tw a écrit:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:LpZdd.26619$cr4.10084@edtnps84...

Woodswun a écrit:

In article <OCNdd.26580$J16.1486252@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Marvin The

Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/timryan.html

Broadband recommended....

Wow, he's an effective speaker, unlike some politicians we all know

9_9

Forwarded the URL to some college students I know. I'm sure they know,

just as

well as everyone else with an ounce of intelligence, that if you're

going to

increase troops and you can't get them from your allies, you have no

choice but

to get them from your civilian population - whether they're willing or

not.

That's just plain, simple logic.

Woods

That is only based on the artificial hypothesis that everything stands
as it is now,

..and theings are likely to get worse rather than better.

Only in your anti-Semite dreams.

tw a écrit:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:LpZdd.26619$cr4.10084@edtnps84...

Woodswun a écrit:

In article <OCNdd.26580$J16.1486252@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Marvin The

Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/timryan.html

Broadband recommended....

Wow, he's an effective speaker, unlike some politicians we all know ....

9_9

Forwarded the URL to some college students I know. I'm sure they know,

just as

well as everyone else with an ounce of intelligence, that if you're

going to

increase troops and you can't get them from your allies, you have no

choice but

to get them from your civilian population - whether they're willing or

not.

That's just plain, simple logic.

Woods

That is only based on the artificial hypothesis that everything stands
as it is now,

..and theings are likely to get worse rather than better.

Only in your anti-Semite dreams.

tw a écrit:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:LpZdd.26619$cr4.10084@edtnps84...

Woodswun a écrit:

In article <OCNdd.26580$J16.1486252@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Marvin The

Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/timryan.html

Broadband recommended....

Wow, he's an effective speaker, unlike some politicians we all know

9_9

Forwarded the URL to some college students I know. I'm sure they know,

just as

well as everyone else with an ounce of intelligence, that if you're

going to

increase troops and you can't get them from your allies, you have no

choice but

to get them from your civilian population - whether they're willing or

not.

That's just plain, simple logic.

Woods

That is only based on the artificial hypothesis that everything stands
as it is now,

..and theings are likely to get worse rather than better. What if Iran

out in the nuclear issue again? Kim Jong Ill starts mobilising troops

the DMZ in South Korea? Popular coup in Paksitan overthrow Musharraf's
dictatorship? Fundamentalists attempt a takeover in Sauid Arabia? The US
would be forced to intervene with troops on the ground in pretty much

those situations - what if they all start happening at once?

that the troops repatriated from Europe and elsewhere are
not counted

Those are still American troops though aren't they. And they're spread
pretty thin now... if e.g. the Taliban decided to step up guerillla

after the Afghani elections, there wouldn't be many troops avaliable to
police that AND keep the lid on things in Iraq. Let alone if anything
mentioned in the first paragraph occured.

If everything you mean? God forbid.

that the Iraqis force doesn't get trained and increased
from the actual 30,000, all of which is quite a stretch given the effort
put in to it, don't you think Woods?

So the indigenous security force is 30,000 now?

These are those that are fully trained according to the US standards.

How many of those are actual
combat/security personnel though? Probably less than half.

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/img/assets/4475/101904iraqprogress.pdf
More than 100,000 law enforcement officers are on duty. More than 62,000
Iraqi armed forces, including army, air force, national guard, and
coastal defense units, are serving or training.

I keep hearing
talk of an Iraqi policeforce being trained by coalition troops, but are

actively engaged in fighting insurgents?

130 000 US troops are in iraq. These are trained by a specific Reserve
Unit. http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Oct2004/n10212004_2004102107.html

I'm pretty sure there's no Iraqi
military to speak of, but if there were, how comitted do you think those
guys will be in fighting an insurgency (which is always a brutal sort of

war) on their own home ground against their own countrymen? Remember

happened when Nixon tried to "Vietnamise" the war in SEA? The ARVN were

enthusiastic fighters, generally.

Well, two different situation.

This one rest on the will of world Muslim clerics, as they all are

improved.

The only firm ally the US has right now is the UK, and THAT is against

wishes of most of the British people, and even Blair's own party. A

of government may well see that residual support evaporate.

It's surreal to see a Labour leader get lambasted by the Conservatives

being too militaristic and chummy with a Republican US president...

Well, there is something about British troops in CNN headlines today
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/21/iraq.main/index.html
Seem pretty solid a coalition.

But like with your gloomy future hypothesis above, about what could
happen would things worsen instead of improving, one can only say: "Que
sera, sera"

Woodswun a écrit:

In article <LpZdd.26619$cr4.10084@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon

<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

Woodswun a écrit:

In article <OCNdd.26580$J16.1486252@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Marvin The

Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/timryan.html

Broadband recommended....

Wow, he's an effective speaker, unlike some politicians we all know .... 9_9

Forwarded the URL to some college students I know. I'm sure they know, just

as

well as everyone else with an ounce of intelligence, that if you're going to

increase troops and you can't get them from your allies, you have no choice

but

to get them from your civilian population - whether they're willing or not.

That's just plain, simple logic.

Woods

That is only based on the artificial hypothesis that everything stands
as it is now, that the troops repatriated from Europe and elsewhere are
not counted, that the Iraqis force doesn't get trained and increased

from the actual 30,000, all of which is quite a stretch given the effort

put in to it, don't you think Woods?

I think Bush's numbers are quite a stretch. I don't see Iraqi troops coming
anywhere near that number,

This is from an expert who speaks of those who have full training. The
real number is in the hundred of thousand for police force and well over
double that for the ones still in training.

And this is merely a beginning.

and we don't have enough troops to rotate out on our
own.

These are trained by a special unit.

Our so-called "coalition" partners, except maybe Britain, are planning on
leaving in a few months, which leaves us holding the bag with insufficient
troops. That, and the fact that Bush won't need to worry about winning

another

election, spells trouble.

Woods

I don't see that the british are going to leave. Where do you see that?