Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:00:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
145 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I must take exception to the use of the term "coalition" -- a coded term
> intended to suggest dozens in numbers
Really? Not by any definition I'm familiar with - why do you think it
suggests 'dozens'?
We have a coalition government in Australia (and it's often refered to as
'The Coalition') which consists of only two parties. (And I note that our
coalition members sometimes injure each other with 'friendly fire' too).
> when in actuality only 3 countries are
> actively participating in the INVASION of Iraq: the U.S., England, and
> Australia.
Yay! Someone else remembered Australia. (And I bet our prime minister wishes
he was in front of the the press conference with B1 and B2).
> Further, there may be the false belief that the "elected" representatives in
> these countries
Why '"elected"' why not just 'elected'? Are you saying there's something
askew with the electoral process in Australia? (Other than that we managed
to elect a coalition of only two parties, when there should have been
'dozens'?).
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| I must take exception to the use of the term "coalition" -- a coded term intended to suggest dozens in numbers when in actuality only 3 countries are actively participating in the INVASION of Iraq: the U.S., England, and Australia. Further, there (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
