Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.

A coalition could be considered:
1) Other countries sending soldiers.
2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance.

Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution.
The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with
security.

Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?


A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?



So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

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. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

Dave