[moki]

First, let it be said that of course some of the countries in this "coalition of the willing" are doing so against the will of the majority of the people there (Spain and Italy most vehemently).

So what's the point? Partially for informational purposes, but mostly because I was amused. I was amused that countries like Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Solomon Islands were listed. I know this has been discussed before, but with no disrespect intended toward the countries in question, give me a break. The Bush administration must really have been reaching to pad the list by adding those nations.

As anyone who has been there will attest, they are barely populated blips on the world radar. Are there seriously troops from Palau and the Marshall Islands in Iraq? Oh boy...

(note: the list needs to be updated, Japan is committing troops, and South Korea will as well... and I believe Singapore committed personnel as well, and probably others)

from: http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

.....

Key
Blue - Coalition of the Willing
Red - Opposed action - Russia, France, Germany, Belgium, Greece
Grey - Neutral (or unknown)



* States with personnel in Iraq as part of the Coalition. Others are USA and Australia

Coalition of the Willing in Europe
Western Europe :
* United Kingdom
* Spain
Portugal
* Denmark
* Netherlands
Iceland
Italy
Baltic States :
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #
Central Europe :
* Poland
* Czech Republic
* Slovakia #
Hungary
Balkans :
* Albania #
Macedonia #
* Romania #
* Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #
Eastern Europe
* Ukraine

Coalition of the Willing in Asia :
Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
*Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
*Palau
Tonga

Coalition of the Willing in Africa and the Middle East :
Kuwait
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

Coalition of the Willing in South America :
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

This list does not include Taiwan, (which is not recognised as a country due to international deference to the People's Republic of China), or Israel, which supports the action against Iraq but is not part of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Malta and Cyprus were also signatories to earlier statements in favour of action against Iraq.
About a dozen other countries are said to have been added to the list in confidence.

Comment

This list is particularly interesting because of the patterns it doesn't produce, and the under-reported patterns it does. The list includes a number of muslim countries, several 'old' European countries, wealthy OECD countries, poorer countries, all ex-soviet Baltic States, all ex-soviet-dominated Central European States, many other former soviet vassals (Ukraine, Georgia, the Balkans except some Yugoslav States, Uzbekistan), several Asian states and three South American states.

Interestingly, it includes all those countries which were conquered by the Soviets in the 1940s; or to put it another way every country which secured its freedom from totalitarianism in the 1989-1992 counter-revolutions.

Every populated Continent is represented.

In many cases, the reason for a country's participation is readily evident from the country's history or current position, but in a number of cases this is not so easy to determine.

[voodoo]

***WARNING - EXPLICIT TEXT AND LOTS OF **** THINGS ***

I just have to get this off my chest:


Iceland was a part of the Coalition of the Willing. Why? I have no idea - more than 80% of Icelanders were totally against war in Iraq or against Iraq or whatever. We didn't ****ing want to be a ****ing part of this shitstorm in the first place. But our retard politicians thought differently. I am afraid this was the case in many other countries in the Coalition. It isn't like Iceland has ANY capabilities to assist in the war in Iraq EVER. We don't have an army, never did never will. We have 0% experience with wars and we have the least important strategic position of the entire Coalition. I hate it when the small countries are butt****ed by bigger dicks. **** yeah this irritates me! All we have achieved by participating in the coalition is to further contradict out "non-military" standpoint. It is as irritating for some Icelanders as restriction of freedom is to some Americans. Our nation was BASED on the principle of pacifism and neutrality. Since 1944 that position has been raped, killed, raped again, cut to pieces and buried in some unholy place where it will never find peace. The bastard hypocrite politicians and a spineless nation are to blame.

