| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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.? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| (OT) Some in Bush's 'coalition of the willing' are suddenly losingtheir will | General | |||
| ) OT ) Bush's "needless war" | General | |||
| Credible journalism or a touch of bias -- OT | General | |||
| OT--U.N. Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
