On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:20:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.?


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

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

"John H" wrote in message
...


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

You're a funny guy. Do blowing up an aspirin plant and capturing an empty
trailer fall into the same category? Does the latter make Bush "soft on
defense"? If not, why not?

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:20:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..

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


"John H" wrote in message
m...


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.?



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

Ummmm John -- my list was an attempt at humor. I believe Doug is asking
you for a serious attempt at quantifying the contributions of the coalition.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:41:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

Very little. However, they do make the operation "multilateral" and a
far cry from the "unilateral" term used by Kerry, Kennedy, etc.

My point is that the amount given by the various countries is
irrelevant. No amount would suffice. If the administration can do
nothing correctly, then anything it does will be wrong. To me, that's
a simple concept.

Go back to my "not enough" post and tell me what would be enough. The
answer will be, "whatever the liberals are spending when they are in
power."

John H

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

"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.

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.



"Well, one, we didn't put together just the coalition of the willing. A
coalition is always a coalition of the willing. And this particular
coalition of the willing now has 47 nations; 47 nations are openly
members of the coalition, and have asked to be identified with this
effort. And there are many other nations that for a variety of reasons
don't want to be publicly identified, but are also a part of the
coalition of the willing."

Colin Powell

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:13:09 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:20:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...

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


"John H" wrote in message
om...


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.?



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

Ummmm John -- my list was an attempt at humor. I believe Doug is asking
you for a serious attempt at quantifying the contributions of the coalition.

I know, Jim, but your list is as meaningful as any list. No matter how
much, it would not be enough to satisfy your "requirements" for a
coalition as opposed to a "unilateral action."

John H

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

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!

"John H" wrote in message
...


Ummmm John -- my list was an attempt at humor. I believe Doug is asking
you for a serious attempt at quantifying the contributions of the
coalition.

I know, Jim, but your list is as meaningful as any list. No matter how
much, it would not be enough to satisfy your "requirements" for a
coalition as opposed to a "unilateral action."

John H

I could be wrong, but isn't the list Bush's, not Jim's? Or, does the fact
that Jim posted it make it "his", and no longer Bush's? Last week, most news
sources were using up air time on the fact that it was the anniversary of
the war's beginning. I was busy doing other things while NPR broadcast a
woman's voice reading "the list", so I don't recall who it was, but behind
the voice, there was the sound of cameras snapping pictures. Condoleeza
Rice, perhaps?

"Jim" wrote in message
...


"Well, one, we didn't put together just the coalition of the willing. A
coalition is always a coalition of the willing. And this particular
coalition of the willing now has 47 nations; 47 nations are openly
members of the coalition, and have asked to be identified with this
effort. And there are many other nations that for a variety of reasons
don't want to be publicly identified, but are also a part of the
coalition of the willing."

Colin Powell


OK...I see. Basically, everyone on the list met at least one requirement,
perhaps two: First, they agreed to be on the list. And second, they
theoretically find terrorism to be a Very Bad Thing. Maybe a third: Most of
them heard our plans for Iraq and said "Cool. Let us know how that goes for
you, OK?"