Talk:U.S.-led coalition against Iraq

Needs rewrite so it dosen't appear that the "unwilling" nations (some 59 of them!) aren't protrayed as:

being on the White House list of the "coalition of the willing", yet
not really being willing after all

thus

making the White House look really stupid.

Whether or not the White House or Bush himself is stupid is an open question, one on whih the artice whould not take sides.

I would suggest, moreover, that we need an article which simple lists all the nations of the world, aolong with:

how they have described their position on the war
any opposition statements from their people
what they have done to help or hinder the US-led invasion

This morning, it seemed to me that the coalition of the willing article included some "unwilling" nations, and that confused me. If we list willing and unwilling together, we need a better title like national stances on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think someone started something like that... Uncle Ed 12:25 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, there was a perfectly good article under a perfectly obvious phrase before you started on all this split-the-thing-up madness. Just put it back the way it was please. Tannin 12:28 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Are you aware of Zoe's objections? If you think the new division sucks, you can revert it. I'm restricting myself to talk pages only for the next 24 hours! "War cannot bring about peace." --Uncle Ed 12:40 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

THere's already this article - Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq which seems like a good spot for support and opposition. It could include what Ed suggested, a list of countries and how they support and how they oppose the war - which makes sense since so many of them do both.

Like Ed, I'm not sure I understand why nations opposing the war are listed in an article about the nations supporting it.

Because they are not supporting it. Now maybe it just looks that way, and maybe I'm paranoid, but it sure does seem like an attempt to hide the actual minority nature of the coalition to me. Tannin 12:51 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

It sure seems like a bunch are supporting it to me... I think it's wishful thinking on your part to assume that its all just pretend. Believe what you want, but the article definitely shouldn't represent those beliefs unless there is evidence. Even some of the countries listed in the "opposition" are supporting in various ways (air-space, airbases, medical facilities, etc). No ones forcing them to do that.

There are other countries supporting the U.S./Britain/etc whether you like it or not. Get over it and leave your anti-iraq-war or anti-George Bush bias out of the article.

216.229.90.232, read my contributions before you impugn my motives, or try to guess (wrongly) my beliefs. You've got no idea, mate. Tannin

This says it all right here...

"Because they are not supporting it. Now maybe it just looks that way, and maybe I'm paranoid, but it sure does seem like an attempt to hide the actual minority nature of the coalition to me."

Minority of what? The world? Thats not a surprise.. the gulf war coalition was a "minority" in that sense as well. Yet, it was still an extremely successful coalition and I've heard very few people suggest that it was "too small".

Some statements from some members of the fictional coalition... [1]

And this is relevant to what? First you wrongly accuse me of something any regular here knows isn't true, then, when I point that out, you ignore it, shift ground and give a reference to something that happens to be correct but is completely irrelevant to the point at issue. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply admit your mistake and apologise?

Also, as a courtesy to other contributors, please sign your posts on talk pages. Tannin 13:17 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

The point is.. this article shouldn't be attempting to define who should be part of the coalition and who shouldn't be. It should list the countries that are a part of it. Period. Does that mean that all of them see eye to eye on every issue? Of course not. Does it mean that they all support he war in the same way? No. The gulf war coalition was no different in that respect.

If there is an article about the coalition supporting the iraq war - why fill it with countries that oppose it?

even if this article still needs work, I sure am glad Ed moved the content from the coalition of the willing one here. Just wanted to state that :-) Now, what looks clear to me is that there is need to be very clear between what a government does and what a population think. In a bunch of countries, it appears to me the gov is not doing what the majority of the population would have preferred to do. Either way.

Last point, I think nations making *only* propositions of reconstruction support should not be listed as supporters of the coalition. Let's get real, most industrial nations wanting to be part of the world game, want to get part of the reconstruction *cake*. Whatever their position on invasion is. That's economical positionning. Those industries which will get the contracts are gonna make good money with them, and those nations who get "control" of the oil will have it good too. Let's not pretend this has something to do with supporting war. It would be a little too much innocent. Similarly, it is likely the majority of firms getting the contracts for the reconstruction will be american or english. I am waiting to see what Estonia will get of the cake. And if it does, Estonia will give something in exchange. I am also waiting to see how Russia will make sure it keeps control of what it "owns". It's gonna be homeric !

ant

(I wrote that many hours ago, but wikipedia has not been accessible from France for several hours :-))

and another point : it seems to me that by definition, a country in the coalition is necessary bringing political support. So, any country listed on the article is bringing political support. Does that mean that those listed under the "brings political support" are "only" bringing political support ? Similarly, the ones listed under "reconstruction" support, are they only bringing "reconstruction" support ? If so, why is "reconstruction" support in an article about invasion ? In short, that is very confusing.

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3208--314736-,00.html (:-))