Accomplished? I don't think so.
BTW Before Gen. Shalikashvilli was forced out as COS Pentagon, he did
testify to congress that it would take about 500,000 troops over five
years to accomplish the takeover and occupation of Iraq. Looks like he
was right.
Also as an interesting side note, recently retired General Tommy
Franks disagrees with those who think that Kerry would not make a good
COC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54950-2004Aug10_2.html
" The retired general appears to be having a good time these days,
working the circuit, flogging his memoir, "American Soldier."
Maybe he's having too good a time, in fact, because he has been
veering dangerously off-message. On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, he
was asked, "Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be commander in
chief?"
"Absolutely!" he said."
larry
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:27:58 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As per my earlier post that no one replied to, their putting troops on the
> group is not necessarily what Bush wanted. Why? Because any troops anyone
> provided where token anyway because they wouldn't have the training and
> equipment of US forces and therefore would be ineffectual and perhaps
> dangerous. So you are applying a measure of success which may be different
> that what should be applied.
>
> That said, I don't believe that anyone is satisfied with the level of support
> that we are getting on any front except from a very few countries.
>
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 7:31 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Kerry would of gone to Iraq too?
>
>
> My point still stands, the vast majority of the so-called coalition of
> the willing (more likey the bribed) still have not put any troops on
> the ground.
>
> less than 1000 soldiers per nation is still an insignificant amount,
> and most of those I mentioned still have no soldiers in the theatre.
> Moreover of those that do, its typically less than 20 each.. Ergo my
> point still stands.
>
> larry
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
> >
> >
> > --- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Your source?
> > >
> > > Remember I said aside from Britian and Australia.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:25:11 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > --- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah right. 30 countries, but how many troops
> > > were
> > > > > sent in. All but a
> > > > > very few of those countries actually supplied
> > > > > troops. Of the following
> > > > > countries named by Colin Powell as members of
> > > the
> > > > > coalition of the
> > > > > willing, how many soldiers did they send?
> > > >
> > > > About 14459
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Columbia, Costa Rica,
> > > the
> > > > > Dominican Republic,
> > > > > El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
> > > Georgia,
> > > > > Honduras, Hungary,
> > > > > Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania,
> > > > > Macedonia, the Marshall
> > > > > Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau,
> > > > > Rwanda, the Solomon
> > > > > Islands, Slovakia, Tonga, Turkey Uganda,
> > > Ukraine, or
> > > > > Uzbekistan?
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer is simple, none.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong! About 14459
> > > >
> > > > > Of the others only
> > > > > Australia and the UK
> > > > > sent a significant number.
> > > > >
> > > > > So much for the broad based coalition of the
> > > > > willing.
> > > > >
> > > > > larry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
