On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:29:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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 used the phrase, "my list." As I know not of the list to which you
refer, I'll accept that it may have been read by Condoleeza Rice.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...


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

Now I get it. Contributing nothing is enough to make the list. Why didn't
you just say that in the first place?

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:04:40 -0500, Jim wrote:



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

Thanks, Jim.

John H

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

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:50:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


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

Now I get it. Contributing nothing is enough to make the list. Why didn't
you just say that in the first place?


France, Germany, and Russia contributed nothing. The countries on the
list raised their hands and concurred. If each of them had given a
division, I believe your attitude would still be the same. Then you
could have said, "We put a corps there, how come no one else did?"

John H

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

John H wrote:
Blowing up an aspirin plant and being soft on defense are the same
thing.

Nice illusion.


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

Count 'em.

Japan, Great Britain, Italy... and... and...


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

Yes I have. Hence my remark about what you'd do if he took a dump on
your dining table... which he has... and you are eagerly reaching for
the spoon...


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.

You are self-deluded... you tried to say that you were not a BushCo
cheerleader a while ago, and since then have been enthusiastically
dodging facts and spouting propaganda. This kind of nonsense is supposed
to convince anybody to vote your way?

As for calling Bush a chicken****, I only regret that I will not have a
chance to say it to his face. The man acted like a coward, as well as
being led around by the nose by underlings, as well as lying
deliberately, as well as stonewalling the Sept 11th investigation... a
very long list. To call him chick**** is an insult to poultry.

And Clinton has been out of office for over three years.... now *that*
cheers me up...

DSK

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:58:07 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Blowing up an aspirin plant and being soft on defense are the same
thing.

Nice illusion.


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

Count 'em.

Japan, Great Britain, Italy... and... and...

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

Yes I have. Hence my remark about what you'd do if he took a dump on
your dining table... which he has... and you are eagerly reaching for
the spoon...

Sounds like you've reached Harry's level of maturity.

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.

You are self-deluded... you tried to say that you were not a BushCo
cheerleader a while ago, and since then have been enthusiastically
dodging facts and spouting propaganda. This kind of nonsense is supposed
to convince anybody to vote your way?

I stated that since Kerry has become the alternative, I was officially
a Bush cheerleader.

As for calling Bush a chicken****, I only regret that I will not have a
chance to say it to his face. The man acted like a coward, as well as
being led around by the nose by underlings, as well as lying
deliberately, as well as stonewalling the Sept 11th investigation... a
very long list. To call him chick**** is an insult to poultry.

Yes, you are most definitely approaching (perhaps reached) the Harry
Krause level.

And Clinton has been out of office for over three years.... now *that*
cheers me up...

DSK

....and Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain,
and Turkey. Note that Japan is not a NATO ally.

Have a great day.

John H

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

John H wrote:


"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


Thanks, Jim.

John H


I think you missed the irony John. Isn't it the GOP line to go after
Kerry for not revealing which European leaders support him?

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:20:41 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:


"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


Thanks, Jim.

John H


I think you missed the irony John. Isn't it the GOP line to go after
Kerry for not revealing which European leaders support him?

I'm satisfied with those who asked to be identified.

As to the GOP line - I believe Powell. I don't believe Kerry.

John H

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

Harry you just are not worth the response any more.. You can't learn
anything or just don't want to.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

Marshall Islands - I *knew* someone was kickin' ass and takin' names in
Iraq.


"Jim" wrote in message
...

Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition,

including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan





This is a really funny list...are there Mongolian troops on horseback in
Iraq?

And how about those Macedonian swordsmen?

What a fraud...the Bush Coalition....

John H wrote:
I stated that since Kerry has become the alternative, I was officially
a Bush cheerleader.

Baloney. You were a mindless Bush droid long before that. Which of the
Democratic candidates did you support?

DSK