fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 on humanitarian grounds...where are the howling protests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Ah, but you see monsieur that les French mean well, whereas we are simply another selfish, exploitative colonial power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 whoa - where did you see that? would like to read up on that one...stupid frenchies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 What'd they do? Offer to surrender first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 TEG....must confess that I may have pulled the trigger fast on this one...was passing through the TV room today (I'm on leave until I start my new job later this onth..... ) and caught the tail end of a CNN story showing video of French troops somewhere between truth and possbility and elsewhere it now seems what...no UN votes? I could go on with an ASF-like post here...the French have been very busy in Africa the last few years...but will instead be merciful!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 TEG....must confess that I may have pulled the trigger fast on this one...was passing through the TV room today (I'm on leave until I start my new job later this onth..... ) and caught the tail end of a CNN story showing video of French troops somewhere between truth and possbility and elsewhere it now seems what...no UN votes? I could go on with an ASF-like post here...the French have been very busy in Africa the last few years...but will instead be merciful!!!! Thanks...did you see this part in the 2nd link... The French commitment to lead a force of more than 1,000 international troops came weeks after U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to French President Jacques Chirac to intervene in the Ituri province of Congo to stop a bloody power struggle between the ethnic Hemma and Lendu militia. Not that it matters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 I know where you are headed....was it put to a vote? even so.........to be consistent with what I have argued elsewhere....if this is being done on humanitarian grounds and they have the predonderance of power to ensure a successful outcome: I can't complain. just don't mess it up. I feel the same way about our people in Iraq. don't mess it up see it through to the end now that we are committed and have acted. this hasn't been discussed on the board at all: but if tghe Bushes don't follow-up and not only secure a power base for stabilizing the Middle East and eliminating terrorism but also improve the conditions for all Iraqis....then I will be one of their harshest critics. I was more in mind of highlighting how these freres of ours have been slipping under the proverbial radar screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 In line with that...did you happen upon this today? Ex-Army boss: Pentagon won't admit reality in Iraq Tue Jun 3, 7:53 AM ET Add Top Stories - USA TODAY to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON -- The former civilian head of the Army said Monday it is time for the Pentagon (news - web sites) to admit that the military is in for a long occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) that will require a major commitment of American troops. Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials ''are unwilling to come to grips'' with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely. ''This is not what they were selling (before the war),'' White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. ''It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term.'' The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require ''several hundred thousand troops.'' Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate ''wildly off the mark.'' Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki. Last month, Rumsfeld said the United States would remain in Iraq as ''long as it takes.'' But the Defense chief was not specific about the size of the force. The Pentagon declined to respond to White's comments, but a senior official said it was too early to draw conclusions about the size or length of the U.S. troops' commitment in Iraq. White said it is reasonable to assume the Pentagon will need more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to provide stability for at least the next year. Pentagon officials envisioned having about 100,000 troops there immediately after the war, but they hoped that number would be quickly drawn down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 4, 2003 Author Share Posted June 4, 2003 we're still in germany....that's 59 years we're still in korea....that's 51 years we're still in kosovo/bosnia...that's 8 years we're still in Japan....that's 58 years we're still in Afghanistan....that's 1 year maybe these things take time.......and presence......maybe there tend to be outside influences that draw these things out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 4, 2003 Author Share Posted June 4, 2003 the same Thomas White who was an ENRON executive? the same guy who was under investigation for misuse of government property? hey...he was probably "out of the loop" when all the numbers were being debated anyway - that is his modus operandi is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.