[singing] Seven thousand Ma-ce-do-nians in full battle array! [/singing] 
Really… are you sure you’re talking about the Dominican Republic?
Sorry, I am having trouble understanding this so I’ll use pieces of it to ask for clarification
Huh? “Discussing that way”? Can you rephrase this sentence so it makes more sense? Did you mean “Discussing it that way”? Honestly, this part is very hard to understand.
You can’t see what who is complaining about what? My comment was that if a nation is mad about the conditions of the aid, don’t take it or send it back. If you are mentioning something else then I don’t know what you are referring to.
The premise of the post I was responding to was that the country was forced to provide troops in order to receive aid. In other words given the ultimatum, “If you do not provide troops, we will give you no aid.” Whatever you are referring to about small nations using troops as a bargaining chip was not mentioned by either of us. So what’s the point? Small nations offered to support the war and send troops so later they can request aid? If you are mentioning my posts, I never said countries should not receive aid, I’m saying they should not agree to conditions for aid and then bitch about the conditions. No one forced them to ask for or take the money.
As for a reduced amount, please provide a cite of a country which had its foreign aid cut off or reduced because they would not send troops or support the was in Iraq.
**
**
Who are these nations where the US said agree to the invasion of Iraq or we will cut off your aid. Seriously, I am very interested in this because I have not heard of this until now. Which nations were receiving aid before the war and the US threatened to cut if off?
**
Nothing is better for proving a point than totally unsubstantiated opinions about back channel military supplies.
My point is very simple so let me put it here again in case reading comprehension is a problem. A small country agrees to aid from the United States under certain conditions but then starts to complain about the conditions. No one is forcing them to take the aid so send the money back and don’t follow the conditions.
I’m more than happy for the United States to give money to needy nations but if they are going to bitch about it, then I have every right to bitch about their complaints.
The 1st paragraph on your previous post, was an argumentum ad absurdum.
As for the rest of your post, it seems that you ignored what Ale said here.
No disrespect to you, GIGObuster. You’re likely giving someone a little too much benefit of doubt.
The Long Road, you’ve obviously got a beef here, so why don’t you just spill it? So far, in this thread you’ve attacked three separate posters and generally, the responses have been above your head. Notably, though, from Mighty_Girl you’ve evinced such condign and luculent invective, (which if I’m reading correctly, in real life is encased in a voice sultry enough to fog my glasses) that your case hardly looks admirable.
Preliminarily, it seems you’re looking for a thumbwrestling match, but perhaps you actually have something to say. Please state your case or I’ll be forced to think you’re simply trying to provoke an argument.
My take on it is this.
The UK, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Japan and Australia were not coerced or “bribed” into the coalition. However their leaders made a decision to maintain a close alliance with the United States even if it meant angering a large segment of public opinion.
The former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe were also motivated by maintaining political and economic ties (ok this might border more on bribery), but also wanted a chance to take some of the wind out of France and Germany - which clearly see themselves as Europe’s architects, and have adopted a somewhat patronizing view to the countries to the east. It probably helped a whole lot that Russia was also seen as being on the other side of this matter.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and (silently) Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (by no means part of the coalition of course) wanted to see Saddam out of the picture any way possible.
Turkey got cold feet when it pondered the possible independence of 5 million Kurds.
Israel wanted to see a hostile Arab regime get walloped.
Most of the “third world” members were financially rewarded. If they were bribed, they were quite willing to be bought off. Call them the “Coalition of the Billing”. Anyway, the fact that many equally poor or weak nations weren’t in on the coalition make me doubt that it was purely a matter of arm-twisting. For the most part, any country without a Muslim community to answer to and reasonable realtions with the United States seems to be in on it.
Palau, Micronesia, and other such places are probably the only ones who’s presence in the coalition was not all that negotiable. But for all we know they really may have pro-American populations…are there any Micronesian dopers?
I’m sure Eritrea became involved because being chummy with the United States strengthens their position against Ethiopia. Who’s using who there? Its not one sided in any case.
I would have supported this war more strongly if I really believed the countries that were our “allies” were at least as behind this as the United States was. It disturbs me that Spain or Italy could be in our “coalition” and still have over 90% of their public against the war. It probably will set back public support for friendship with America in those countries for decades. We should have just settled for an amicable neutrality instead of this “you’re either with us or against us” shit. Its really bad policy. I’d rather have a coalition four solid supporters than a forty member coalition of the half-assed.
I see your point Mr. B. However, sometimes giving the benefit of the doubt helps, I remember that in a thread against badchad, I was glad I gave you that benefit, and after the miscommunication, I found you to be a very kind person! 
