The Coalition Myth

Uncle Slappy

Veteran XV
I read this at the barber today, from a conservative school's paper too, thought I'd share, was interesting..

The coalition myth revised
Most of the countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions

Justin Hill
April 08, 2003

The most outrageous aspect of the war in Iraq is not the fact that America has sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women across the world to risk their lives. Instead, it might be the administration's distortion of the truth to mislead the American public. Case in point, the "Coalition of the Willing."

Americans have been led to believe that this war is no longer unilateral and is supported by a large multinational coalition -- one larger than that assembled for the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said. But Rumsfeld's statement is based on half-truths and a willing disregard for facts.

Currently America's coalition consists of 46 countries from around the world. According to the White House Web site, www.whitehouse.gov, it "includes nations from every continent on the globe." Did someone forget about Antarctica? The list certainly contains notable world powers such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan. The list also includes other stable and strong countries including Italy, Portugal, Spain, Singapore and South Korea.

However, all of these countries are headed by representative democracies. All of these countries had extremely large anti-war movements, but their elected officials have chosen to bow to the United States rather than represent their populace. All these countries may back the United States, but only the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Spain have committed troops, according to the White House site. Spain's troops won't even be participating in ground combat. According to The Washington Post, Poland initially denied supplying troops, but recent pictures have revealed a limited number of its special forces currently in Iraq. Denmark has even supplied a submarine, though the usability of the submarine in a desert seems dubious.

As if these circumstances were not already ridiculous enough, the list itself becomes more humorous.

The White House counts six unarmed countries, some of which would be a challenge to locate on a map. Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan are countries the White House includes in the coalition. According to alternet.org, three of these countries are completely dependent upon the United States for funding and defense.

Most of the countries included in the Coalition of the Willing support this war through rhetoric only. The Washington Post wrote, "Morocco's weekly al Usbu' al-Siyassi claimed that Morocco has offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines." Although this is a highly speculative assertion, this generous sacrifice of primates would represent one of the contributions by a coalition country.

The majority of countries supporting the war have seemingly chosen to do so for economic or diplomatic reasons. Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia are either trying to gain membership into NATO or are relatively new members that must stand strong with NATO powers to ensure their relevance within the organization. Along with the NATO countries, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan all rely on the United States in case of a threat from their Russian neighbors.

The South and Central American countries of Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama are trying to align themselves to be included in President George W. Bush's The Free Trade of Americas plan, which will act like NAFTA and likely be a boon to any economy. Also, many African countries with deplorable human rights records and shaky U.S. relations rely on the United States for aid and support and have signed on to keep from losing the support they need.

Even more amusing, the Department of State has been warning Americans not to visit seven of the coalition countries because they could be killed or kidnapped. Turkey is listed as a coalition country, but denied the United States the right to use its bases to launch an incursion from the north. Eritrea made the cut, along with Ethiopia, which does not have the resources to provide food for its own citizens. Taiwan is even listed, but the United States does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country.

The Persian Gulf War consisted of 34 countries that provided military support, according to Milbank Quarterly. That coalition would have been more than 100 by the accounting standards employed today by the Bush Administration. Declaring this coalition larger than the one assembled by former President George Bush is an insult to all those involved in the diplomatic efforts prior to the Gulf War.

The Bush administration employs a spin unseen since Clinton left office. This is a coalition of necessity to most countries that have no choice. In the 1992 Gulf War, Yemen lost funding from America after voting against the U.N. resolution authorizing a war to liberate Kuwait.

The "Coalition of the Willing" is not composed of nations willfully and actively supporting this war, but of governments that have chosen to sign a piece of paper rather than anger the American power broker.

http://www.thebatt.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/08/3e9263d030fb2?in_archive=1
 
"The coalition myth revised
Most of the countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions "

Duh, no shit, move on
 
Xapz said:
"The coalition myth revised
Most of the countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions "

Duh, no shit, move on

More to the article than that, reading is ghud mkay

and it mentions the monkeys
 
Uncle Slappy said:
More to the article than that, reading is ghud mkay

and it mentions the monkeys

it doesn't mention any update on whether or not they actually GOT the monkeys though. so i still want a monkey update :(
 
Xapz said:
"The coalition myth revised
Most of the countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions "

Duh, no shit, move on
This about somes up my response.


FUCKING DUH?
 
what a strange time to argue about this

after the war is basically over

what purpose does this serve?
 
Stupid bleeding liberals reaching for an offensive stance using logic born out of piddly shit.

The countries support the war because it is not a war of conquest.

They support the war because they recognize Saddam was a lil Hitler.

They support the war because they understand that the Holocaust I should NOT be allowed to have a sequel.

They support the war because there are more level headed realists in their countries than there are helium headed liberal anti-war protesters. Majority wins thank you very fucking much.

They support the war means they support what the coalition is doing.

As for not sending in fighting troops to see action... you think the U.S. needs them? You think they want to have to add another few dimensions to the battle plan just to accomodate "the willing"? Do you KNOW that no other countries volunteered troops? I don't fucking think so.

This type of crap of an article is just that: smelly, but necessary* shit. And I regard it as such.

*edit: necessary so that the freedom of speech remains a right for U.S. citizens.
 
Last edited:
This bullshit coalition just took over the most militaristic of Arab countries in less than 3 weeks.

Move on.
 
As the U.S. continues to gain more power over the decades, the list of relevant countries dwindles. World powers such as the U.S. and Britain are pretty much the only countries on the coalition that matter. Do you think a lion would care how many mice vowed to support him in a fight? Words alone are basically anything the world can contribute when everything else they have to offer is inferior or unnecessary.
 
Phrozen said:
As the U.S. continues to gain more power over the decades, the list of relevant countries dwindles. World powers such as the U.S. and Britain are pretty much the only countries on the coalition that matter. Do you think a lion would care how many mice vowed to support him in a fight? Words alone are basically anything the world can contribute when everything else they have to offer is inferior or unnecessary.


well said
 
Xapz said:
"The coalition myth revised
Most of the countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions "

Duh, no shit, move on

Thats what I said.

Coalition of the Willing is a group of nations that support our actions. They don't have to send troops to say "Go get'em!".
 
. Taiwan is even listed, but the United States does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country.

I thought we did, one of the reasons we protect them so much.

Where would one find a list of recognized countries?
 
There is alot of self hatred in the US. Its a shame really considering all the good the US does world wide in the form of monetary support.

Is that what this person is attempting to argue that if they don't tow the US line they will be cut off ? That is somewhat hard to believe because the US throughout history has supported many countries who disagree with them.


I feel definetely sorry for some of the attitudes of people who call themselves American, not realizing that for all the bad publicity the US does for doing something wrong, they are never recognized for the volumous things they do right.
 
CelticLegend said:
Stupid bleeding liberals reaching for an offensive stance using logic born out of piddly shit.
Damn logic.

CelticLegend said:
They support the war because there are more level headed realists in their countries than there are helium headed liberal anti-war protesters. Majority wins thank you very fucking much.
Uh in most of those countries the public majority does not support the war. Hell only recently did the % in GB supporting the war raise above 50%.

All the article is saying is that the White House put a spin on the size of the coalition to counter those who said the war was unilateral. No duh they spinned it. But everyone knew it, so who cares.
 
Back
Top