Coalition of the coerced

[*d*]

'Coalition of the willing' or 'Coalition of the coerced'
The Institute for Policy Studies in Washington has released a new study that examines the ways US officials are using U.S. military, economic, and political power to gather support for a war on Iraq.
www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm

d

 

[papasmerf]

And the point is?????????

 

[Scarey]

The point

if you have to buy it,co-erce it ,or force it......It's not real!!!......I believe that was his point.

 

[ocean976124]

And what of the two major opponents to war on the UN Security Council? Surprise, surpirse they have huge oil and economic deals with Iraq that would disappear under a new government in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/20/eveningnews/main541379.shtml

As one news report stated, when the US makes it pitch to the undecided nations on the Security Council it might as well make its offer in euros since France has already offered many of the African nations big bucks to at least abstain from voting.
Unfortunately thats the way the world works...

 

[papasmerf]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/20/eveningnews/main541379.shtml

As one news report stated, when the US makes it pitch to the undecided nations on the Security Council it might as well make its offer in euros since France has already offered many of the African nations big bucks to at least abstain from voting.
Unfortunately thats the way the world works...

Damn where was this info in the original post?

 

[train]

And why exactly would anyone consider the less than objective IPS a source of anything other than their own particular brand of propaganda ?

 

[papasmerf]

Thank you Train
it is about time someone else caught on to the dribble.

 

[luckyjackson]

It's drivel you idiot.

 

[luckyjackson]

"Unfortunately thats the way the world works..."

Exactly Ocean. Negotiations to get nations on to the 'willing' list can be best understood by asking what the nation in question can get from the U.S.

Turkey voted not to let the U.S. troops in. Why? Because they're trying to up the ante a bit and get the U.S. to grant them loans on a more favourable basis.

Casting the U.S. as the sole bad guy is wrong. All the nations play this cynical game...cuz that's the way the world works.

In this respect, the U.S. is right to be a bit pissed off. But then again, their reasons for wishing to topple Hussein are of couse less than noble, so it all comes out even in the end.

 

[papasmerf]

Dribble is what spews from a mouth and often falls to the floor.
It is also what drivel means. Forget the words, it is spew and spittle I ment.



Why is it necessary to reduce yourself to insults???

 

[onthebottom]

The US uses it's power to get what it wants

And this is news because......

It's been said here that countries don't have friends, they have interests. The French and Russians are interested in maintaining their relevance in the world order and protecting their economic interests. The US has security and economic interests of it's own. To consider any of this news is to be living with your head in the sand.

OTB

 

[luckyjackson]

"To consider any of this news is to be living with your head in the sand. "

And yet many continue to claim higher motives for the U.S., - along the lines that it is doing "what's right", or "standing up to Saddam", or behaving like the "world's policeman".

As long as claims like those are popular, restating the obvious still serves a purpose.

 

[onthebottom]

I don't think

"To consider any of this news is to be living with your head in the sand. "

And yet many continue to claim higher motives for the U.S., - along the lines that it is doing "what's right", or "standing up to Saddam", or behaving like the "world's policeman".

As long as claims like those are popular, restating the obvious still serves a purpose.

these are inconsistent. I do believe the US tries to do what it thinks is right. I do think that a policeman (world or neighborhood) still uses a strong voice and carries a weapon to enforce his role.

We'll see what happens to Turkey if they don't play ball. Could be a good warning to the other countries that are so dependent on the US (like Mexico and Canada)

OTB

 

[*d*]

Re: I don't think

Could be a good warning to the other countries that are so dependent on the US (like Mexico and Canada)

OTB

onthebottom
Don't you dare threaten us with your arrogance! Your country's economy is so dependent on the rest of the world that it would fall like a house of cards without us.

d

 

[papasmerf]

LOL

Good one *d*

 

[*d*]

Tit for tat has always been used as a lever in international negotiations. What's different in this coalition is that the people's best interest of many of these small nations are not being represented. These nations are being coerced to support the very thing a majority of its people don't want.

And I must point out to Don Q that you forgot about the other part of the 'power' equation that keeps strong nations from creating too many dangerous adversaries - mutual cooperation.

d

 

[luckyjackson]

Otb,

Your argument seems bankrupt of logic. If on the one hand, the U.S. acts primarily in its self interest, then it MAY be that on occasion what is right, and what is in the U.S. interest, are one in the same. That would be a lucky coincidence though, NOT a result of any kind of importance the U.S. places on the importance of acting from a moral basis.

It makes no sense to maintain that it is doing both. That's impossible.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: I don't think

onthebottom
Don't you dare threaten us with your arrogance! Your country's economy is so dependent on the rest of the world that it would fall like a house of cards without us.

d

I think your over estimating the importance of softwood lumber and hockey players in the global economy. Yours is about the size of Mexico's.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I do belive

Otb,

Your argument seems bankrupt of logic. If on the one hand, the U.S. acts primarily in its self interest, then it MAY be that on occasion what is right, and what is in the U.S. interest, are one in the same. That would be a lucky coincidence though, NOT a result of any kind of importance the U.S. places on the importance of acting from a moral basis.

It makes no sense to maintain that it is doing both. That's impossible.

the US pursues policies that are based on values. You can disagree with specific policies (as I do) but it would be misleading to assert that the US only acts in it's self interest. But it obviously acts in it's self interest.

A subtle point perhaps but I think right.

OTB

 

[ocean976124]

I think a lot of the misconception here is that too many believe the world of politics is actually based on objective moral terms. The fact is, every nation's government looks out for its own interests. And as the movie "A Beautiful Mind" told us, the best theory of practice is to do what's best both for you and the whole. Its dangerous to simply do the best for oneself or only for the whole. If we tried to be the world's police force then we would spread our forces so thin they'd all be defeated. But if we ignored the rest of the world eventually Mr. Hitler would have knocked on our door without a two front war already on his hands.
But every nation plays this game. France and Russia will lose billions if a new government is put in place in Iraq. And all the "undecided nations" are simply looking for the best deal so that their nation will get something out of this crisis.
If a nation says the only way they'll join a totally justified war is if they get a big bag of money and we need them for that war then of course we'll give them the big bag of money.
Now, we may argue if this war is "justified" but the princuple stands: the fact one has to buy allies does not necessary speak for the wrongness of a war.
No one expects nations to just hand over their armies and bases for the US to use. They want an advantage out of this too....