List of Coalition Countries

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
What exactly do you have to "do" to be in the Coalition.

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

He said between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan was "a tour of Pacific atolls." I simply omitted the half dozen island countries which could be mistaken by the small-minded as atolls and just listed those countries which even the biggest idiot could not possibly classify as an atoll. In other words, I proved his pathetic hyperbole to be rediculous spin as the list couldn't possibly be a "tour of Pacific atolls". I honestly thought he'd shut up after that and let this thread disgracefully slide down the board after being proven a neophyte spinster, but, as usual, BBD jumped in with a couple Red Herrings to keep the thread alive.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well unlike most other countries on that list Germany did provide alot to your Iraq trip. Overflight rights, Airports, Bundeswehr guarding your bases, AWACS, Antichemical warfare equipments+troops... But at least we didnt suck up to the US to be on some kind of bogus list...

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: 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.

Well unlike most other countries on that list Germany did provide alot to your Iraq trip. Overflight rights, Airports, Bundeswehr guarding your bases, AWACS, Antichemical warfare equipments+troops... But at least we didnt suck up to the US to be on some kind of bogus list...

yip

the same here for that other "Axis Of Weasel" member Belgium.
deployment of troops to protect american shipments from the port of Antwerp
protection of trains going to Antwerp coming from German with American equipment

 

[edmundoab]

lol a good one....

 

[edmundoab]

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?

hahahhaa

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: KenGr

This thread just continues to prove my point.Which is?

It started with a conclusion, that the "Coalition" really had no international support.Where do you see this?

It was proposed that the Coalition was composed primarily of Pacific atolls. No it wasn't.

It was then proposed that the countries in the Coalition were insignificant. Their significance is opinion.

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.
Assuming you're right (which by the way, how do you know you are?), doesn't that seem a little odd to you? No country joined the coalition because the public agreed with it?

 

[preslove]

From the Oxford English Dictionary Online www.oed.com (you have to access it from a university or other institution that pays them)

4. esp. in Politics. An alliance for combined action of distinct parties, persons, or states, without permanent incorporation into one body.

So, a COALITION is an ALLIANCE.

oed.com 2. a. Combination for a common object, confederation, union offensive and defensive; especially between sovereign states.

In other words, a "coalition" as used by the administration, is an alliance between sovereign states for offensive or defensive purposes, i.e. to FIGHT A WAR. It seems kind of counter-intuitive, therefore, to include in a coalition created to fight a war in IRAQ: Colombia, Albania, Angola, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Micronesia, Iceland, Costa Rica, Solomon Islands, El Salvador, et. al.. These contries do not have anything that would be at all helpful to fight a war in the Middle east. They don't have troops to spare (didn't supply any), the aren't in the region (only Kuwait and Turkey are nearby, and Turkey didn't even allow us to use our bases inside their country, making them a rather confusing addition to the "coalition"), and they don't have any surplus money lying around to give us.

Instead of reffering to this list as a "Coalition" it would be far more accurate to call it a "Public Relations Tool." "Look at us! Look at us! Columbia (which is recieving over a Billion dollars from the United States to fight its own guerilla war [or drug war, same thing] and is therefore incapable of giving any meaningful support) supports our war!"

How about calling it the "Coalition of the Worthless?"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually Uzbekistan is important. Unfortunately, it's ruled by a despot that stifles dissent by killing the opposition . . .

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much did we have to bribe each of those countries to "support" the war?

well Iceland is there because of the US military base here. The US wants to remove the planes and with them goes the helecopter team and with them goes alot of other stuff so what would be left is very little. The base provide jobs for around 1000 people directly and more indirectly. The decision was taken without any talks with the Icelandic gov, but was later withdrawn when the gov said that if the planes go the whole base goes, so now talks have started and I'm not sure where they are going. Last friday 90 of those 1000 people were let go without any explination, which among other things violate local laws.
And thats where things stand right now.

Public support here has never come to close to support the govs decision, and that decision was taken without any talks with the oposition and they learned it from the papers.

 

[preslove]

Actually Uzbekistan is important. Unfortunately, it's ruled by a despot that stifles dissent by killing the opposition . . .

No, Uzbekistan is not important, this "coalition" was formed (ostensibly) to fight the war in Iraq. Uzbekistan was important in the Afghanistan campaign because it is contiguous to that nation and provided bases for the US.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, when Bush says coalition he means Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror-fight, Christian . . . you name it . . . he includes it. You must learn to think like a Bushie. Here try this exercise . . . take two unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionaries and tape one to each side of your head so they obscure your lateral field of view. Now apply tape to the ends of the books in front so it obscure the middle third of your visual field. Now you have Bush vision . . . accordingly, Uzbekistan is a great ally in the fight against terror and the fight for human rights.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: KenGr

This thread just continues to prove my point.Which is?

from KenGr

It's funny how you can always reach the conclusion you want if your mind is already made up.

It started with a conclusion, that the "Coalition" really had no international support.Where do you see this?

from Whitling

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.

It was proposed that the Coalition was composed primarily of Pacific atolls. No it wasn't.

from Whitling

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.

It was then proposed that the countries in the Coalition were insignificant. Their significance is opinion.

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.
Assuming you're right (which by the way, how do you know you are?), doesn't that seem a little odd to you? No country joined the coalition because the public agreed with it?

I spend a lot of time following international news and travel internationally. I'm not aware of any country that makes foreign relation decisions based on public opinion polls or votes. There may be some exceptions and I'd be glad to hear of them. I am aware of some countries making domestic decisions by vote of the general public, the most notable of these being European countries that have decided certain European Union participation issues by vote, but I am not aware of any country ever making major foreign relations or military action decisions by vote of the citizens. Does it seem odd to you that there were no public votes to enter WWII, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, the Bosnian conflict or the Gulf war?