List of Coalition Countries

[Witling]

This is a list of the coalition countries as of 3/30/03. It's from a pretty flaky source (the White House). They said that the coalition was growing but I couldn't find a more advanced list. I love it that the list starts with Afghanistan (boy, you know they've got to have provided a lot of help in March of 2003) and ends with Uzbekistan. In between, you get a tour of Pacific atolls. Coalition Countries

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Ladies and gentlemen, according to the resident genius Whitling, I'd like to announce that the following countries are "Pacific Atolls."

Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

Stay tuned for more revelations from the brilliance of the leftist mindset.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think the point is that the "coalition" is more fluff than buff. What did Costa Rica and Honduras provide . . . bananas for the troops?

 

[Witling]

Hey, Hero! Did your list come from memory? Is linking complicated for you?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Hey, Hero! Did your list come from memory? Is linking complicated for you?

My list came from YOUR link, dude.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think the point is that the "coalition" is more fluff than buff. What did Costa Rica and Honduras provide . . . bananas for the troops?

If "providing" things is required for taking a stance, then Germany and France were for us since they didn't provide anything to Saddam.

What do Costa Rica and Honduras provide to the UN? I guess they aren't a part of the UN either.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think the point is that the "coalition" is more fluff than buff. What did Costa Rica and Honduras provide . . . bananas for the troops?

HoP knows that. He's just trying to perpetuate the fiction that the world was behind us when we invaded Iraq. YABA.

 

[Witling]

Hero, we've got to get a computer science guy in from Anandtech. Here's the list from my link.

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Note that it does start with Afghanistan and end with Uzbekistan. We've got a genuine mystery if you got the list you posted. Why not put up a link, so the rest of us can check it out. If it's my link, I'd really like to try it to see if I get your results.

Second, one of the things I like about this forum is links. This is for two reasons: (1) It lets one review the original source if one is so inclined. Mine was the White House in March 2003. (2) It allows the reader to estimate the worth of the source. For example, some might be inclined to give more credit to the White House than to the National Inquirer. I notice your list omits that Pacific Powerhouse, Palau, which I know was a member of the coalition. Please, grace us with a link.

Although my list does include a number of Pacific atolls, the point is, the coalition of the bought and paid for is composed of a great many "also rans." Even when you get respectable countries like Japan, as far as I know, Japan did nothing except lend its name. Turkey downright said, "Kiss my grits!" We're sending troops to the Philippines, not vice versa. I trust you get my point.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

HOP, you don't really believe the citizens of the nations you listed support US policy in Iraq? Arguably our strongest ally, UK, not only opposes Bush policy in Iraq . . . they've pretty much disavowed Tony Blair. Blair is ashamed to be seen in public with Bush, hence he skipped Bush's UN speech.

It's easy for Howard (Aussie PM) to do photo ops with Bush b/c Australia has less than 200 troops in Iraq and they are on the way out as well.

South Korea did not endorse the invasion (neither did Japan) but they are arguably sending aid (and personnel) for the benefit of reconstruction not as a show of support for the "Coalition of the Willing."

The state of Georgia provided more support for Bush War 2003 than the entire Balkans combined (including Georgia).

Turkey gave us permission to do flyovers . . . with prior approval . . . during the war. In the aftermath, they've cooperated b/c they were issued grants and loans that required Turkey's cooperation with operations in Iraq. At the moment their most significant assistance is allowing Iraq to export oil through Turkey . . . hell even Iran has offered to do that . . . I wonder if they will be added to the next coalition update.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
HOP, you don't really believe the citizens of the nations you listed support US policy in Iraq? Arguably our strongest ally, UK, not only opposes Bush policy in Iraq . . . they've pretty much disavowed Tony Blair. Blair is ashamed to be seen in public with Bush, hence he skipped Bush's UN speech.

It's easy for Howard (Aussie PM) to do photo ops with Bush b/c Australia has less than 200 troops in Iraq and they are on the way out as well.

