The reason the word ''coalition'' flows every five seconds from the lips of the Bush and Powell is because they do not want us to know that no such thing exists. The United States has 250,000 troops bearing down on Iraq. Britain is contributing 45,000. After that, the next greatest contributor is Australia, with a grand total of 2,000. After that, it is a gathering of street-corner brothers, the kind who are legendary for loudly threatening to start a fight, but at the moment of truth runs back to his buddies and screams, ''Fellas, hold me back! You gotta hold me back before I kill this guy!'' Poland, obviously to protect its $3.8 billion in US fighter-plane loans, will loan us a grand total of 200 soldiers. Spain was the third-loudest voice behind the United States and Britain in asking the UN to go to war. But faced with 81 percent opposition by Spaniards to the war, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar committed only 200 troops to go only to Turkey. Fellas, hold me back! Denmark threw in a submarine and a destroyer. Nations like Turkey, Italy, Bulgaria, and Romania will let US planes land or fly in their airspace. But concern that Saddam Hussein is a world threat does not extend to risking the lives of their own soldiers. Nations like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Hungary said they will assist in any cleanup activities after the war is over or help house refugees. Big deal. Even Germany, one of the most vocal opponents of the war, says it will help in a cleanup. One of the ''coalition of the willing,'' President Francisco Flores of El Salvador, said, ''If the world had disarmed Hitler in 1937, then maybe what happened wouldn't have happened.'' President Enrique Bolanos of Nicaragua said his nation will ''back this action in the fight against terrorism wherever it exists.'' Neither nation has committed troops.They got our back. Bush's 35 nations is less about fear of Saddam Hussein than fear of not wanting to end up like Turkey. When Turkey waffled on allowing the United States to deploy troops on its border with Iraq, the United States pulled a $15 billion aid package. That is why Ethiopia and Eritrea, which need aid to fight starvation, are ''coalition'' partners. That is why Colombia, which needs our aid in the drug war and to fight rebels, is a partner. That is why the Czech Republic, which is just getting into the Western economic game with wonderful products like cigarettes, put their name on the list. The whole article here:
This was questioned on NPR today. As far as Bush saying "coalition" and the media's ability to find their own words to describe the nations attacking Iraq, it is important not to fall into word games. Just like media outlets like to distinguish "quote" / "end quote", they also have an obligation to not use the same words they hear. I apply this obligation because people are stupid. There, I said it. If these words (by Bush) are intentionally misleading, why repeat them? They also commented on how Bush no longer uses "...of the willing". Now, I forget what NPR says they use, but they don't use "coalition" anymore.
This was never about foreign troop involvement!! We never were under the impression that Denmark would send 100,000 troops! What we were looking for was a large coalition of countries to back our disarmament of Iraq. When supposed allies like france fought this effort, we were concerened this would soley be the US going into Iraq, maybe with the UK. But to have what is now verbal support from 52 nations,(with combat support from 3 others) no one can claim this is the US taking its own initiative,while disregarding others opinions. And who the hell are you to question troop deployments of soveriegn nations? Universal, you were one of the many liberals condemning the Bush administration for trying to make others "fall in line" with our policy. Now you challenge their right to deploy what they want? Hipocrisy. I appreciate all that deploy, and hope for their success on the battlefield.
universal, any of your own feelings on this or do you just get jollies from posting articles? just wondering. listen, definition of coalition: a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action are you saying <by posting an article and not stating one personal word> that these countries, regardless of providing military support, are not a coalition? does a country have to have a pre-determined amount of support in order be part of a coalition? i do not see any sort of definition that says you have to provide a certain amount of support in order to be part of a coalition. these nations are providing support whether it be overflight rights, support troops or humanitarian aid to be provided to iraq citizens.
I would imagine that most people make a connection between this war and "Gulf War I, the Prequel." When they hear the word coalition applied to the current war, they are reminded of the real coalition that existed in 1991. The Bushies are very clever using the same word to describe the current situation. Kudos for NPR if they have indeed quit referring to the US, UK and Australia as a coalition.
i am still waiting for someone to explain how it is not a coalition by definition. mike, you wanna take this one?
According to Webster's, the word coalition could certainly apply. In fact, according to Webster's, any of these words could be used: unification, combination, alliance, coadunation, combination, consolidation, melding, mergence, merger, merging, union, bloc, combine, faction, party, ring, anschluss, confederacy, confederation, federation, league, or union Again, Bush and his cronies are VERY clever choosing the word "coalition" to apply to this war against Iraq. That was the word chosen to describe the alliance against Iraq in 1991, in which nearly 30 countries had military forces on the ground. The word makes it seem as if there are lots of countries with troops in harm's way involved in this war as well. Using the word "coalition" has a lot more propaganda value than any other word has.
I repeat----This was never about foreign troop involvement!! We never were under the impression that Denmark would send 100,000 troops! What we were looking for was a large coalition of countries to back our disarmament of Iraq. When supposed allies like france fought this effort, we were concerened this would soley be the US going into Iraq, maybe with the UK. But to have what is now verbal support from 52 nations,(with combat support from 3 others) no one can claim this is the US taking its own initiative,while disregarding others opinions. And who the hell are you to question troop deployments of soveriegn nations? Universal, you were one of the many liberals condemning the Bush administration for trying to make others "fall in line" with our policy. Now you challenge their right to deploy what they want? Hipocrisy. I appreciate all that deploy, and hope for their success on the battlefield. Coalition is a group of states under a temporary alliance for joint action. Thus, Spain, Bulgaria, the US, UK, Australia, and Poland makes a coalition. Remember kids, there are more things involved in war than combat soldiers. Chem weapons experts, minesweepers, and oil cleanup teams are all needed contributions.
Under that definition, I would have to agree with you that there is indeed a coalition...of 5 nations. Then there is a separate coalition of the nations of the nations granting overflight rights; a separate one granting use of bases, and a separate one from all those focusing solely on humanitarian assitance, post-conflict. Those are the disparate "joint actions" to which these nations are linked...so, okay, there are lots of coalitions... But to submit that there is this large coalition surrounding the "joint action" of offensive attack of Iraq, that is false, period. There are less than 5 of the nearly 200 nations in the world that are willing to do this thing, several more willing to clean up, and a huge coalition attached to the "joint action" of wholesale condemnation of this act of aggression... PS fidlerre...The problem you have with my posting style is your own; get over it. I rest replete in the knowledge that even those who sit in direct opposition to me on this board will submit that thee are times that they've seen, ITHO, entirely too much opinion from me... In other words, since we're talking definitions, I'll continue to define how, what, when why and to what extent I'll post...end of discussion. Don't like it? "Turn the channel," put me on iggy, I'm not really concerned beyond, well, telling you I'm not really concerned...
see it is funny, you are saying that there is a huge coalition attached to the "joint action" of wholesale condemnation of this act of aggression...so why then is there a difference between that coalition and the one that supports an offense attack on iraq? there are 45 countries that are "supporting" the "joint action" on iraq...their support varies but if the countries didn't agree with the attack they would not be allowing support in the attacks therefore the are part of the so-called "joint action" against iraq. you are making your own definition of "coalition" based on your point of view, but that's fine...it is your opinion and mine is mine. well thanks for taking the time to tell me, i appreciate it.
I added stuff to it, plus the left was so far ignoring that post, which i considered to be very relevant. So i WILL repeat it again, if only to get answers from the evasive left, you smartass.
When we are NOT as big as our Dad This thread reminds me that I was watching Lewis Black last night on that neo-conservative channel Comedy Central discussing the definition of the word "is". In other words, pedantics aside, mr Universal, your point appears on the surface to be that GWB should not use the word "coalition" because his isn't as big as his dad's. Well, not to get personal, but if yours is not as big as your dad's, should NPR be so self-righteous as to tell you not to use it? LOL, I crack myself up sometimes.
Re: When we are NOT as big as our Dad Dude, amazing. Comedy Central as neo conservative? Comedy gold. Comparisons of coalitions was also humorous.
At base this is an American war. In a larger context, it is a war for the global military-industrial-complex that includes an array of multinational corporations.
Let's document a little, shall we: The companies that have been invited to bid on the work include some of the nation's largest and most politically connected construction businesses. Among them are Halliburton, where Vice President Dick Cheney served as chief executive from 1995 until mid-2000; the Bechtel Group, whose ranks have included several Republican cabinet alumni; and Fluor, which has ties to several former top government intelligence and Pentagon procurement officials. Others bidding on reconstruction business are the Parsons Corporation, the Louis Berger Group and the Washington Group International, which absorbed Morrison-Knudsen in 1996. Two other companies have submitted bids in the current round of contract awards, but contract officials declined to identify them. The final roster of seven bidders has already been narrowed to two or three, and contracts are expected to be awarded this week, according to administration officials. and No company has firmer political connections than Kellogg Brown & Root, the engineering and construction arm of Halliburton. Besides its links to Mr. Cheney, the company has been a major military contractor since World War II. Most recently, it handled the high-speed construction of the Guantánamo prison compound for terror suspects . But since last May, the company has also come under scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is investigating how the company has accounted for cost overruns on its construction and engineering work since 1998. And this spring, its shareholders will vote on a proposal, sponsored by two giant New York City pension funds, calling for a review of Halliburton's previous business ties to Iran. and BECHTEL is considered the largest contractor in the country, and one of the largest in the world. Its board includes a former secretary of state, George P. Shultz, and its ranks once included a former defense secretary, Caspar W. Weinberger. Bechtel, privately held and based in San Francisco, helped build the Hoover Dam, oversaw work on the tunnel under the English Channel and worked on the cleanup of Chernobyl. But it is facing a political meltdown of its own in Massachusetts, where it is under severe criticism by the state's inspector general for more than $1 billion in cost overruns on the tunnel and highway construction project in Boston, the so-called big dig. and Fluor, based in Aliso Viejo, Calif., is not currently working on any Agency for International Development projects, but it has extensive experience building petroleum facilities in difficult places. It is building an enormous plant on Sakhalin Island, off Russia's Pacific coast, for an international consortium that includes Exxon Mobil, and is developing oil and gas fields in Kazakhstan for a consortium whose largest member is ChevronTexaco. Last April, Fluor hired Kenneth J. Oscar, who as acting assistant secretary of the Army oversaw the Pentagon's $35 billion-a-year procurement budget. Its board includes Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral who was also former director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. and PARSONS, an employee-owned company based in Pasadena, Calif., is one of Bechel's most formidable rivals in the construction market. Parsons, too, would not comment on the current procurement process. But it has done extensive postwar reconstruction work in Bosnia and Kosovo and built the Saudi military city of Yanbu. It also helped build the subway system in metropolitan Washington. It does not have the prominent political connections that Bechtel and Fluor have, though the labor secretary , Elaine Chao, served on its board for about a year before joining the cabinet in January 2001.