so, let's revisit who DIDN'T join the "coalition of the willing"

[fairfaxvadem]

The only substantive partner, of course,is the U.K., for reasons only God Himself knows for sure.

No Canada, No France, No Germany, and just a "good luck great friend" and a pat on the back from Italy and Spain-nothing substantive from either of these countries.

And now, gee...What's that? Some of that intel was bogus? Gosh, who knew? Oh, maybe Canada, maybe France, and all the other countries who saw the intel "underpants" (sorry, had to riff on that).

I always wondered why these other countries didn't share the belief in this same intel as the Brits and the US. I mean, they've got many of the same sources and really, the French are no slouches in this spy business. I suspect they knew alot of this stuff was bunk, but diplomatically speaking, they would never come out and say "Gee, we think George Bush and his crew are full of crap". They would do what they did do, present alternative solutions, ask for more time, blah, blah, blah. The polite, international way of saying "We don't believe you".

Any thoughts?

[DagmarK]

1. Here's a wonderful TABLE of the Coalition of the Willing......

and their "contribution" to the cause or lack of a contribution, as you will see.....

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

I LOVE the countries who wouldn't go on record publicly as part of the coalition!

I'd like to see how much CASH and "loans" that will be written off that went to all those countries who were willing to put their names on record!

This represents the biggest bribe in history!!!!!!

Oh, welcome to DU!!! :-)

[anti_shrub]

2. Most of the "Willing"

Were nations who's economies are heavily dependant on US aid and couldn't afford the resulting temper tantrum from Shrub Enterprises if they said no.

[damnraddem]

3. The UN weapons inspectors and much of the world were disputing ...

the Dubya claims back then. Figure that what countries decided was based on: 1. their assessments of their own self-interests in the issue; 2. their assessments of the political benefits and risks; and 3. their assessment of the risks and of who would face those risks. How they phrased their decisions was subject to diplomatic etiquette; but it was also subject to what language was seen to serve their own interests. No, I don't think that they believed in the risks that Dubya preached, but I also think that various nations considered their own self interests. What is important is what they did, only secondarily why they did it.

[damnraddem]

4. The UN weapons inspectors and much of the world were disputing ...

the Dubya claims back then. Figure that what countries decided was based on: 1. their assessments of their own self-interests in the issue; 2. their assessments of the political benefits and risks; and 3. their assessment of the risks and of who would face those risks. How they phrased their decisions was subject to diplomatic etiquette; but it was also subject to what language was seen to serve their own interests. No, I don't think that they believed in the risks that Dubya preached, but I also think that various nations considered their own self interests. What is important is what they did, only secondarily why they did it.

[damnraddem]

5. The UN weapons inspectors and much of the world were disputing ...

the Dubya claims back then. Figure that what countries decided was based on: 1. their assessments of their own self-interests in the issue; 2. their assessments of the political benefits and risks; and 3. their assessment of the risks and of who would face those risks. How they phrased their decisions was subject to diplomatic etiquette; but it was also subject to what language was seen to serve their own interests. No, I don't think that they believed in the risks that Dubya preached, but I also think that various nations considered their own self interests. What is important is what they did, only secondarily why they did it.