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
...


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:
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:
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

"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?

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!