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

"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?"

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!

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!

John H wrote in message
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

And why IS that? What has Powell done to make him more believable than
Kerry? Was it his firm stance on the WMD's that Saddam allegedly had?
If so, you do realize we didn't find any, didn't you? Was it Powells
firm stance that Saddam had links to AlQuida? That's not been proven,
you know.

On 23 Mar 2004 04:50:32 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message
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

And why IS that? What has Powell done to make him more believable than
Kerry? Was it his firm stance on the WMD's that Saddam allegedly had?
If so, you do realize we didn't find any, didn't you? Was it Powells
firm stance that Saddam had links to AlQuida? That's not been proven,
you know.
stfu.
John H

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

John H wrote:
stfu

What a well-reasoned and logical post. It must be nice to be able to
support one's publicly stated opinions with easily documented facts and
well-mannered, gracious statements.

Remind us all again about it is those darn lefties who are always trying
to stifle dissent and being rude?

DSK