"Florida Patriot" wrote a bunch of off topic
sewage in message

snip

Take your political babble to an on topic forum.
SH

In article , "Slowhand" I'm@work
wrote:

"Florida Patriot" wrote a bunch of off topic
sewage in message

snip

Take your political babble to an on topic forum.
SH

Sigh. I think we gotta convince people to put "[Pol]" in the subject or
something. This one started with "Pol:" in the subject, which nicely
makes me ignore it (kinda kill-filed) and I greatly appreciated that the
OP did this (thanks Florida Patriot!) but the first responder (Damn you
Leon) stripped the "Pol:" and replaced it with "". I thing the
problem is with some idiotic news readers (read MS Outlook, the dumbest
news reader ever made) are causing the problem.

PK

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.

Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus,

Sounds like what Bush did.

Tell that to the Eritreans. They weren't aware they were part of the
coalition of the willing. Neither were the residents of the Soloman Islands.
It came as a suprise to them too.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:47:01 -0700, Mark & Juanita
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

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
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

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.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
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