One thing I have to grant The Long Road: there is nothing hidden about the military weaponry and material the troops of the “willing” nations will get. The “back” part comes from the sad reality that the administrations (on both nations) are counting on people like The Long Road to ignore the future threatening use of the equipment.
Sadly, I come from a nation that has a history of doing that.
syncrolecyne: I am begining to think that it should be called the “carrot and stick” coalition.
And THAT lady and gentlemen is the ONLY thing I am arguing for here. It is not HOW or WHY or WHEN many/some/most of these nations got themselves listed as “willing” but the fact that many/some/most were not so “willing” to go to war and only did it to gain other things that has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with the primary argument presented by Bush (WMD, liberation of Iraq or whatever it was). So the word “willing” might not only NOT apply in many/some/most cases, it also sounds frigging ridiculous.
So, as Long Road believes, only the threat of deadly force (invasion in this case) constitutes a threat. So long as I threaten to kick him in the nuts it’s OK, because by Tutatis! Nobody has ever died because they were kicked in the nuts. Bollocks! We were threatened, and we were bribed. Our shame for allowing the US to do that. Trust me, I am not proud of this. But hell if I am going to concede that this country went to war because we agreed with your reasons.
BTW, funny enough our constitution clearly states that we MUST never attack another nation unprovoked. Nobody around here apparently noticed that and if they did they probably tore that page off the constitution and wiped their asses with it 
The nation is mad. The government made the decision without consulting the people. Can’t you see the difference? It doesn’t matter what WE the people think. Apparently that’s the new brand of democracy. “Elect us. Say what you want, we’ll do as we please” (see the UK, Spain, Italy, Dominican Rep., etc.)
See the post from our poster from Uruguay. Read my lips. That is exactly what happened. I will put it in smaller words.
-
“Here, go to war have ANOTHER candy”
-
“But we do not agree with your reasons. We don’t want to go to war.”
-
“Bad kid! Give me my candies.”
-
“Ok, I’ll go”
Some poor countries desperately need the aid. In any case, there are many examples of the leaders of a country aiding the US war while the population are against it (like the UK).
I have already referred to the US offering Turkey millions of dollars to let US troops use Turkey for access. Turkey (a neighbour of Saddam, who would therefore be directly threatened if he did have WMDs) turned it down and forced the US to change its battle plan.
Spain was most definitely bribed/coerced for their support. There is no way in the world “Daffy Duck Ansar” would have gone against the strong and clear wishes of his country for no reason. The question is not whether the American Friend made any threats and/or promises because clearly such representations were made. The question is what were they because they were not made public. (All for the people but without the people.) My guess is that the American Friend offered reconstruction contracts, oil and, most importantly, help in the fight against ETA. Daffy Ansar weighed the odds and figured helping the American Friend in the war would be very unpopular but the war would be short and then a better day would shine in Iraq and the masses would turn around and cheer. He never imagined that the post-war would be a mess like we are having and that the Spanish people would not ultimately cheer for him. Aznar believes the problem with ETA can be solved by brute force and American intelligence – Ummm. . . make that American information will help him win the war with ETA. In any case, the people of Spain were dead-set against the war and their daffy leader was bribed with promises which have not been disclosed. The image of the USA in Spain has taken a very serious blow and it will make future relations more difficult. It has had and will continue to have serious negative consequences for Spain in its relations with Europe’s leading countries, France and Germany. Spain could not get France and Germany to support its proposal to give Spain more weight in the new European Constitution being drafted. Daffy Ansar had to go home with his tail between his legs.
At any rate, no one in Spain, not even daffy Ansar, thought the war wa a good thing. The people hated it and their president thought he could get something by selling his support. He may have made a serious mistake. Maybe what he is getting is not what he wanted to get.
The UK (nor anyone else) was certainly not consulted either about the decision. Blair was trying really hard to get a second UN resolution over WMDs when Bush decided to go in anyway.
I agree with the above - but do please say who your ‘four solid supporters’ of the US are.
I think that was just a figure of speech, glee, not a claim of knowing for a fact there are exactly four committed allies.
I have to commend Mighty_Girl for her eloquence.
Maybe it should more aptly be called the coalition of the initially unwilling but finally bribed and coerced.
When you go to a poor country and young girls offer to have sex with you for money that is not love for you but need for your money. Different things. You can boast that you took advantage of their need but don’t boast that they love you because it only makes you ook like an idiot.
It seems syncrolecyne cannot quite tell the difference between doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do and doing it for other reasons. During the first Gulf war and during the Afghan war the USA enjoyed much wider and much more sincere support from other countries but that changed with this war.
For the US government to say they got the sincere support from all those countries just makes them look stupid. We all know how much bribing and arm-twisting took place.
You quite sure you identified the correct poster there, sailor? Just asking.