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Iceland was a part of the Coalition of the Willing. Why? I have no idea - more than 80% of Icelanders were totally against war in Iraq or against Iraq or whatever. We didn't ****ing want to be a ****ing part of this shitstorm in the first place. But our retard politicians thought differently. I am afraid this was the case in many other countries in the Coalition. It isn't like Iceland has ANY capabilities to assist in the war in Iraq EVER. We don't have an army, never did never will. We have 0% experience with wars and we have the least important strategic position of the entire Coalition. I hate it when the small countries are butt****ed by bigger dicks. **** yeah this irritates me! All we have achieved by participating in the coalition is to further contradict out "non-military" standpoint. It is as irritating for some Icelanders as restriction of freedom is to some Americans. Our nation was BASED on the principle of pacifism and neutrality. Since 1944 that position has been raped, killed, raped again, cut to pieces and buried in some unholy place where it will never find peace. The bastard hypocrite politicians and a spineless nation are to blame.

While I clearly disagree with your position, that was one excellent rant, my friend.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Iceland was a part of the Coalition of the Willing. Why? I have no idea - more than 80% of Icelanders were totally against war in Iraq or against Iraq or whatever. We didn't ****ing want to be a ****ing part of this shitstorm in the first place. But our retard politicians thought differently. I am afraid this was the case in many other countries in the Coalition. It isn't like Iceland has ANY capabilities to assist in the war in Iraq EVER. We don't have an army, never did never will. We have 0% experience with wars and we have the least important strategic position of the entire Coalition. I hate it when the small countries are butt****ed by bigger dicks. **** yeah this irritates me! All we have achieved by participating in the coalition is to further contradict out "non-military" standpoint. It is as irritating for some Icelanders as restriction of freedom is to some Americans. Our nation was BASED on the principle of pacifism and neutrality. Since 1944 that position has been raped, killed, raped again, cut to pieces and buried in some unholy place where it will never find peace. The bastard hypocrite politicians and a spineless nation are to blame.

[moki]

I'm really not sure where to post this; it probably doesn't deserve a topic until itself, so, here goes...

.....

EV Nova in Iraq

No, I'm not kidding... if I hadn't been here when the call came in, I wouldn't have believed it...

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ub...article=000062

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
***WARNING - EXPLICIT TEXT AND LOTS OF **** THINGS ***

I just have to get this off my chest:


Iceland was a part of the Coalition of the Willing. Why? I have no idea - more than 80% of Icelanders were totally against war in Iraq or against Iraq or whatever. We didn't ****ing want to be a ****ing part of this shitstorm in the first place. But our retard politicians thought differently. I am afraid this was the case in many other countries in the Coalition. It isn't like Iceland has ANY capabilities to assist in the war in Iraq EVER. We don't have an army, never did never will. We have 0% experience with wars and we have the least important strategic position of the entire Coalition. I hate it when the small countries are butt****ed by bigger dicks. **** yeah this irritates me! All we have achieved by participating in the coalition is to further contradict out "non-military" standpoint. It is as irritating for some Icelanders as restriction of freedom is to some Americans. Our nation was BASED on the principle of pacifism and neutrality. Since 1944 that position has been raped, killed, raped again, cut to pieces and buried in some unholy place where it will never find peace. The bastard hypocrite politicians and a spineless nation are to blame.

ROFL!!!!



I agree!

[thunderous_funker]

The list gets markedly less impressive when you filter out the Coaliton of the Billing. Those nations whose "ideological" support for the war on tyranny came with a clear pricetag, negotiated before any support was given.

They fall into 4 categories:

1) Those with lucrative US military installations that were threatened with closure

2) Those promised new lucrative US military installations

3) Those whose considerable USAID checks might have been cancelled

4) Those promised considerable USAID checks in the future


In most cases, the Coalition of the Billing are the nations that took positions contrary to the overwhelming opposition to the war by most of it's population.

Buckets of money vs. the will of the people

It works like that in lots of capitals, not just Washington DC.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
***WARNING - EXPLICIT TEXT AND LOTS OF **** THINGS ***

I just have to get this off my chest:


Iceland was a part of the Coalition of the Willing. Why? I have no idea - more than 80% of Icelanders were totally against war in Iraq or against Iraq or whatever. We didn't ****ing want to be a ****ing part of this shitstorm in the first place. But our retard politicians thought differently. I am afraid this was the case in many other countries in the Coalition. It isn't like Iceland has ANY capabilities to assist in the war in Iraq EVER. We don't have an army, never did never will. We have 0% experience with wars and we have the least important strategic position of the entire Coalition. I hate it when the small countries are butt****ed by bigger dicks. **** yeah this irritates me! All we have achieved by participating in the coalition is to further contradict out "non-military" standpoint. It is as irritating for some Icelanders as restriction of freedom is to some Americans. Our nation was BASED on the principle of pacifism and neutrality. Since 1944 that position has been raped, killed, raped again, cut to pieces and buried in some unholy place where it will never find peace. The bastard hypocrite politicians and a spineless nation are to blame.

two things come to mind.

