On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:13:09 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:20:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:08:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
om...


And to be considered a "true" coalition, who must be added? I can't
seem to get an answer to this question from you guys.




A long list of countries willing to send troops for a long period of
time, and on that list, many countries whose presence wasn't bought by
the Bush-****ters with special concessions, deals, et cetera. You

know,

a real list of countries who really buy into the failed Bush doctrine.


The question was, "Who?"

John H

John, you're missing the point. It's not a question of who, or how many

more

must be added. The question is one of ideology and/or material support.
Please edit the list and describe what all these countries have

contributed,

other than allowing their names to be placed on the list.


The point is that no matter who or how many or how much, it would not
be enough. When you are opposed to an administration, nothing it does
will be right. Let's review some common topics:

Money for higher education -- not enough
Money for health care -- not enough
Money for port security -- not enough
Money for job retraining -- not enough
Money for police and fire departments -- not enough
Money for lower education -- not enough
Money for prescription medicines -- not enough
Money from the wealthy -- not enough
Money from the middle class -- not enough
Money for railroad security -- not enough
Money for metro security -- not enough
Money for welfare programs -- not enough
Repaying national debt -- not enough
Reducing the deficit -- not enough

So just what is enough? If you answer honestly, there will never be
enough of anything until a Democrat is in power. When everything we
earn is given to the government and then doled out in welfare
programs.

John H

Your response leaves the original subject behind completely. Please describe
what each country on the list has contributed, other than agreeing to be on
the list, and perhaps agreeing not to vote against us in the future at the
U.N.?



Jim has already done that, and the list would be meaningless anyway.
Now you've gone from too few countries for a "real" coalition to "not
enough stuff" from each country.

The *point* is that neither the number of countries nor the quantity
of stuff would suffice for your anti-administration crowd.

John H

Ummmm John -- my list was an attempt at humor. I believe Doug is asking
you for a serious attempt at quantifying the contributions of the coalition.

I know, Jim, but your list is as meaningful as any list. No matter how
much, it would not be enough to satisfy your "requirements" for a
coalition as opposed to a "unilateral action."

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!