Talk:U.S.-led coalition against Iraq

--203.9.148.12 15:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)--203.9.148.12 15:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)See also: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)

Untitled

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, ((LOL very tactful --Kwantus 19:56, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC))) one on which the article should 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)

I laughed, but....how neutral is it to alter the Whitehouse's own list to make it look less stupid? Unless all but one or two can somehow be shown to be honest mistakes, like typos?--Kwantus 20:00, 19 Sep 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 (:-))

I would like a canadian person to clearly state his country position there. In this article, Canada is listed as being *not* part of the coalition, as this is very coherent with some of the information I can read in french new (such as today http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--314939-,00.html)

Now, in the very same article, it is indicated that Canada is counted in *support* as it will provide help *after* the war for reconstruction. I would appreciate very much that someone that the time to explain to me how being willing to help for reconstruction is an argument to put an unwilling country in the list of the willing. Imho, this makes this list absolutely *unreliable* and worthless. I will remove it tomorrow. ant

As of April 1st, this article still reads like a POV that the White House is wrong about the "coalition of the willing". Specifically, the article disagrees with the number of nations forming the anti-Iraq coalition, as well as the degree of support offered or delivered by these nations.

Wikipedia articles should not support or refute any position, but just report on what those positions are.

Also, it's confusing to add the "unwilling" nations here.

So, please, someone move the relevant information to Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq and Coalition of the willing and then let's delete this page. I don't have time to do it today... --Uncle Ed

Wikipedia articles should state facts. If those facts prove to be unhelpful to those maintaining some position, that's not wikipedia's problem. Martin

I don't think the U.S. or Britain has ever claimed that the Nations that are unsupportive are in fact supportive. Either they are or they aren't (or in some cases, they are but they say they aren't). This article is about those that are, so its still confusing and unnecessary to include countries that are not. -216.229.90.232

When I first came across the Coalition of the Willing page I added a couple of updates and then provided a link from http://geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

My own page is admitedly quite polemical, but does strive to be correct. The same can not be said for what has now replaced what was a very satisfactory encyclopaedia entry on the Coalition. 'Inconvenient' facts about the Coalition appear to have been removed by some anti-American who believes his personal opinions outweigh not only everyone elses, but also reality.

What has now happened is a terrible shame. The page has been turned into a political billboard. Incorrect information is being passed off as fact. The Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq lists Czech Republic and Ukraine as 'unwilling' which is completely untrue. Czech President Vaclav Havel was one of the most vocal supporters of the defeat of the Baathist regime. Whoever vandalised the page would know that, because I provided links to interviews with Havel as well as an article by leading Polish intellectual Adam Michnik defending Havel's (and the Czech Republic's) position.

It is also incorrect to place Palau in the "not contributing troops" category. Although Palau does not have an army, it has troops in Iraq embedded in the US military in Iraq. There are numerous other errors, and the number of 'unwilling' countries is inflated by the inclusion of 'willing' countries and neutral countries. I don't know what to say about the sarcastic remarks on the Coalition of the Willing entry. That page has degenerated into a platform for ridicule of the name "Coalition of the Willing" and deliberately avoids presenting any information on the Coalition itself.

If I understand the issue here, it is that the page has been vandalised by someone who believes that the correct way to measure which countries are part of the coalition of the willing is to present a hodge-podge of opinion poll data on the views of several hundred people from each country. If this was accurate, encyclopaedia entries on which countries carried out the death penalty would include Australia, because while Australia _does not_ carry out the death penalty, polls demonstrate that 60% of Australians think it should.

More importantly, the site linked to (for opinion poll statistics) is a blog entry that contains demonstrably incorrect statistics with no references. Where did this person get their numbers? I live in Australia, and the statistics on Australian opposition are way out, for example.

Why have perfectly well documented links been removed from the Coalition of the Willing entry, only to be replaced by emptiness?

I really hope saner heads will prevail here.

Trevor Stanley.