1) elect representatives whose ideologies represent the majority of public opinion.

2) perhaps pacifism isn't the stuff nations are built of.

[astronomix]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
two things come to mind.

1) elect representatives whose ideologies represent the majority of public opinion.

2) perhaps pacifism isn't the stuff nations are built of.

Pacifism does not build nation by itself, but war surely destroys them.

[thunderous_funker]

Hmmm. People might want to talk to citizens of India, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia, and Russia about the merits of Pacifism as a tool for achieving Liberty.

Not to mention the civil rights movement in America.

Pacifism isn't "turning the other cheek" or bowing to tyranny. Pacifism is solving your problems by peaceful means. History and the Law of Unintended Consequences suggests that Pacifism has pretty damn good track record solving very monumental disputes in very stable and effective ways. Disputes settled by warfare tend towards cyclical instablity much more frequently than those settled peacefully.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
two things come to mind.

1) elect representatives whose ideologies represent the majority of public opinion.

2) perhaps pacifism isn't the stuff nations are built of.

Thanks for the suggestions, but:

1) all representatives that become elected suddenly have a 4 year amnesia attack and don't remember a thing about what they promised and who they are representing.

2) You may be right there, but it is/was our pride when our nation was founded. Much like freedom is a part of yours.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by astronomix:
Pacifism does not build nation by itself, but war surely destroys them.

well put.


sadly, though everyone talks about the necessity of war to guarantee peace, I notice wars keep seeming to be necessary.

As a solution, wars leave a lot to be desired. They only beget more war.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The list gets markedly less impressive when you filter out the Coaliton of the Billing. Those nations whose "ideological" support for the war on tyranny came with a clear pricetag, negotiated before any support was given.

They fall into 4 categories:

1) Those with lucrative US military installations that were threatened with closure

2) Those promised new lucrative US military installations

3) Those whose considerable USAID checks might have been cancelled

4) Those promised considerable USAID checks in the future


In most cases, the Coalition of the Billing are the nations that took positions contrary to the overwhelming opposition to the war by most of it's population.

Buckets of money vs. the will of the people

It works like that in lots of capitals, not just Washington DC.

Absoloutly!!

This is an analysis that sums up the coalition pretty much completely.

[moki]

Originally posted by astronomix:
Pacifism does not build nation by itself, but war surely destroys them.

War is like invasive surgery. You avoid it if at all possible, but at some point it simply has to be done. Clearly the patient is traumatized, but once the cancer has been exorcised, the patient may recover instead of being condemned to a slow lingering death.

And make no mistake, that's what life was under Saddam's regime. Lest we forget, please do review Amnesty.org's litany of charges against Saddam, the mass graves, the people dying in prisons whose only crime was dissent.

Iraq will recover, and it will have a new lease on life. Our job now is to ensure that this happens with all possible alacrity, not to dwell endlessly on the past.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hmmm. People might want to talk to citizens of India, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia, and Russia about the merits of Pacifism as a tool for achieving Liberty.

Better yet, let's teach the Palestinians the joys of passive resistance, shall we?

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In most cases, the Coalition of the Billing are the nations that took positions contrary to the overwhelming opposition to the war by most of it's population.

Well, hey, no one asked the people in EU whether they wanted to join (or adopt the Euro), either (with two notable exceptions). Indeed, at many stages in the EU's history, it was quite unpopular with the countries that signed on (and even now, countries like France are wavering, with public support at about 54%)

The point being that simply because a policy would lose a popular vote for various reasons does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing, or that it shouldn't be done.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
War is like invasive surgery. You avoid it if at all possible, but at some point it simply has to be done. Clearly the patient is traumatized, but once the cancer has been exorcised, the patient may recover instead of being condemned to a slow lingering death.

