Neither are all Americans, all Britons or all Australians.

Leave it to you to connect the racist dot all by yourself, even though it was on another page of the coloring book. Are you preoccupied with that or something? Or are you just interested in making sure you label things in the most incendiary way possible, so you can get a nice fire going when you ignite your straw man?

Just so you know, I, all by myself, when I heard the list of nations that had actually contributed troops and not just equipment or use of real estate, drew the same conclusion. Translation is not going to be a problem except in the proverbial sense: three peoples separated by a common language.

Some people are so irritated at the French and the Germans: "Aren't they democracies? What do you mean, they disagree? What's wrong with them?" But they mistake a political system for a cultural commonality. Being a democracy doesn't mean a nation must make common cause with other democracies. However, cultural ties are more apt to draw an emotional response of solidarity.

What this Coalition of the Willing Anglophones says more clearly to me is that the thread of a common culture will united peoples in disparate sections of the globe, in spite of what their regional interests might be. This is why, when we go around attacking a series of Muslim countries -- this makes two in a row -- we should not be at all surprised if their co-culturists in, say, Indonesia get that strained "please don't hit me" smile on their faces when dealing with us, and keep rocks in their pockets -- just in case.

Regards--
Mary Anne

This isn't a "Left" thing, unless you're suggesting that the Left made up the English-speaking factor in the coalition make-up. This is looking at a particular, peculiar factor in this war and saying, "Hmmm..."

Regards--
Mary Anne