Talk:Coalition of the willing

message: I find the bar graph at the bottom doesn't really make sense.  The article is about the coaltion in the Iraq war, and which countries made it up.  "Contractors" are not a country.   It's like this list:  Apple, Orange, Banana, Truck. 
There was not an open call for fighters to come fight in the coalition of the willing, as for instance, ISIS has done in Iraq and Syria.  So presumably all of the contractors were working for one of the countries in the coalition, paid for by them. I know the uSA used many, especially for convoy security.  I believe some other countries also had firms working for them. 
Also, I think the term "mercenary" is not NPV.  There never referred to themselves this way, nor were they referred to in the press that way.  It a derisive term used by the left to characterize them. 
Having said this, assuming the graph is correct, I did find it an interesting piece of information, but it just doesn't fit into either the graph it's on, or the topic of the article very well.   I wonder if it should be relocated somewhere else.  
If we knew that the vast majority of the Contractors were hired by America, for instance we could then add them all to the America part of the chart, which would help give the true picture of who supplied the men in the war effort.   It's like the was was fought 50% by people from "contractors" the way the graph is constructed.  Misleading and confusing.   The ideal solution would be to break them out by country to, then for each country you could show a bar for military and a bar for non military.   Is it an important distinction for this article?   If Poland supplied 5000 people, 3000 military and 2000 contractors it doesn't change that they were there as part of the coalition. 
ZeroXero (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Contractors

message: Should the Republic of Ireland not be on the list too?
In March 2003, the US State Department published a list of 30 countries who were prepared to publically support the US in the event of war with Iraq. A further 15 countries were prepared to offer assistance, but did not want to be identified. On being pressed in the Irish parliament whether the Republic of Ireland were included in the 15 the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern stated "I presume...we would be".  The reason he gave was that the US interpreted permission for overflights as assistance. Since the Republic has been neutral since the foundation of the state in 1922, being a member of such a coalition may be interpreted as unconstitutional. The defence for any participation was defended on humanitarian grounds and support of UN resolutions.  unsigned comment by 222.3.135.118 01:33, 2005 December 29
:222.3.135.118, the convention is that your new comment should go at the end of the talk page.
:I disagree with the idea that allowing overflights qualifies a country as a member of the coalition.  In declared wars warships and merchant vessels are allowed to frequent neutral seaports.  This doesn't compromise their neutrality.  --  Geo Swan 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goa being a good example of that, I guess...I agree, if the country never identified itself as a member, it should not be listed, end of story.  Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 14:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: New Zealand is listed as one of the countries that contributed forces to this coalition. I think the New Zealand Government would take issue with that. New Zealand did contribute a team of engineers, but this was at a time after the initial invasion as part of the effort to rebuild Iraq. When they got there they discovered they couldn't do any work because it was still too dangerous and after some period sitting around in their compound they were withdrawn. 
Interestingly the list at the Whitehouse site gives 48 members, dispite the link from this page suggesting that there are 49. I wonder whether someone at the Whitehouse got it wrong and put New Zealand on the list, later correcting it.
I am going to remove New Zealand from the list.
210.86.67.166 05:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the note, because neither country is remotely connected to the Coalition, and this isn't a list of countries contributing to rebuilding Iraq. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand

message: The washington post link at the end of the first paragraph is down. I have removed it and the relevant sentence which is reproduced below. I don't know what the article was about, but if you find other supporting evidence, feel free to put it back in...
* The phrase is not in current use. .
--postglock 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't much of an article, the result of an interview with a "high ranking" but unnamed official at the Whitehouse. Some said it was GWB. A better indication is that the list was blanked and removed from the index on the Whitehouse website  in October 2005. A screen capture of the original is here . Meggar 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Is there a place in this article for those such as Jordan that provided de facto assistance to the Coalition forces but were never listed as CoW? US forces ran search-and-rescue missions from Jordan and were allowed to operate Patriot anti-missile systems on Jordanian territory. Ordinary Person
::Quite simply, no. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan

message: The opening para says that all military referenced in Multinational force in Iraq were part of the Coalition of the Willing, but they were not. Some were there solely for reconstruction efforts and did not support the invasion. Daniel Collins 19:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition members or military presence

message: I think we should have a distinction between nations of the coalition of the willing who provided troops & support staff before and at any stage. I.E. One will be the ones who sent troops & support staff as part of the intial invasion (US+UK+Australia+Poland?+???) and an up to to date list of those who contributed troops & support staff at any stage of the process... Nil Einne 09:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you named all of the original belligerents: US, UK, Australia, Poland, and no others.  --  Geo Swan 16:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original coalition of the willing who provided troops