And make no mistake, that's what life was under Saddam's regime. Lest we forget, please do review Amnesty.org's litany of charges against Saddam, the mass graves, the people dying in prisons whose only crime was dissent.

Iraq will recover, and it will have a new lease on life. Our job now is to ensure that this happens with all possible alacrity, not to dwell endlessly on the past.

to extend your analogy....no good doctor lies to the patient that they have a tumor and then operates, finding no tumor and then says "well, I meant you MIGHT have a tumor. Sorry I had to remove your leg".

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Better yet, let's teach the Palestinians the joys of passive resistance, shall we?

I assume you mean non-violent rather than passive. Passivity won't help.

Its been tried. Palestinians have had notable and influential advocates of nonviolence over the years. The reason this movement hasn't gone further is tied to the absolute failure of the "peace process".

I'm not saying Pacivism always succeeds, I'm just saying that its successes are generally underestimated and forgotten.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
The point being that simply because a policy would lose a popular vote for various reasons does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing, or that it shouldn't be done.

I didn't claim otherwise. Seems to me the only people that have made the argument that popularity == good policy are the people who continue to hail the "Coalition" as a meaningful measure of anything.

Bushites want to claim the Coalition demonstrates the Rightness of the cause. I'm merely reminding people the "cause" was hardly the deciding factor for most of those nations to join the adventure.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its been tried. Palestinians have had notable and influential advocates of nonviolence over the years. The reason this movement hasn't gone further is tied to the absolute failure of the "peace process".

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen it tried -- and Ghandi didn't exactly face ideal conditions when he when on his nonviolent resistance crusade, and ditto with Martin Luther King. Frankly, I'm sick of making excuses for the Palestinians (and equally sick of making excuses for Israel's settlements positions)

I'm not saying Pacivism always succeeds, I'm just saying that its successes are generally underestimated and forgotten.

Oh, I agree with you there. I think of the Palestinians stopped detonating themselves in public places, Israel would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Palestinians.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
to extend your analogy....no good doctor lies to the patient that they have a tumor and then operates, finding no tumor and then says "well, I meant you MIGHT have a tumor. Sorry I had to remove your leg".

*SMACKDOWN*

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Oh, I agree with you there. I think of the Palestinians stopped detonating themselves in public places, Israel would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Palestinians.

I don't think that can be demonstrated historically. As soon as there was a "peace movement" Israel's settlement activity increased dramatically.

What we have is a powerful minority on both sides that does whatever they want for their own reasons regardless of what majority wants and regardless of any agreements or negotiations. We know who they are on the Arab side, but the Israeli rejectionists are hardly ever mentioned. Let's not forget who killed Rabin.

I don't want this to turn into an Israel/Palestine thread, but I did want to nitpick with your suggestion that Arabs are in the driver's seat. They aren't. And they never have been. That's part of why the "peace process" has failed--it doesn't seem to matter what the Arabs do, or what the peacemakers of the West promise, they are no closer to a Free State now than they were at Camp David. In fact, I'd say they are farther away considering Sharon's decisions about the Wall.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
I think of the Palestinians stopped detonating themselves in public places, Israel would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Palestinians.

I think if the Israelis stopped invading/occupying/bulldozing Palestinian places, the Palestinians would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Israelis.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
to extend your analogy....no good doctor lies to the patient that they have a tumor and then operates, finding no tumor and then says "well, I meant you MIGHT have a tumor. Sorry I had to remove your leg".

Sorry, but Saddam was a tumor regardless of the WMD, there's simply no two ways about it.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
I think of the Palestinians stopped detonating themselves in public places, Israel would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Palestinians.

Originally posted by eklipse:
I think if the Israelis stopped invading/occupying/bulldozing Palestinian places, the Palestinians would be utterly forced to change their stance. World opinion, even in America, would be utterly with the Israelis.