Indeed I think sailor was referring to The Long Road. And what Mighty_Girl and others are pointing out, is that in many cases we have had the support of governments, over and above massive opposition from their own people. I’m sure a large proportion of Dominicans, Spaniards, etc. would willingly grit their teeth and make do w/o whatever payment they’re getting from the USA, but they are not getting to make the choice and that ticks them off.
NOW, if The Long Road wants to argue that constitutional government is different from direct democracy, and that sometimes a government will be justified in doing that which displeases the mass of the people, heck, THAT I am in agreement with. BUT the people do NOT lose the right to raise the issue and denounce those involved.
(That in some locales the opponents’ basis-for-opposing may be about as well thought-out as the prewar excuses-for-invasion, is another story.)
I was being rhetorical…I have no idea if there are four solid supporters of American foreign policy (maybe Micronesia, Palau, Saipan, and the Marshall Islands are!). I only meant that if you are going to have a fight, make sure the people in your corner are really there for you.
I think I am pretty clear in mocking the idea of the “Coalition of the Willing”. I only take issue with the idea they were bullied into being in the coalition. Most of their governments are simply venal enough to seek out American rewards for support, and that quite a few of these countries (especially in Eastern Europe) had more than one motive.
There I agree completely with you; however, the real life issue is different than the picture yuo draw there.
1st Act, The USA agrees to provide aid to X country based on the compliance of Y conditions.
2nd Act, the USA comes one day asking for a rubberstamp to do something unrelated to Y or else withdraws the aid.
3rd Act, here there are two possible outcomes, country X sucks it up and bows under the coercion or renounces to the aid.
It´s not so complicated to understand, is it?
Example over here I very much doubt that in the conditions for the aid the US withdrew was written that the recipient country should abide from it´s international agreements with third parties and violate it´s own law by doing so, at a command from the USA or else the aid is cancelled.
elucidator you seem so sure of those 90% that I for a moment thought you must have been ‘round counting heads – all forty million of them. However in one of my somewhat (admittedly infrequent) saner moments I realize that’d be impossible and since I know of no country, let alone Spain, that has had a public vote on the subject, I’m forced to the conclusion it’s a bunny number more or less pulled out of a magic hat (or magic arse – this being the pit), or worse some polling institute pulled out of their arse.
I hope you’ll excuse me but polls are a pet peeve of mine. Why do you think the miniscule number polled by the institute should have any great say on their nation’s decisions? Or why the institute that phrased the questions and parsed the answers, or the news paper (most likely) that bought the poll should be given so much power on anything let alone an important question like this.
Now as far as I know Spain is ruled by some kind of representative democracy (parliamentary monarchy) and not by pollcracy. Are you generally opposed to representative democracy or only when the leaders follow a course you personally think is wrong?
Me, I’m all for more votes on everything from tax reform to what type of pink knickers the princess should be allowed to wear. However as long as we have representative democracy lets not let some small institution representing who knows what hidden agenda decide what everybody’s supposed to think. The Spaniards will have every chance to vote in another government come next election – then we’ll see how much they disliked Spain’s involvement – and not a second before.
Sailor you have many hmm… lets say bold theories but your take on the ETA seems decidedly bizarre. Spain has been having a low key struggle against the ETA (whom accepts neither election results nor compromise) – but brute force? I’m afraid the Spaniards are not as experienced in this regard as you Americans. Also Asnar enjoy very wide support on his Basque line – both parliamentary (if anything the Socialists are less compromise seeking) and I’m afraid to say, public.
Also, just for the sake of truth and all the silliness, I believe you botched the EU thing. What happened in Rome was that France and Germany couldn’t get Spain and Poland to support their proposal to give Spain and Poland less weight in the European Constitution (while Spain and Poland just tried to hold on to their, relative to population size, unfair amount of power given to them in the Nice treaty – which is what we’re back to now). Moreover I think you severely overestimate your influence on European policy. The Americans power to both bribe and coerce Spain is trivial compared to that wielded by other, especially Germany and France, European powers.
And I agree that many of the countries on the list are fairly absurd, and all of the rest of the countries had more than one reason to be there in the first place. Nothing new under the sun here. This is international politics. It’s never been pretty – why suddenly start to expect everybody to be pure and virginal? Do you think every country opposing the war was doing so from the goodness and pureness of their unsullied heart?
Zoe!: Havarti! Oh damn! The evil liberals are onto our secret weapon!
Big_girl: I haven’t forgotten you! That was you who referred to my glorious home islands as bits of barren rock floating on the ocean. Oh the dishonor! Rest assured our longboats are on the way to exact just revenge! When you see that red bearded man wearing a horned helmet swinging his axe – you know why!
- Rune