ex-idaho

The administration has really talked a lot lately about the 40 nations that back us on Iraq. What they don't tell you is why. Most of the nations that back us are in no state to assist us either militarily or finacially. Countries like Poland, Slovenia and Albania hardly qualify as stable and strong members of the International community. The real reason that these countries support us is because we pay them to. We have money and weapons but it has not been released just how much. This is true of almost all the 40 countries.

You could point to Spain and say what about these guys? They are a 1st world nation. True but they are bacing Bush because they think this will get us off their back in their fight against the Basque separtist.

Turkey; We had to promise no support for a Kurdish state before they would sign up and it was conditional. They still have not granted the use of Turkey as a staging area.

Our coalition is a joke. We are going to end up footing the entire bill not just for the war but for the long and messy clean up. We are going to end up taking another PR punch in the gut probably resulting in even more hatred of us and the deaths of even more Americans not to mention the deaths of all those Iraqis.

The US media is so inept and without conscience that I am left speechless.

moon

I disagree totally that the U.S. media is inept. In fact, they are fulfilling their societal role perfectly, doing exactly what they are supposed to do. The main media acts as the propaganda arm for U.S. imperialism, and in this case is carrying out the task of stirring up a war hysteria wonderfully.

Another point about the "coalition of the willing" is that the people of these "willing" countries are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. I read somewhere that in Spain, 80% or so are opposed to an attack on Iraq in any case, U.N. cover or no. In Turkey it is more like 90%. The fact is that only in Israel is there popular support for this war. Outside of Israel, the populations of every country are overwhelmingly opposed to this war.

This really says something about U.S. claims to by trying to bring "democracy" to Iraq. Right, so the U.S. is going to bring democracy to Iraq by showing the most blatant disregard for democracy?

Sky

Aznar (spanish president) is a wannabe global leader. He thinks that becoming Bush's best friend will bring him international consideration and respect. And this includes blind support for Bush on Iraq...

But facts are clear: more than 75% (some polls showed more than 90%) of spanish are against war (highest rate in Europe).

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:In 2 out of 3 cases you are wrong: Slovenia was the richest (sub)republic of the OLD Yugoslavia. It is doing fine and has been for a decade. It IS
tiny. But so what?

Poland is one of the few bright spots in the Eastern European former members of the Warsaw Pact: a real modernization took place right away in 1989; FAR less corruption than, say, Russia; one of the few (the only???) countries in Europe to have a birthrate that will sustain its population for decades to come. Albania IS
in bad shape, and figures to remain so as far as
the eye can see.

Cheers!

Psycho Economist

Never attribute to malevolence what can adaquately be explained by incompet^H^H^H greed.
The media isn't out to be a propaganda arm for anyone. They take the facts that are out in the world, and string toghether whatever'll bring in the most viewers. And not only does whipping up a blood frenzy draw in viewers now, it will create a captive audience in the near-future if they can make war inevitable.

If not having a war could guarantee them more viewers than a war would provide: there'd be human interest stories aplenty from Iraq and endless discussion of Bush's ties to the oil industry and analysis of why other world leaders remain unconvinced.

Aerion

Psycho Economist is correct. Ratings is what drives the American news. American people in general support the war so that is what the media reports. I can't speak for other free news agencies around the world, but this is true in the U.S.

Clutch

In general I agree with Psycho Economist, though I think the situation is changing. I don't think it can seriously be doubted, for example, that Fox News has a planned mandate to present a rightist spin on the news.

ex-idaho

Leonarde, regardless of how welathy Slovenia is compared to the rest of the former Yugoslavia they are still in no shape to assist us in any armed conflict. And I agree that Poland is a bright spot in E Europe but it is still suffering from a sluggish economy and a real lack of development capital. Albania I don't feel I even have to say anything about.

Look, the reason these countries back Bush is because Bush has promised weapons, period. They know that all they have to do is say, yea we'll back you and Bush will send out the guys from the Pentagon to fill the order.

Of all the people on the list the ones that I really can't figure out is Britan and Australia. I cannot come up with a single reason for their support.

August Spies

well first of Britan and probably Austrila's populations are NOT behind the war. But it seems obvious to me why they would support the war: power.

Britan has been able to at least look powerful in the eyes of the world by its proximity to the U.S. It always backs us and assists us. Basically they are our puppets, but something we need in europe.

Atticus_Finch

It is only fair to have a counter balance to Ted Turner's CNN and its leftist spin on the news.

Regards,

Finch