Detained at the whim of the president

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch
The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Read some more please,
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/commits/commits.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...orea/korea.htm

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Read some more please,
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/commits/commits.htm

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...orea/korea.htm

I believe you need to read those cites; neither claims that the Australian
contingent, as valuable and professional as it was, ever outnumbered that of
Great Britain. Australia provided a max of two battalions of infantry at any
given time, along with CS elements; OTOH, the Turks and Canadians each
provided a full brigade (reinforced in the case of the Canadians). But the
fact remains that the greatest number of troops (outside the ROK) came from
the US (multiple corps) and Great Britain (two infantry brigades plus
various other units), in order.

Brooks


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied
99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of
troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored
regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 12/18/2003 1:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch
The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


I was referring to the ROKs. The statement made was "The US and GB always
supply the highest # of troops in any UN event" and I was making an exception.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 12/18/2003 1:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of
troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored
regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


I was referring to the ROKs. The statement made was "The US and GB always
supply the highest # of troops in any UN event" and I was making an
exception.

I would not strongly disagree with you, but even then it might not actually
be completely correct, at least not throughout the war. IIRC by the time the
UN forces were settled in around Pusan the US was shouldering the burden of
a significant chunk of the perimeter, and the ROK Army, which had started
the war with some eight understrength divisions, had already lost some 76K
casualties. I don't have the raw numbers available, but I would imagine that
if you looked at the number of US troops in the fight shortly after the
Inchon landing, and maybe as late as the X Corps movement into the eastern
ports later, which was likely before the ROK's had a chance to flesh their
depleted forces back out, you'd find that the US was top dog. This would
have remained the case until such time as the ROK's could take advantage of
their restored recruiting pool from among those areas retaken from the
former DPRK forces that had occupied them. It may also depend upon what we
consider "troops"--IIRC the ROK's were in the situation of having to take in
recruits who were issued a rifle and uniform and sent almost immediately
into their line units.

Brooks

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In rec.food.cooking None wrote:
You need to get with the program here. By NOT presenting the "check" for
payment, the Cuban government is stating that they no longer recognize the
lease/contract.

Perhaps, but that still does not nullify the lease.

In rec.food.cooking The Wolf wrote:

Come on! Even for you that's out in left field.

Yeh, you extreme conservatives have a lot of trouble
dealing with reality.

In article , RogerM
says...


None wrote:


I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".


How, exactly could Cuba enforce that eviction notice?

Stomp their feet and pout.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
RogerM ) wrote:
: Pan Ohco wrote:
:
: I think your wrong about this, and I think you will find out how wrong
: when Bush is reelected.
:

: As I have said before, America loves a winner. Whether the cause was
: just or not.

: --

: "Homer, I'll tell you what I told Redford - 'It ain't gonna happen'" -
: Paul Newman, The Simpsons

To the extent that voters only care whether the invasion of Iraq
is successful, not whether it was right, Bush will be re-elected in a
landslide. But the other side of the coin is that many opponents of
the war primarily voiced concern that the effort would fail rather
than that it was wrong.


Thats what his daddy thought after Kuwait too . . . He was a one termer
also.

IBM ) wrote:
: (Darryl) wrote in
: om:

: "Jarg" wrote in message
: .com...
: Of course he will win. I wonder how many of the Bush haters will
: blow a gasket when he is reelected!
:
: You misspelled 'elected'.

: And you need to sue your school board for failing to teach you
: to read.
: And as a Sore-Looserman Democrap you need to get over it.

Ooooh, a bit touchy, aren't we? But you will note that the
Bush campaign is smarter than you are...there are and will be no
"Re-Elect Bush/Cheney" signs.