thunder wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.


It was a misuse of the word "coalition" from the get-go. The current
Bush-shippers were trying to get the public to recall the "coalition"
put together by Bush I, which truly was a coalition, and to conclude
that a similar worldwide effort was taking place in 2003. The current
Bush-shippers love to play word games with Boobus Americanus and, as you
can see by the posts of many of the right-wingers here, they are successful.

There are very, very few "coalition" forces in Iraq these days, and this
is a direct result of the failure of the Bush-shippers "diplomatic"
efforts and their failure and unwillingness to get the UN directly
involved in a major way.

In fact, the current Bush-shippers offered some major bribes to
potential "coalition" forces to get them to commit troops. In almost all
cases, the offer of bribery failed.

Bush himself is a liar, a coward, and a cheat of the first magnitude.
These days he may be "loyal" to his wife, but he certainly isn't loyal
to what have been considered the traditional American virtues and
values. The idiot has eroded our position all over the world.

He will be recalled years from now as one of the worst presidents in the
history of the United States.

But, hey, he does give his fellow right-wingers The Big Erection.







--
Email sent to is never read.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the
first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in
addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain.

Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still,
way short of 40 countries.

Right. I forgot them. That makes 4 countries. Maybe Dave's right about a
coalition.

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says...
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the
possibility the WMDs were there.

Oh really? It was not that long ago that you were on that bandwagon
where you were claiming that there were no WMD and that the war "was all
about oil".



The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus,
no coalition, no use of diplomacy.

We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.


A march to war on trumped up information

According to which facts?


(leave WMDs behind a moment),
beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a
**** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach.

Diplomacy had been going on for the last 12 years. Technically, since
the conditions of the UN resolution which ended the Gulf war, have been
violated, we were doing nothing more than finding Saddam in default, and
resuming what we stopped 12 years ago.


It's the unilateral
approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily,
ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our
cash at risk.

Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.


Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this
administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast.

And that's a bad thing? That people have self determination? Would they
rather have someone tell them what to do and threaten their families if
they don't?


As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others,
the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the
political alliance known as Project for the New American Century.

Even if true, what is fundamentally wrong with getting everyone on the
same page? There would be less potential for conflict if we were all
allowed the same freedoms.


It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its
founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if
the US expects to remain the only superpower.

Not exactly. It's not about US supremecy as it is about global cohesion.


It's not about having
control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory.

What happened to your old "it's about the oil" cry?



That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to
have a hand in determining world oil pricing.

Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about
terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the
region.

We don't "control" our own country. Control implies a dictatorship-like
regime. Establishing a freely elected democracy is hardly "controlling"
it. We might be pushing history along a little faster, but the end
result is worth it.


So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a
movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice
decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray.

Again, where are your facts? Who is your "deep throat"?


So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the
forest.


I find it curious, although not that all surprising that you don't find
it the least bit disengenuous that those quoted people have shifted
their viewpoints so radically and in such a partisan way.

Dave

Dave, this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've stated my
case, you've stated yours. I think you've got your head so far up your
ass that you can't see the truth, you probably think the same of me.

Be that as it may, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously when you
employ the same tactics as you accuse your opposition of using. Neither
can you be taken seriously when you support a group of people who's
agenda is no more genuine than those you would seek to remove from
office.

Dave



Have a nice day.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.

A coalition could be considered:
1) Other countries sending soldiers.
2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance.

Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution.
The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with
security.

Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?


A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?



So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

Dave

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 11 Nov 2003 07:02:52 GMT, (RGrew176) wrote:

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

They don't forget. The leftists clouded obsession with power and
control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void.

Do we really think Harry believes half the stuff he posts here and in
other groups (under different names) as a paid democratic party shill?

Of course not, he and they don't care.

The recent memo which the democrats don't deny is easy recent proof of
any means to their ends, which is power and control.

And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?


In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.



And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.



My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

The sad irony is that you can't even see it.

Dave



Have a nice day.

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 11 Nov 2003 07:02:52 GMT, (RGrew176) wrote:

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

They don't forget. The leftists clouded obsession with power and
control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void.

