--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The world was with you on Afghanistan. You should have finished the
> job properly.
Sorry, Charlie, but the world was *not* with us on Afghanistan.Oh
sure, they were there in word - but the world was painfully short of the
s
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most
> >> 1st world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence
> >> force, and there have been enough "friendly fire" incidents in
> >> joint task forces
On 28/11/2006, at 2:52 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The world was with you on Afghanistan. You should have finished the
job properly.
Sorry, Charlie, but the world was *not* with us on Afghanistan.Oh
sure, they were there in wo
Charlie said:
Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most 1st
world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence
force, and there have been enough "friendly fire" incidents in
joint task forces in the past to make military forces wary of
combining troops. An
On 28/11/2006, at 6:29 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most
1st world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence
force, and there have been enough "friendly fire" incidents in
joint task forces in the past to
On 29/11/2006, at 3:54 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Unfortunately, there is every indication that the force is too
small to
accomplish the job - there remains too few troops, and of the troops
that are there, too few of them are willing to work in the toughest/
most
violent areas.
Yes, precis