South Korea did not endorse the invasion (neither did Japan) but they are arguably sending aid (and personnel) for the benefit of reconstruction not as a show of support for the "Coalition of the Willing."

The state of Georgia provided more support for Bush War 2003 than the entire Balkans combined (including Georgia).

Turkey gave us permission to do flyovers . . . with prior approval . . . during the war. In the aftermath, they've cooperated b/c they were issued grants and loans that required Turkey's cooperation with operations in Iraq. At the moment their most significant assistance is allowing Iraq to export oil through Turkey . . . hell even Iran has offered to do that . . . I wonder if they will be added to the next coalition update.

I don't think you stressed the point in bold quite enough. Their was never a mass consensus for war in the UK as far as I could tell - much less a majority who really cared, and if anyone did show a genuine pro-war opinion it tended to be because "Saddam was threatening us with WMD" - or was he?

--> Blair in bother now.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[SuperTool]

Good to see uganda and rwanda are on board.

 

[GrGr]

And Uzbekistan, the Heroin Mafia is obviously absolutely vital to winning the "War on Terror".

 

[Witling]

Oh, I get it now. The hero use my list but removed the Pacific islands. Sorry it took the resident genious so long to understand. And that's why I didn't find the Pacific Powerhouse Palau in the Hero's list.

 

[GrGr]

Weren't the Marshall Islands and Micronesia the only two other countries to vote with the US against the recent UN resolution against Israel?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

That's a sharp pick up . . . the original tales of a broad coalition where totally laughable when it included countries without a pot to piss in. The administration spinmeisters decided it was better to bulk up the list my trimming the garnish in the South Pacific. Plus I think the administration pretty much counts on the typical American not looking very carefully at that list . . . Ethiopia? Dominican Republic?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That's a sharp pick up . . . the original tales of a broad coalition where totally laughable when it included countries without a pot to piss in. The administration spinmeisters decided it was better to bulk up the list my trimming the garnish in the South Pacific. Plus I think the administration pretty much counts on the typical American not looking very carefully at that list . . . Ethiopia? Dominican Republic?

Then the UN is "totally laughable" because it ALSO includes those same countries without "a pot to piss in".

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That's a sharp pick up . . . the original tales of a broad coalition where totally laughable when it included countries without a pot to piss in. The administration spinmeisters decided it was better to bulk up the list my trimming the garnish in the South Pacific. Plus I think the administration pretty much counts on the typical American not looking very carefully at that list . . . Ethiopia? Dominican Republic?

Then the UN is "totally laughable" because it ALSO includes those same countries without "a pot to piss in".

There's a difference between a country participating in the UN (effectively a mediator) and the US propounding that countries who clearly have nothing more to offer than their "moral support" are part of some grand "coalition."

I can say with a good bit of confidence that Palau and the Marshall Islands are inconsequential in this war. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, could have been the tipping point. We wouldn't have "won" it without them!

 

[KenGr]

It's funny how you can always reach the conclusion you want if your mind is already made up. When I look at that list of countries, I see a pretty significant cross section of the world. I'm not sure where this mindset came from that the world begins and ends with Russia and China or that Europe is made up of France and Germany and that Spain, Italy, etc. don't count.

To try to see how significant this list is, I decided to evaluate it via the economic impact test. I went to the CIA World Factbook (Link) and identified these countries by Gross Domestic Product ranking. I found that the Coalition includes 9 of the top 20 economies in the world. If you sum the GDPs you get something approaching half of the world GDP. Since the list includes only about 25% of the nations of the world, it's hard for me to understand the suggestion that these countries are not significant.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Coalition is a lie. Every alleged member of the coalition had a head of state (at best) that gave tacit approval of the US intervention in Iraq. But to claim the citizens of these countries agreed with that course of action is an outright lie.

Your economic impact argument is pure poo. If you performed representative polling of every nation on the glob in March 2003, I doubt five would support invading Iraq (US, UK, Kuwait, Israel . . . damn maybe four). If you took that same poll today you might get two (Israel and Kuwait).

