"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


All I'm doing is asking you to back up your statement by prooving that
we had allies in agreement with us over VietNam and prooving that we
don't have any allies in agreement with us over Iraq. If you can't do
that, fine. Just say so.

Steve

I think what he might mean is that in both conflicts, the allies were
insignificant compared to the sacrifices WE made, Steve.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


All I'm doing is asking you to back up your statement by prooving that
we had allies in agreement with us over VietNam and prooving that we
don't have any allies in agreement with us over Iraq. If you can't do
that, fine. Just say so.

I think what he might mean is that in both conflicts, the allies were
insignificant compared to the sacrifices WE made, Steve.

Um, no I don't think that's what he meant. Because if so, that would
have been a way they were both similar. He was trying to say they were
*different* because in one case "we at least had allies that were in
agreement with us."

I was just curious as to which one he thought we had allies that were in
agreement with us and which one he didn't think we had any allies in
agreement with us.

Steve