Do we really think Harry believes half the stuff he posts here and in
other groups (under different names) as a paid democratic party shill?

Of course not, he and they don't care.

The recent memo which the democrats don't deny is easy recent proof of
any means to their ends, which is power and control.

And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?

I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any
signs of progress.

In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.

What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal
motives? Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush
administration isn't.

Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration
than Joe blow from Hackensack?

Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken
Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who
harbor them?

What is there to know other than this?



And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.

There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but
innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush. Taken apart, it's
nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came
to a conclusion based on those assumption.

Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in
that head resembling independent thought.

Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the
government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not.


My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle.

The sad irony is that you can't even see it.

See what? See, I'm using your logic now.

The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak
arguments.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?

Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would
cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for
months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space.



A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of
financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?

You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean???

Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the
coalition?



So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of
a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.

But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is
claiming.



Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the
first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in
addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present
day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe
that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on
lies.

jps wrote:


And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?

I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any
signs of progress.

Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as
fact is intellectually irresponsible.


In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.

What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal
motives?

Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on.

Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush
administration isn't.

No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's
motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and
Harry, you know nothing about it.



Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration
than Joe blow from Hackensack?

No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do.



Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken
Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who
harbor them?

Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged
"connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating.


What is there to know other than this?

If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know
the answwer to this.

And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.

There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but
innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush.

Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true
happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain
emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals
for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that
they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the
public light.


Taken apart, it's
nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came
to a conclusion based on those assumption.

Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe
that you think is "objective journalism".


Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in
that head resembling independent thought.

My logic is, as always, sound. That you cannot see that you are guilty
of the same things that you accuse others of is almost laughable.


Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the
government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not.

Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more
of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens?


My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle.

But it's still crap.


The sad irony is that you can't even see it.

See what? See, I'm using your logic now.

The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak
arguments.

But at least my arguements are based on more than speculative opinions.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as
well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by
your definition?

Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would
cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for
months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space.

But they eventually capitulated. And they had always supported our
position.

A coalition is NOT:
1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly
criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of
financial
aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn.

And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again?

You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean???

If you knew any logic, you could then infer that since you know what
something is NOT, then there must be a difinitive definition of what
something IS, in order to make that comparision.

My dictionary provides the following meaning of the term coalition:

"An alliance or union, especially a temporary one"

Not one specific number of participants is mentioned. So, once again,
your premise is flawed.


Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the
coalition?

I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that
"making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That
sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased
efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO.


So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of
a
"coalition"?

A group of countries united toward a common goal.

But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is
claiming.

That is the number that's been quoted. Since no one credible has
publically disputed this easily verifiable number, I can only assume
that it's accurate. But again, in the grand scheme of things, does it
really matter whether that number is 40 or 30 or 50, or even 10? It's
still a coalition in any case.


Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.

In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the
first
day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in
addition
to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some
history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present
day,
you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S.
president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special
relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't
cooperate.

Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2?


Does it really matter?

It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe
that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on
lies.

No one has proven that this was not the true number. You stating it as
if it was a "lie" is based only your own speculation. On the other hand,
if the true number turns out to be 38, are you going to jump up and down
and scream "See! I told you it was a lie!". Again, what's the difference
really?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca
plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return,
unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of
the
coalition?

I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that
"making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That
sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased
efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO.

1) They were asked to participate with soldiers. They did not. No big deal.
Lots of countries said "no, thanks".

2) In the same way congressman will write a piece of legislation regarding
highway funds, and tag on some totally unrelated nonsense declaring a
National Tampon Day, the Colombians negotiated more aid for their anti-drug
exercises. A number of African countries also negotiated more aid, in return
for....what? Probably an agreement to vote a certain way if we ever consult
the U.N. again on terrorism issues. None of this is surprising, but it
shouldn't be called a "coalition".

3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to
plant coca mixed in with food crops. The government spots the coca plants
from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of
health problems which are known to the companies which make these
herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops.
It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's
not meant to be used anywhere near food crops.

4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.