message: I'm not sure much information was actually lost, it was merely moved to the bottom of the page, where fairly, it probably belongs.  I'd suggest a revert back personally Sherurcij 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about the same edit?  Lambyuk removed nine paragraphs, with no explanation beyond "removing a lot of POV".  I put this explanation on User Talk:Lambyuk.  --  Geo Swan 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: [scroll to the bottom], I thought the same thing at first and was about to revert, then I noticed he just put the "Criticism" part down at the bottom, after the memberlist - which I think is fair, we should discuss the actual coalition first, then the criticism. :) Sherurcij 16:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I didn't notice that they had pasted material at the bottom.  But, I am feeling less trusting than you today.  I pasted both what they cut, and what they replaced, in the sandbox, to compare them.  Markedly different.  They difference is large enough that I would argue that it is indistinguishable from vandalism, except we are assuming Lambyuk is a new user who doesn't know any better.  --  Geo Swan 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Revision

message: Economics of participating countries
Although the Coalition of the Willing contains only about a fifth (38 of 193 [1]) of the world's countries, it includes a disproportionately large fraction of the world's economically powerful countries.
For instance, the CoW has contained:''
    * 15 of the 30 OECD nations;
    * 15 of the 27 EU nations (Including the two acceding nations);
    * 5 of the top 10 nations by GDP;
    * 4 of the G8 nations;
    * Nations with 61% of the global GDP.
a) This borders on WP:NOR
b) We elsewhere in the article state Due to the high percentage of states that were small, impoverished nations in need of United States financial aid, a New York Times editorial referred to it as the "Coalition Of Welfare States." which seems to contradict this
c) Surely most war coalitions are made up of a mix of wealthy and poor nations?  WWII certainly was on both sides.
Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove sections?

message: Opening Definition: "The term 'coalition of the willing' is a post 1990 political phrase used to describe military or military/humanitarian interventions that the United Nations Security Council cannot agree to mount a full UN peacekeeping operation for."
This expresses a specific pov by representing UN "peacekeeping operations" as an alternative to NATO. There is no overlap in the roles of NATO and the UN in the context of the subject of the article. UN peacekeeping operations do not take place during war. The physical act of military operations to unseat a dictator or save a population from internal or external attact when it involves acts of war are not authorized for UN operations. UN peacekeeping operations are not an alternative for forceful enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions. Rogerfgay 11:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV or knowledge problem

message: There were actually four countries that participated in the invasion, not three as John Kerry declared in the 2004 debate.  They were the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland.
Ofhistoricalnote (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: You Forgot Poland

message: According to this article:
http://www.clinecenter.uiuc.edu/airbrushing_history/
the "official" CoW members list was edited and the original number seems to be 45.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.215.155 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference 3: Forged Original Document?

message: As Last British Troops Leave Iraq, a Coalition Ends  Cs32en  21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT about the Coalition of the willing 

message: I removed:
"The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.Perrott, A.: Coalition of the Willing? Not us, say Solomon islanders. The New Zealand Herald, March 27, 2003.."
The reference is a blog, not the New Zealand Herald.  
Also in the blog that is referenced there is no mention of a "Pacific Force", more likely the National Guard units mentioned above deployed to Iraq as a single unit. 
No worries, it has already been reverted back, disregard. 
66.108.243.166 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pacific Force" 

message: "In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland)." 
I think it was meant to say, "Of the 48 countries on the list..." But I'm not going to change it, the author can change it if I am right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPF (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 states -or- 48 countries? 

message: I think Micronesia is mis-spelled, and I can't edit the image. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mikronesia? 

message: I undid the revert of removing the graph. The graph calls PMC's "mercenaries" which is not a proper name for them.
From the CBO source:
DoD policy also prohibits usin
g contractors as mercenaries. See
Army Materiel Command (2000), p. 40-2; 73 Fed. Reg. 16764–
16765 (2008). Security contractor personnel are not generally
considered mercenaries because their mission is to protect prop-
erty and personnel, not to overthrow governments or undermine
the order of the state. See De Wolf (2006), p. 323.
Puppier (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Puppier. I created the graph. What would you suggest instead of mercenaries? How about "private military contractors"? Best wishes, --spitzl (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think "Private Military Contractors" or "PMCs" is correct.Puppier (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, in that case it would be great if you could put the graph back into the article. Thanx Puppier. --spitzl (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coalition of the willing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902090645/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_CongressJul09.pdf to http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_CongressJul09.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coalition of the willing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126150127/http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10 to http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified