| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 Wow, you can cut and paste a list... Can you list the colors in that 60 crayon box too? |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
Backyard Renegade wrote: 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 Wow, you can cut and paste a list... Can you list the colors in that 60 crayon box too? Some of them I couldn't spell, Some I didn't know existed, Some I never heard of. C&P seemed most efficient. |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 07:58:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: 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.... 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. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
John H wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 07:58:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: 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.... 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. |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:19:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 07:58:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: 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.... 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 On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
Speculation as to what they offer
Afghanistan -- Afghans for the back of couches Albania ---- I Think they grow nuts Angola --- Don't they make sweaters (or is that angora) Australia -- Tough Troops Azerbaijan --- No idea -- suggestions please Bulgaria --- Caviar? Colombia --- Coffee? Costa Rica --- Coffee? Czech Republic --- They have troops there Denmark ---- Also troops maybe Mermaids? Dominican Republic --- Baseballs? El Salvador --- No idea Eritrea -- I'd have to work to find it on a map Estonia --- I think they have some support people there Ethiopia --- No idea Georgia ---- If the state Pretty women -- if the country maybe Muscle Honduras --- no idea Hungary --- A few troops Iceland --- Ski troops? Ice for drinks? Italy --- I think a few troops Japan -- Is thinking of backing out -- has done nothing yet Kuwait --- Parking for supplies Latvia --- Who knows Lithuania --- No idea Macedonia -- Those swordsmen Marshall Islands --- thought it a US territory Micronesia --- No idea Mongolia --- Those horsemen Netherlands --- some troops Nicaragua --- More coffee? Palau --- Coconuts? Panama --- Free Canal passage? Philippines --- Muslim infiltrates Poland --- some troops Portugal --- Wine? Romania --- Some troops Rwanda --- Diamonds? Singapore --- Street sweepers? Slovakia --- no idea Solomon Islands --- Wisdom? South Korea --- Talk of pulling out Spain --- About to pull out Turkey --- Won't even allow over flights Uganda --- No idea Ukraine --- Some troops United Kingdom --- Many troops, and lots of propaganda United States ---More troops than all others combined, bribes Uzbekistan -- I'd have to work to find it on a map |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
Jim wrote:
Speculation as to what they offer Afghanistan -- Afghans for the back of couches Albania ---- I Think they grow nuts Angola --- Don't they make sweaters (or is that angora) Australia -- Tough Troops Azerbaijan --- No idea -- suggestions please Bulgaria --- Caviar? Colombia --- Coffee? Costa Rica --- Coffee? Czech Republic --- They have troops there Denmark ---- Also troops maybe Mermaids? Dominican Republic --- Baseballs? El Salvador --- No idea Eritrea -- I'd have to work to find it on a map Estonia --- I think they have some support people there Ethiopia --- No idea Georgia ---- If the state Pretty women -- if the country maybe Muscle Honduras --- no idea Hungary --- A few troops Iceland --- Ski troops? Ice for drinks? Italy --- I think a few troops Japan -- Is thinking of backing out -- has done nothing yet Kuwait --- Parking for supplies Latvia --- Who knows Lithuania --- No idea Macedonia -- Those swordsmen Marshall Islands --- thought it a US territory Micronesia --- No idea Mongolia --- Those horsemen Netherlands --- some troops Nicaragua --- More coffee? Palau --- Coconuts? Panama --- Free Canal passage? Philippines --- Muslim infiltrates Poland --- some troops Portugal --- Wine? Romania --- Some troops Rwanda --- Diamonds? Singapore --- Street sweepers? Slovakia --- no idea Solomon Islands --- Wisdom? South Korea --- Talk of pulling out Spain --- About to pull out Turkey --- Won't even allow over flights Uganda --- No idea Ukraine --- Some troops United Kingdom --- Many troops, and lots of propaganda United States ---More troops than all others combined, bribes Uzbekistan -- I'd have to work to find it on a map Most of these countries were bribed by Bush |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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. |
( 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! |
( 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. |
( 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! |
( 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. |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( 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.? |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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? |
( 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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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? |
( 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. |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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. |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( 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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:48:09 GMT, "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. 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 On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
( 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? |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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?" |
( 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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
"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? |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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? |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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! |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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.... |
( OT ) ORigional Iraq coalition supporters (Not all sent troops)
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com