Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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?

Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would
cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for
months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space.

But they eventually capitulated. And they had always supported our
position.

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aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.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?

You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean???

If you knew any logic, you could then infer that since you know what
something is NOT, then there must be a difinitive definition of what
something IS, in order to make that comparision.

My dictionary provides the following meaning of the term coalition:

"An alliance or union, especially a temporary one"

Not one specific number of participants is mentioned. So, once again,
your premise is flawed.


Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the
coalition?

I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that
"making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That
sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased
efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO.


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.

But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is
claiming.

That is the number that's been quoted. Since no one credible has
publically disputed this easily verifiable number, I can only assume
that it's accurate. But again, in the grand scheme of things, does it
really matter whether that number is 40 or 30 or 50, or even 10? It's
still a coalition in any case.


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?

It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe
that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on
lies.

No one has proven that this was not the true number. You stating it as
if it was a "lie" is based only your own speculation. On the other hand,
if the true number turns out to be 38, are you going to jump up and down
and scream "See! I told you it was a lie!". Again, what's the difference
really?

Dave