thunder wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.


It was a misuse of the word "coalition" from the get-go. The current
Bush-shippers were trying to get the public to recall the "coalition"
put together by Bush I, which truly was a coalition, and to conclude
that a similar worldwide effort was taking place in 2003. The current
Bush-shippers love to play word games with Boobus Americanus and, as you
can see by the posts of many of the right-wingers here, they are successful.

There are very, very few "coalition" forces in Iraq these days, and this
is a direct result of the failure of the Bush-shippers "diplomatic"
efforts and their failure and unwillingness to get the UN directly
involved in a major way.

In fact, the current Bush-shippers offered some major bribes to
potential "coalition" forces to get them to commit troops. In almost all
cases, the offer of bribery failed.

Bush himself is a liar, a coward, and a cheat of the first magnitude.
These days he may be "loyal" to his wife, but he certainly isn't loyal
to what have been considered the traditional American virtues and
values. The idiot has eroded our position all over the world.

He will be recalled years from now as one of the worst presidents in the
history of the United States.

But, hey, he does give his fellow right-wingers The Big Erection.







--
Email sent to is never read.