ? shouldn’t be there.
What are the new countries to announce support? I know Uganda and Micronesia are among them, but beyond that, next-to-nothing.
Well, If we’re going to contrast the current coalition with the one from 1991, I think we’re missing something.
This coalition, as announced by the US government, includes a few countries (USA / UK / Australia) that have sent troops, a few more that are lending some manner of logistical support, some others that have said ‘Sure, you can fly over us on the way to war’, and a whole bunch whose supposrt is limited to ‘Political, if not practical’ support. I put Eritrea, Columbia, and the Netherlands in that last group.
For Persian Gulf War (1991), my National Post article lists 36 countries that provided troops and hardware. I assume that there were at least a few countries that did not provide troops, but allowed coalition overflights, just like this time.
But how many Eritreas and Columbias were there?
The point of how we can’t compare this war’s coalition to those from historical wars has been made. But the world map wasn’t all that different in 1991 (although to be sure, a few important things have happened - mostly countries breaking into pieces, like the USSR and Jugoslavia and such). But the world map did look more or less the same a decade ago…
How many of the world’s countries supported the war in 1991? Japan, Finland, and Mexico sent no troops, but what did they have to say about the war? The current standard seems to be to include on the list every country that has spoken favourably of the war as ‘part of the coalition’. How many countries were in that camp in 1991?
How interesting is the support of administrations if they don’t have general public support in their countries? In f. e. Spain, a vast majority of the public are against a war.
In this morning’s press conference, Rumsfeld said that the coalition of countries offering public support is now at 45.
Is the number of countries actually providing troops still 3? If so, then Rumsfeld is just throwing out propaganda spin.
No, it’s not. Rumsfeld mentioned that Poland has also contributed troops.
But it’s not just propaganda spin. As I mentioned before, the U.S. doesn’t really need or even want more troops. The coalition will be much more important diplomatically after the war, when the much more difficult rebuilding operation begins. From that standpoint, getting as many countries as possible ‘on board’ is very important.
Not really, Sammie.
Many countries that don’t support the war are willing, and have expressed their willingness, to contribute to post-war rebuilding of iraq!
It’s to all effect a propaganda spin.
If you didn’t help with the war, we don’t need your help with the aftermath. Thanks, but no thanks.
Heh,
well John, that may be your position, but it certainly won’t be the position of the US and UK governments! You see, rebuilding a country into a working democracy after mad dictators and “humanitarian” interventions is very, very expensive. Even more so than waging a war!
So when the day comes, you can expect messrs Bush & Blair to smooth over their dissagreements with Chirac and Schröder and nicely going to the UN, hat in hand, asking for a broad UN coalition responsible for rebuilding Iraq!
How suprised you would have been, had i not warned you, huh 
I’m from Uruguay. Not a major player, granted …
Public opinion is overwhelmingly against the war. 96% according to a recent poll.
The government received a couple of billion dollars as an almost direct loan from de USA via de Int. Monetary Fund a few months ago.
Result: The government party, in a very tortured announcement filled with as much vagueness as they could possibly muster, blamed the mess on the UN !! The war is the UNs fault !!??
I bring this as an example of what kind of mechanics are at work behind many of these “coalition of the willing” inclusions.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
A couple of billion? For Uruguay? No offense meant, companero, but we should have had you for two million, tops.
elucidator -> goes to show where your tax dollars are going without you even knowing.
Well, I mean, daffy space defense projects, rabid dictators with aviator glasses and reactionary politics, projects to keep third-world women barefoot and pregnant, these I can grasp…
But Uruguay?
Can you refund your share? I’ll give you the adress.