On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:12:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
I agree. He had no business reacting to world opinion (e.g., the
French and Germans) or the UN. Given your position, I'm surprised at
all the negative comments about the 'lack' of a coalition.
John H
I object to his use of the fictitious coalition as one of his many bogus
reasons.
Bogus reasons for what, the delay?
Remember his original list of reasons for the war? The list that has
dwindled to either one or zero, depending on your outlook?
Did he use a fictitious coalition as one of them? Building that
coalition, which included a *lot* of countries (but not, of course,
Germany and France) did take a lot of time. He should have used that
time to drop some Tomahawks.
John H
John, I think you and I are using a different definition of "coalition". For
me, the definition consists of countries which have made large
contributions. That means us and England. Please don't point out that a few
Japanese, Spanish or Italian people have been killed. I'm talking about
numbers larger than you can count on your fingers and toes.
Based on that definition, there is no coalition. Sorry. Just two countries.
Your leader said there were dozens.
As far as the Rove/Cheney decision to wait and wag their dicks, that was
done for some other reason I'm not sure of yet. Your leader had nothing to
do with it, other than reading the script.
Political support was a large part of the coalition. Very few
countries gave 'thousands' of troops during the first Gulf War. You
speak from a chasm of hate, and that clouds what you say. Whether the
forces provided were large or small is not as important as the
politcal fact of rendering support.
But, it's mute. We're there now. Calling the President names doesn't
get us out of the mess. I don't think it does much for your ego
either.
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes
|