On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:48:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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

Cripes...I'm starting to feel sympathetic for what NOYB goes through every
day. This is like pulling teeth!

There are 48 on the list, John. I'm busy and this is an estimate, but I
think perhaps 5 or 6 have made material contributions, and that includes
allowing us to use their air space. What qualifies the others to be on the
list?

An exercise: You're a White House aide. It's March 10, 2003. Your leader
says "I'm gonna make a speechification next week and mention the coalition.
Check this list of countries. Make sure that if anysomeone asks about those
countries, I have a way of justificating their presistence on the list".

If you can't respond to this John, I'll assume you're choking EVERYONE'S
chicken and you are, in fact, unable to complete the assignment.


It doesn't make a bit of difference who gave what! If every country
provided a tank division, it would not be enough. If every country
just raised a hand in support, it would not be enough!

Jim used the phrase "public commitment." To me, that makes the action
more than "unilateral" and qualifies them to be on the list.

If you make a comment, and I support it by saying, "I agree," then
your comment is no longer unilateral.

John H

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