-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re:Bush gives the finger to the world again
hmm, what's a JTF2 when it's at home?
Dana
>Its a significant portion of the active military. The Armed Forces are
>around 50,00 to 75,000 (cannot remember specifically). Given that they
are
>still upholding their other NATO commitments, their commitments in the
>Balkans, and their UN peacekeeping commitments, its no surprise that
they
>are stretched very thin. The militia (the equivalent of the national
guard
>and reserves) have stepped in and filled in some of the gap, but there is
>no where near enough soldiers to fulfill all of its missions.
>
>So far the commitments with the war on terrorism include Afghanistan,
>several ships in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf, the entire JTF2 on
standby
>deployment, as well as the airborne tasked regiments.
>
>larry
>
>At 03:20 PM 12/14/2003, you wrote:
>>ah, ok. Canada helped, just not in Iraq. That explains the apparent
>>contradiction. I still find his position rather juvenile, and no
incentive
>>for any ally to help the US in future.
>>
>>Out of curiosity 2000 soldiers is what sort of commitment for a small
>>country with no draft? Do you know what the size of the Canadian Army
is?
>>
>> >Dana,
>> >
>> >Canada did not send any troops to Iraq. Instead it upped its
>> >commitment to Afghanistan to 2000 soldiers. Then Prime Minister Jean
>> >Chretien said it was a stupid affair that Canada would not become
>> >involved. he was pretty smart about the whole thing.
>> >
>> >larry.
>> >
>> >>the question in my mind is this - if Larry is corrct about the 300
>> >>million -and I believe it did send troops -- then why is Bush saying
>> >>Canada did not help? Because it said unilateral invasion was a bad
>> >>idea?
>> >>
>> >>I know I was being sarcastic earlier, but this one sincerely puzzles
me.
>> >>
>> >>Dana
>> >>
>> >>> Larry,
>> >>>
>> >>> That is a diffferent pile of money.
>> >>>
>> >>> My understanding is: that money is open to bids by almost anyone.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is only the US grants administered through the Pentagon that
are
>> >>> subject to this restriction.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jerry Johnson
>> >>>
>> >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/11/03 02:03PM >>>
>> >>> At the same time John, these countries have pledged a lot of money
for
>> >>>
>> >>> rebuilding. For instance Canada has earmarked over 300 million for
>> >>> Iraq. So
>> >>> if Canada is willing to pay to help shouldn't it get some of its
>> >>> largess
>> >>> back in contracts? Why should all of that money go to enrich the
>> >>> pockets of
>> >>> Shrub's friends.
>> >>>
>> >>> larry
>> >>>
>> >>> At 10:32 AM 12/11/2003, you wrote:
>> >>> >The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they
just
>> >>> cant
>> >>> >bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They
can
>> >>> be hired
>> >>> >as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this
is
>> >>> such a
>> >>> >huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to
>> >>> rebuild Iraq
>> >>> >when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first
>> >>> place?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >>> >From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
>> >>> >To: CF-Community
>> >>> >Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration
for
>> >>> reopening
>> >>> >a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime
>> >>> contracts for
>> >>> >Iraq's reconstruction.
>> >>> >
>> >>> ><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>http://www.
>> >>> foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
>> >>> ><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather
than
>> >>> >alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
(search)
>> >>> said.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >So let me get this straight.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >1. Economy is bad.
>> >>> >2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
>> >>> >3. Get called on it by other countries.
>> >>> >4. Attack anyway
>> >>> >5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help
in
>> >>> an
>> >>> >illegal war.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a
perfect
>> >>> plan to
>> >>> >boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >-Kevin
>> >>> > _____
>> >>> >
>> >>> >----------
>> >>> >[
>> >>
>> >>[
>>
>>----------
>>[
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