Your argument that Germany and France matter more than Spain and Italy is more puppy poo. Before the war the citizens of ALL four countries opposed the invasion . . . nothing has changed. The majority in all of those major Western European countries STILL oppose US policy in Iraq.

It is difficult to comprehend how allegedly sentient and somewhat intelligent beings cannot comprehend the difference between popular support and political support. This war never had popular support abroad and now it doesn't even have popular support at home. Most of the politicos are either running from associations with Bush (Blair) or not running for re-election (Aznar). Then you have fascist-lite (Berlusconi) . . . that would like nothing better than to see Italy rise to prominence in Europe . . . by any means necessary.

 

[glenn1]

What did Costa Rica and Honduras provide . . . bananas for the troops?

Jeez, could you be any more arrogant and condescending? There's no reason to insult these countries to make a point.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The Coalition is a lie. Every alleged member of the coalition had a head of state (at best) that gave tacit approval of the US intervention in Iraq. But to claim the citizens of these countries agreed with that course of action is an outright lie.

Changing your tune now, eh? Now it's not valid not because of those involved, but because it's a lie. If at first you can't succeed...

Your economic impact argument is pure poo. If you performed representative polling of every nation on the glob in March 2003, I doubt five would support invading Iraq (US, UK, Kuwait, Israel . . . damn maybe four). If you took that same poll today you might get two (Israel and Kuwait).

Your argument that Germany and France matter more than Spain and Italy is more puppy poo. Before the war the citizens of ALL four countries opposed the invasion . . . nothing has changed. The majority in all of those major Western European countries STILL oppose US policy in Iraq.

It is difficult to comprehend how allegedly sentient and somewhat intelligent beings cannot comprehend the difference between popular support and political support. This war never had popular support abroad and now it doesn't even have popular support at home. Most of the politicos are either running from associations with Bush (Blair) or not running for re-election (Aznar). Then you have fascist-lite (Berlusconi) . . . that would like nothing better than to see Italy rise to prominence in Europe . . . by any means necessary.

Now you're saying that you want Italian taxi drivers making policy. Popular opinion doesn't always rule and shouldn't always. And, besides, you've yet, as far as I've seen, to backup that conjecture with some credible source.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

That's not an insult it's just stating facts. Costa Rica has no indigenous military force (CIA FactBook) and I doubt the population provided popular support for Bush War 2003.

Honduras has a standing military but they are typically standing in line for welfare. It's one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere and I doubt the population popularly supported Bush War 2003.

The last two years of this "you are with us or with the terrorists" BS . . . is the epitome of arrogance. The New World Order . . . otherwise known as the PNAC . . . is the epitome of arrogance. Well actually it's more delusional than arrogant.

Costa Rica is a beautiful country (albeit with a poor distribution of wealth). I respect the right of all nations to decide where they stand on the issue of pre-emptive invasions based on BS propaganda. In particular, I support the right of decent people in Costa Rica and Honduras to protest against war in numbers several orders of magnitude greater than the support for the war.

 

[KenGr]

This thread just continues to prove my point. It started with a conclusion, that the "Coalition" really had no international support.

It was proposed that the Coalition was composed primarily of Pacific atolls. That turns out to be incorrect.

It was then proposed that the countries in the Coalition were insignificant. That turns out to be incorrect.

It is now proposed that a public opinion poll in those countries would not show support for the war. No one ever said it would and no country joined the coalition on that basis.

I have no doubt public opinion polls would show a strong isolationist sentiment and a very narrow self interest in most countries. It certainly wouldn't be that hard to get a public opinion poll in the US to back kicking most of the foreigners out, eliminating immigration and taking all sorts of really interesting reactionary initiatives, but fortunately, our collective governmental system keeps us from reacting emotionally to every swing in the news.

 

[tnitsuj]

What exactly do you have to "do" to be in the Coalition.

And "Hero". why did you edit the original list?

 

[DealMonkey]

How much did we have to bribe each of those countries to "support" the war?