Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |