Pol: General Eisenhower endorses Kerry

On 02 Oct 2004 13:10:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>Tom Watson responds:
>
>>>>Leon writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus,
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like what Bush did.
>>>>
>>>>What consensus?
>>>>
>>>>>> not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like Kerry did concerning the nations involved in fighting right now in
>>Iraq
>>>>
>>>>Huh?
>>>
>>> Well, Kerry's continually harping on the fact that we are going it alone
>>>is not exactly inclusive of the 30+ nations who *are* involved along with
>>>us.
>>
>>United Kingdom 8,361
>>South Korea 2,800
>>Italy 2,700
>>Poland 2,400
>>Ukraine 1,576
>>Netherlands ~1,400
>>Romania 700
>>Japan ~550
>>Denmark 496
>>Bulgaria ~485
>>Thailand 451
>>El Salvador 380
>>Hungary 300
>>Australia ~ 250
>>Mongolia 180
>>Georgia 159
>>Azerbaijan 151
>>Portugal 128
>>Latvia 122
>>Czech Republic ~110
>>Lithuania 105
>>Slovakia 105
>>Albania 70
>>Estonia 55
>>Tonga ~45
>>Singapore 33
>>Kazakhstan 29
>>Macedonia 28
>>Moldova 12
>>Norway 10
>>
>>TOTAL ~28,600
>>
>>United States ~130,000
>>
>>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
>>
>>
>
>Albania, Moldova, Tonga and Singapore, Norway, fer pete's sake. Now there's a
>consensus for you.
>

So to bring in more countries, you mock the ones you already have signed
up?

The numbers you show are only for those in Iraq, and does not include
those "in-theatre" -- i.e. supporting in nearby countries. Even so, that's
28,600 troops the US has not had to deploy and constitutes 18% of total
troop support.

Do you really believe France would provide more? The "important" allies
that Kerry is really speaking of consist only of France, Germany, and
Russia. None of them were going to support the invasion because they knew
that their complicity in the "oil for food -- money for Saddam" program
would be exposed.

Tom Watson responds:

>>>Leon writes:
>>>
>>>>Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus,
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like what Bush did.
>>>
>>>What consensus?
>>>
>>>>> not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance.
>>>>
>>>>Like Kerry did concerning the nations involved in fighting right now in
>Iraq
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>
>> Well, Kerry's continually harping on the fact that we are going it alone
>>is not exactly inclusive of the 30+ nations who *are* involved along with
>>us.
>
>United Kingdom 8,361
>South Korea 2,800
>Italy 2,700
>Poland 2,400
>Ukraine 1,576
>Netherlands ~1,400
>Romania 700
>Japan ~550
>Denmark 496
>Bulgaria ~485
>Thailand 451
>El Salvador 380
>Hungary 300
>Australia ~ 250
>Mongolia 180
>Georgia 159
>Azerbaijan 151
>Portugal 128
>Latvia 122
>Czech Republic ~110
>Lithuania 105
>Slovakia 105
>Albania 70
>Estonia 55
>Tonga ~45
>Singapore 33
>Kazakhstan 29
>Macedonia 28
>Moldova 12
>Norway 10
>
>TOTAL ~28,600
>
>United States ~130,000
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
>
>

Albania, Moldova, Tonga and Singapore, Norway, fer pete's sake. Now there's a
consensus for you.




Charlie Self
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

> >>TOTAL ~28,600
> >>
> >>United States ~130,000
> >
> >Albania, Moldova, Tonga and Singapore, Norway, fer pete's sake. Now
there's a
> >consensus for you.
> >
>
> So to bring in more countries, you mock the ones you already have signed
> up?

Please! Bush has alienated foreign nations. Kerry will bring them back on
board.


> Do you really believe France would provide more? The "important" allies
> that Kerry is really speaking of consist only of France, Germany, and
> Russia. None of them were going to support the invasion because they knew
> that their complicity in the "oil for food -- money for Saddam" program
> would be exposed.

There are *a lot* more nations that will be on board and sending troops AND
money. Compare this coalition to the one Bush Sr. put together with the UN
!!!

You are prepared to argue against fact in order to put a favorable spin on
things for your candidate. When we are talking about the lives of our
soldiers, that's very wrong.

> Try these facts on for size. Since we're so concerned about the important
> contributions of the French, Germans, and Russians, in the first Gulf War,
> the US supplied roughly 76% of all forces, France supplied 3%, Germany
> supplied 0.1% and Russia supplied 0.


Oh, please! You really want to argue that the first war coalition wasn't
enormously better than this one Bush Jr. put together?

The cost of the first war was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion.
About $53 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the
world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States; $16
billion by Germany and Japan (who wasn't part of the coalition due to the
treaties that ended WWII). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was paid
in form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and transportation.
The UK spent $4.1 billion during this war.

This time it's about $200 billion and we are footing the bill for almost all
of it.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Try these facts on for size. Since we're so concerned about the
> important
> > > contributions of the French, Germans, and Russians, in the first Gulf
> War,
> > > the US supplied roughly 76% of all forces, France supplied 3%, Germany
> > > supplied 0.1% and Russia supplied 0.
> >
> >
> > Oh, please! You really want to argue that the first war coalition
wasn't
> > enormously better than this one Bush Jr. put together?
> >
> > The cost of the first war was calculated by Congress to be $61.1
billion.
> > About $53 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around
> the
> > world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States; $16
> > billion by Germany and Japan (who wasn't part of the coalition due to
the
> > treaties that ended WWII). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was
> paid
> > in form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and
> transportation.
> > The UK spent $4.1 billion during this war.
> >
> > This time it's about $200 billion and we are footing the bill for almost
> all
> > of it.
>
> Look, idiot asshole moron (i know you like that kind of talk). A lot of
> people seem to be spending a lot of time wringing their hands over the
> number of casualties our troops are taking. If it makes you feel better
> that other people foot the bill for our casualties, that's up to you.
> Personally, I'd trade the money for more of our soldiers' lives, but
France,
> Germany and Russia didn't see fit to pony up much the first time in the
way
> of troops and probably wouldn't have done any better this time. A better
> argument is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, however
> even Kerry has conceded that point. So, if it was the correct action to
> take (again, even Kerry voted for authorization for the war, before he
voted
> against it, of course), it's just a matter of how the cost gets divided.
> Again, Kerry has stated that he believes if the US feels threatened that
we
> are justified in taking unilateral action if the UN does not approve. So,
> as far as we know, Kerry would be in exactly the same place since he was
a)
> for the war and b) willing to take action without the UN's blessing (so he
> says now). And as far as the cost goes, of course it's more because the
> mission is completely different (not even accounting for inflation). So,
> you need to stick with the Howard Dean total anti-war line. At least that
> guy has core convictions.

Interesting attempt to make the moral high ground. (Especially as you start
out with vulgar insults.)

Unfortunately, you've already revealed your lack of concern for the welfare
of our troops.

As to your point..you're wrong there too. There were many, many thousands
more troops from other nations in the first war against Iraq than in this
one. Bush Sr. did an excellent job of recruiting their support.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Try these facts on for size. Since we're so concerned about the
important
> > contributions of the French, Germans, and Russians, in the first Gulf
War,
> > the US supplied roughly 76% of all forces, France supplied 3%, Germany
> > supplied 0.1% and Russia supplied 0.
>
>
> Oh, please! You really want to argue that the first war coalition wasn't
> enormously better than this one Bush Jr. put together?
>
> The cost of the first war was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion.
> About $53 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around
the
> world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States; $16
> billion by Germany and Japan (who wasn't part of the coalition due to the
> treaties that ended WWII). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was
paid
> in form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and
transportation.
> The UK spent $4.1 billion during this war.
>
> This time it's about $200 billion and we are footing the bill for almost
all
> of it.

Look, idiot asshole moron (i know you like that kind of talk). A lot of
people seem to be spending a lot of time wringing their hands over the
number of casualties our troops are taking. If it makes you feel better
that other people foot the bill for our casualties, that's up to you.
Personally, I'd trade the money for more of our soldiers' lives, but France,
Germany and Russia didn't see fit to pony up much the first time in the way
of troops and probably wouldn't have done any better this time. A better
argument is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, however
even Kerry has conceded that point. So, if it was the correct action to
take (again, even Kerry voted for authorization for the war, before he voted
against it, of course), it's just a matter of how the cost gets divided.
Again, Kerry has stated that he believes if the US feels threatened that we
are justified in taking unilateral action if the UN does not approve. So,
as far as we know, Kerry would be in exactly the same place since he was a)
for the war and b) willing to take action without the UN's blessing (so he
says now). And as far as the cost goes, of course it's more because the
mission is completely different (not even accounting for inflation). So,
you need to stick with the Howard Dean total anti-war line. At least that
guy has core convictions.

todd

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >>TOTAL ~28,600
> > >>
> > >>United States ~130,000
> > >
> > >Albania, Moldova, Tonga and Singapore, Norway, fer pete's sake. Now
> there's a
> > >consensus for you.
> > >
> >
> > So to bring in more countries, you mock the ones you already have
signed
> > up?
>
> Please! Bush has alienated foreign nations. Kerry will bring them back
on
> board.
>
>
> > Do you really believe France would provide more? The "important"
allies
> > that Kerry is really speaking of consist only of France, Germany, and
> > Russia. None of them were going to support the invasion because they
knew
> > that their complicity in the "oil for food -- money for Saddam" program
> > would be exposed.
>
> There are *a lot* more nations that will be on board and sending troops
AND
> money. Compare this coalition to the one Bush Sr. put together with the
UN
> !!!
>
> You are prepared to argue against fact in order to put a favorable spin on
> things for your candidate. When we are talking about the lives of our
> soldiers, that's very wrong.

Try these facts on for size. Since we're so concerned about the important
contributions of the French, Germans, and Russians, in the first Gulf War,
the US supplied roughly 76% of all forces, France supplied 3%, Germany
supplied 0.1% and Russia supplied 0.

todd

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:47:01 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

" Do you really believe France would provide more? The "important"
allies
that Kerry is really speaking of consist only of France, Germany, and
Russia. None of them were going to support the invasion because they
knew
that their complicity in the "oil for food -- money for Saddam
program
would be exposed."


Coalition Forces In Desert Storm



AFGHANISTAN - 300 troops

AUSTRALIA - See Australian Info Sheet

BAHRAIN - 400 personnel, 36 aircraft

BANGLADESH - 6,000 troops

BELGIUM - 1 frigate, 2 minesweepers, 2 landing
ships, 6 C-130 planes

BRITAIN - 43,000 troops, 6 destroyers, 4 frigates, 3
minesweepers, 168 tanks, 300 armored
vehicles, 70 jets

CANADA - 2 destroyers, 12 C-130 planes, 24 CF-18
bombers, 4500 troops, Field Hospital (1
Canadian Field Hospital)

CZECHOSLVAKIA - 200 chemical warfare specialists

EGYPT - 40,000 troops (5,000 special forces
paratroopers)

FRANCE - 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120
helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3
destroyers, 4 frigates

GERMANY - Jagdbombergeschwader 43 consisting of 18
Alpha-Jets and 212 soldiers stationed in
Erhac/Turkey during the gulf war.

5 Minesweeper, 2 Supply Vessels, 500 sailors
altogether.

HONDURAS - 150 troops

HUNGARY - 1 medical unit

ITALY - 3 frigates, 4 minesweepers, 10 Tornado
Aircraft

KUWAIT - 11,000 troops, 2 missle boats, 1 barge, A-4 Skyhawks
(exact # unknown)
Leaders:
Emir of Kuwait


NEW ZEALAND - 50 medical soldiers and 2 C-130's

NIGER - 500 troops

OMAN - 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed
ships

POLAND - 1 Hospital Ship

QATAR - 1 squadron of Mirage F-1E fighters

ROMANIA - 180 chemical warfare experts

SAUDI ARABIA - 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180
airplanes

Leaders:
King Fahad Leader of Saudi Arabia

SOUTH KOREA - 5 C-130 transport planes, 1 medical
unit

SYRIA - 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks

UNITED ARAB EMRIATES - 40,000 troops, 80 planes,
200 tanks

UNITED STATES - 540,000 troops, 6 aircraft carriers,
submarines, 4,000 tanks, 1,700
helicopters, 1,800 airplanes



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:47:01 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> " Do you really believe France would provide more? The "important"
> allies
> that Kerry is really speaking of consist only of France, Germany, and
> Russia. None of them were going to support the invasion because they
> knew
> that their complicity in the "oil for food -- money for Saddam
> program
> would be exposed."
>
>
> Coalition Forces In Desert Storm
> FRANCE - 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120
> helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3
> destroyers, 4 frigates
>
> GERMANY - Jagdbombergeschwader 43 consisting of 18
> Alpha-Jets and 212 soldiers stationed in
> Erhac/Turkey during the gulf war.
>
> 5 Minesweeper, 2 Supply Vessels, 500 sailors
> altogether.

Boy, it's too bad we don't have the assistance of the other major powers now
like we had during the first Gulf War, as so many complain about. I read
earlier today the the total number of coalition forces totalled about
660,000. Why, France contributed a full 3% of the total force, while
Germany supplied 0.1%, and Russia contributed exactly 0%. Boy, it would be
a *totally* different scenario militarily if we only had their help.

Right now, my biggest complaint is that we are getting Iraqi forces trained
and equipped too slowly. The faster they are able to handle things
themselves, the better.

todd