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

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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

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

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


"John H" wrote in message
. ..


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

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

Tax cuts for the rich - plenty of money for that.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:41:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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


"John H" wrote in message
...


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

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

Tax cuts for the rich - plenty of money for that.

Read the post and you'll see that your response is inane.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:41:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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


"John H" wrote in message
...


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

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

Tax cuts for the rich - plenty of money for that.

Read the post and you'll see that your response is inane.

Harry is just reading from the Democrats Talking Points.

John H wrote:
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.

Well, I'm not one of "you guys" but I have a very good and sensible answer.

Ever heard of the G-7 countries? How about some of our NATO allies?

But hey Iceland is the oldest democracy on the planet. That's gotta be
worth something, even if Bush & Cheney don't seem to believe in
democracy themselves.

DSK

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:27:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
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.

Well, I'm not one of "you guys" but I have a very good and sensible answer.

Ever heard of the G-7 countries? How about some of our NATO allies?

But hey Iceland is the oldest democracy on the planet. That's gotta be
worth something, even if Bush & Cheney don't seem to believe in
democracy themselves.

DSK

You have put yourself in the "you guys" pot. What countries would
satisfy you? Be specific. Or, be honest. If any ten countries were
added to the list, it wouldn't be sufficient for folks, like yourself,
who are fanatically opposed to the current administration.

If Clinton had done it in 1998, instead of just talking about how
necessary it was, you'd not be complaining even if we did it *all* by
ourselves.

John H

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

John H wrote:
You have put yourself in the "you guys" pot.

Not at all. You are a self-appointed cheerleader for BushCo, and to you
reality is far less important than tub thumping. If Dick Cheney,
speaking ex cathedra from his secret underground bunker, proclaimed that
water flowed uphill, you (and an embarassingly large group) fall for it.

I do not want to belong to your club, therefor to you I *must* be a
scion of EVIL CLINTON. But that is no more true than that water flows
uphill.


... What countries would
satisfy you? Be specific. Or, be honest.

I gav e a very strong hint in prior post, guess it went over your head.
How about any 4 of the G-7? Any 5 NATO allies... hey they are supposed
to be our allies, after all. But the Bush Administration's policy is to
turn allies into enemies and trumpet what a success it is.


... If any ten countries were
added to the list, it wouldn't be sufficient for folks, like yourself,
who are fanatically opposed to the current administration.

I am not "fanatically opposed" to the current administration. I oppose
them for very real & concrete & rational reasons. OTOH, no act of greed
or stupidity on the part of BushCo would convince you how bad they are.

You are simply living in a fantasy world and trying desperately to
convince other people that it's real. Go back and reread your posts
about the current state of Chesapeake Bay, then review the Bush
Administration's actions with regard to the EPA. Then tell yourself that
you *really* want to live near and fish on a body of water this group
controls.



If Clinton had done it in 1998, instead of just talking about how
necessary it was, you'd not be complaining even if we did it *all* by
ourselves.

Actually I did not like many of the actions that the Clinton
Administration did. However, 'guys like you' were always screaming that
he was soft of defense, now you're screaming that he blew up aspirin
factories. Can't have it both ways... unless you are a
propaganda-parroting hypocrit.

DSK

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:32:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
You have put yourself in the "you guys" pot.

Not at all. You are a self-appointed cheerleader for BushCo, and to you
reality is far less important than tub thumping. If Dick Cheney,
speaking ex cathedra from his secret underground bunker, proclaimed that
water flowed uphill, you (and an embarassingly large group) fall for it.

I do not want to belong to your club, therefor to you I *must* be a
scion of EVIL CLINTON. But that is no more true than that water flows
uphill.


... What countries would
satisfy you? Be specific. Or, be honest.

I gav e a very strong hint in prior post, guess it went over your head.
How about any 4 of the G-7? Any 5 NATO allies... hey they are supposed
to be our allies, after all. But the Bush Administration's policy is to
turn allies into enemies and trumpet what a success it is.


... If any ten countries were
added to the list, it wouldn't be sufficient for folks, like yourself,
who are fanatically opposed to the current administration.

I am not "fanatically opposed" to the current administration. I oppose
them for very real & concrete & rational reasons. OTOH, no act of greed
or stupidity on the part of BushCo would convince you how bad they are.

You are simply living in a fantasy world and trying desperately to
convince other people that it's real. Go back and reread your posts
about the current state of Chesapeake Bay, then review the Bush
Administration's actions with regard to the EPA. Then tell yourself that
you *really* want to live near and fish on a body of water this group
controls.



If Clinton had done it in 1998, instead of just talking about how
necessary it was, you'd not be complaining even if we did it *all* by
ourselves.

Actually I did not like many of the actions that the Clinton
Administration did. However, 'guys like you' were always screaming that
he was soft of defense, now you're screaming that he blew up aspirin
factories. Can't have it both ways... unless you are a
propaganda-parroting hypocrit.

DSK

Blowing up an aspirin plant and being soft on defense are the same
thing.

Nine NATO allies and four G-7 countries are committed.

Obviously you've not seen my comments regarding Bush and the
environment.

Furthermore, if you'll go back and check, you'll find most of my posts
have been anti-stupidity, not pro-Bush or anti-Clinton. I find fault
with the "chicken****" appelation being applied to the prudent actions
taken to protect our President, whether Democrat or Republican.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:08:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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.?

"John H" wrote in message
...

What countries would satisfy you? Be specific. Or, be honest. If any ten
countries were
added to the list, it wouldn't be sufficient for folks, like yourself,
who are fanatically opposed to the current administration.

John, maybe I haven't chosen the right words to make you understand. Stop
focusing on who should or shouldn't be on the list. Look at the list "as
is", and describe for us what contributions are being made by the majority.
We're all familiar with the countries whose soldiers are in Iraq, since
they've been in the news, like Poland, Spain, England, etc. What's Uganda's
part in this? How about the Solomon Islands?

To state this another way, Bush is saying his policy is sound because "Look
at everyone who's in the coalition". What does that mean?

Let's look at Palau as an example. Info from the CIA World Factbook:

After three decades as part of the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific under
US administration, this westernmost cluster of the Caroline Islands opted
for independence in 1978 rather than join the Federated States of
Micronesia. A Compact of Free Association with the US was approved in 1986,
but not ratified until 1993. It entered into force the following year, when
the islands gained independence.

Oceania, group of islands in the North Pacific Ocean, southeast of the
Philippines
slightly more than 2.5 times the size of Washington, DC

Christian (Roman Catholics 49%, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's
Witnesses, the Assembly of God, the Liebenzell Mission, and Latter-Day
Saints), Modekngei religion (one-third of the population observes this
religion, which is indigenous to Palau)

English and Palauan official in all states except Sonsoral (Sonsoralese and
English are official), Tobi (Tobi and English are official), and Angaur
(Angaur, Japanese, and English are official)

constitutional government in free association with the US; the Compact of
Free Association entered into force 1 October 1994

Military branches: NA
Military Expenditures: $NA
Defense is the responsibility of the US; under a Compact of Free Association
between Palau and the US, the US military is granted access to the islands
for 50 years

So, John, what are they contributing?