And I think if both sides did the above, we might get somewhere!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Sorry, but Saddam was a tumor regardless of the WMD, there's simply no two ways about it.

But a radical saddam-ectomy with a blunt instrument wasn't the only option. We should have gotten a second opinion. The original prognosis was hopelessly wrong when they told us we only had weeks to live.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But a radical saddam-ectomy with a blunt instrument wasn't the only option.

hehe -- I like that term. Saddam-ectomy. Anyway, what is that "other option"? The sanctions that had been in place for a decade that caused his people to suffer, while countries continued to trade with him, and Saddam built palaces?

Honestly, there wasn't another option, especially if you read Iraq's UNSCOM/UNIMOV history. It was simply a matter of when.

I will grant you, though, that Bush screwed up by not waiting to appease people. But it would have had to happen one way or another.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And I think if both sides did the above, we might get somewhere!

Indeed, that's what the roadmap was all about, and everyone should thank Bush et al for pushing it. Alas, neither side wants to play nice, and it seems like we're not getting anywhere.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
hehe -- I like that term. Saddam-ectomy. Anyway, what is that "other option"? The sanctions that had been in place for a decade that caused his people to suffer, while countries continued to trade with him, and Saddam built palaces?

Honestly, there wasn't another option, especially if you read Iraq's UNSCOM/UNIMOV history. It was simply a matter of when.

I will grant you, though, that Bush screwed up by not waiting to appease people. But it would have had to happen one way or another.

First of all, the sacntions strengthened Saddam's grip on power, not loosened and everyone know that. The sanctions were never intended to topple the regime, merely to put it in a box.

As for options.

Well, we could have let him be overthrown in 1991 instead of faciliating his brutal suppression of the uprisings.

We could have not sold him the helicopters, chemical, biological weapons and technology that allowed him to stay in power.

We could have prevented the Ba'athist coup in the first place or "neutralized" Saddam while he was hanging around Cairo (including the US consolate) after the failed assassination of Quassim.

In short, its hard for me to take the "we tried everything" argument seriously when the fact is that the US supported, aided and protected Saddam for almost 30 years.

At any rate, its academic. We'll never know if we could have effected his ouster by other means. I think its intellectually dishonest to suggest that it was impossible, even if we disagree about how effective various strategies might have been. Brutal dictators have been brought down before and will again without the need for a foreign military coup. I accept the possibility and acknowledge that there were lots of missed opportunities along the way, if it had really been a US priority. Instead, the West decided Saddam was better than the alternatives (Shia Clerics, Kurdish Commies, Iraqi Commies, dissolution of the Iraqi state's territoriality, etc) and so he remained.

[rampant]

wrong topic

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, we could have let him be overthrown in 1991 instead of faciliating his brutal suppression of the uprisings.

We could have not sold him the helicopters, chemical, biological weapons and technology that allowed him to stay in power.

We could have prevented the Ba'athist coup in the first place or "neutralized" Saddam while he was hanging around Cairo (including the US consolate) after the failed assassination of Quassim.

Everything you're talking about is past tense, so it is irrelevant. It's late 2002, what do we do?

Also, the "us" you're using must be "us" as in France, Germany, Russia, China, and a litany of other countries, not just the US. It wasn't US-made tanks/jets/missiles the US encountered in Iraq, after all. Just to be absolutely clear here, because I think you're attempting to state that if the US had nothing whatever to do with Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have all of the toys he had, which is just untrue.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Everything you're talking about is past tense, so it is irrelevant. It's late 2002, what do we do?

Also, the "us" you're using must be "us" as in France, Germany, Russia, China, and a litany of other countries, not just the US. It wasn't US-made tanks/jets/missiles the US encountered in Iraq, after all. Just to be absolutely clear here, because I think you're attempting to state that if the US had nothing whatever to do with Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have all of the toys he had, which is just untrue.

I'm talking about past tense because that was the question. Could we have avoided the current adventure? Could we have ousted Saddam some other way? I admitted it was academic, but I continue to believe it was possible. I think its intellectually dishonest to assume that it wasn't possible.

"us" is definitely the Western Powers, not just the US.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
hehe -- I like that term. Saddam-ectomy. Anyway, what is that "other option"? The sanctions that had been in place for a decade that caused his people to suffer, while countries continued to trade with him, and Saddam built palaces?

Honestly, there wasn't another option, especially if you read Iraq's UNSCOM/UNIMOV history. It was simply a matter of when.

I will grant you, though, that Bush screwed up by not waiting to appease people. But it would have had to happen one way or another.

YES there was another option, and I've stated it repeatedly...the "BLUE LINE"...just sweep the country with UN inspectors backed with the american troops already in the area in a sector-by sector sweep. March across the country in a blue line peacefully. The WMDs, if they existed would be found without having to incur casualties. Then, the US would truly be supporting UN resolutions instead of thumbing their nose at the UN.

Like I've also said, when you get used to thinking militarily, that becomes the only solution you can think of because your diplomatic muscles atrophy. You're a perfect example of that.

There were any number of other options that would have worked.

[MacGorilla]

With nations like Tonga on our side, how can be go wrong?

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
YES there was another option, and I've stated it repeatedly...the "BLUE LINE"...just sweep the country with UN inspectors backed with the american troops already in the area in a sector-by sector sweep. March across the country in a blue line peacefully. The WMDs, if they existed would be found without having to incur casualties. Then, the US would truly be supporting UN resolutions instead of thumbing their nose at the UN.

...which would have left Saddam in power, which would have left the people to continue suffering, which would have left Saddam with the ability to rekindle his weapons programs on later on.

I fail to see how this is a humanitarian solution, or a solution at all...? Saddam had a long history of deception, megalomania, and the desire for WMD. The "blue line" sweep would do nothing to curb any of this, and keep the Iraqi people under his bootheel.

BTW, I would argue that the UN thumb'd its nose at itself, or at least publicly declared its impotency by failing to act on Iraq's repeated and blatant resolution-flaunting. Kosovo was just a warmup for the UN showing it had no stomach to do much of anything other than humanitarian programs... which made the passed resolutions pretty much a joke.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm talking about past tense because that was the question. Could we have avoided the current adventure? Could we have ousted Saddam some other way? I admitted it was academic, but I continue to believe it was possible. I think its intellectually dishonest to assume that it wasn't possible.

"us" is definitely the Western Powers, not just the US.

It's also possible the Saddam didn't have to turn into such a bloodthirsty megalomaniac, no? Perhaps a weeee bit of this is his fault, and not the US and other Western (and Eastern) powers?

It's also possible England could have never left Iraq as an occupying power back in the early 1900s, thus preventing the whole mess, too. But I mean c'mon, what's the point of playing "what if" with an arbitrary boundary line?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But a radical saddam-ectomy with a blunt instrument wasn't the only option. We should have gotten a second opinion. The original prognosis was hopelessly wrong when they told us we only had weeks to live.

In fact it turns out the tumour was benign, not malignant.

But the surgeon gets his fee anyway.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
With nations like Tonga on our side, how can be go wrong?

The USA got beaten by Fiji in the Rugby World Cup yesterday. It all comes down to whose rules you play by.

[moki]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
In fact it turns out the tumour was benign, not malignant.

Saddam is benign? That's certainly a unique perspective...

But the surgeon gets his fee anyway.

It seems to me the surgeon is paying an awful lot, actually...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Saddam is benign? That's certainly a unique perspective...



It seems to me the surgeon is paying an awful lot, actually...

no, the insurance company (the american taxpayer) is paying an awful lot to pay the surgeons and anesthetists (Halliburten, Bechtel, american oil companies, etc.).

watch now as the premiums increase....

see? this is a better analogy than you thought.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by moki:
Saddam is benign? That's certainly a unique perspective...

Sure he was. He wasn't spreading. Sometimes benign tumours shrivel and die of their own accord. You just have to keep an eye on them.

A simple biopsy could have saved us a lot of pain.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by voodoo:
1) all representatives that become elected suddenly have a 4 year amnesia attack and don't remember a thing about what they promised and who they are representing.

Just goes to show that politicians are the same the world over...