[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: John Dutka <jdutka at pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:15:50 GMT
Lines: 67

Jms at B5 <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote:
: Here's the breakdown other than US and Britain:Albania, is sending a
: contingency of 70 troops. Poland, 200 troops and Romania is sending 278.
: Australia promises 2000 troops. And that's the whole contingent of "coalition
: of the willing" troops.

Australia sent a squadron of 14 F/A-18 on Feb 8, Two C-13H and one C-130J
transports on Feb 7 and an Air Forward Command Alement was sent, along
with a small air force recon team.  Two Australian P-3 Orion aircraft are
there, conducting maritime patrol ops.  The Australian Army also sent
a special forces task group to the region for this operating, including
elements from the Special Air Service Squadron, 16th Air Defense Regiment,
5th Aviation Regiment, the Incident Response Regiment, and 4th Battalion,
Royal Australian Regiment (Commando).  They also sent naval units, including
the HMAS Kanimbla, HMAS Darwin, and HMAS Anzac.  (source: CNN.com)

Poland has up to 200 troops in Iraq, as you mentioned, probably special
forces.  The Czech Republic has an anti-chemical warfare unit in Kuwait.
Following the beginning of the war, Prime Minister Simeon Saxcoburggotski
of Bulgaria approved 100 non-combat troops for Gulf duty.  Albania offered
70 troops.  

Not that I'm a fan of the administration, to quote a Condoleeza Rice
speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326.html :

"They are contributing different personnel, services and materials,
according to their means and expertise. The British 1st Armored
Division is engaging well-equipped Iraqi units in the southeast, and
securing the southern oil field and the vital port city of Umm Qasr,
through which tons of humanitarian aid will soon flow. The
Australian navy is providing gunfire support to coalition troops in
Southern Iraq, and clearing the port of Umm Qasr of mines. Polish
special forces have secured a key Iraqi oil platform in the Gulf. A
Danish submarine is monitoring Iraqi intelligence and providing
early warning. Czech and Slovak special chemical and biological
weapon response forces are in Kuwait, ready to react to a potential
Iraqi WMD attack anywhere in the theater."

"Many more countries are providing supplies, logistical and
intelligence support, basing and over-flight rights, and humanitarian
and reconstruction aid. Other nations have the will to face terror,
though not the means to participate in operations. Every instance of
support, from every country -- no matter how small or large -- is
helping to win this war, and every one is valued."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has stated:

"Australia has given 2,000 troops, while Poland has offered about 200
and a refueling team. Denmark has offered two ships, the ships' crews
and a surgical team."

Support offered by other nations is listed here:

http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/03/21/20030321coalitionlist.html

: So what about these other countries who keep being cited?  How many troops are
: they contributing?  According to the History News Network, the figures are:
: Spain,  0 troops; Turkey, 0; Italy, 0; Denmark, 0; and Bulgaria, 0. 
: Puts the matter in kind of a different light, doesn't it?

Actually, Denmark and Bulgaria have provided troops and/or platforms,
as have the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other nations.

But...are you saying that every country who supports action in Iraq has
to provide troops...that they are either for us (and submitting troops)
or they are against us (and not submitting troops)?  Ironic.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 01 Apr 2003 02:27:41 GMT
Lines: 27

>But...are you saying that every country who supports action in Iraq has
>to provide troops...that they are either for us (and submitting troops)
>or they are against us (and not submitting troops)?  Ironic.

It's been my experience that when someone says "are you saying that...?" it's
actually the other person taking what you did say, rephrasing it into something
you *didn't* say, for the purposes of refuting, diminishing or ridiculing it. 
Oldest debating trick in the world.

So: no, that's not what I'm saying.  Someone asked if anybody had a count of
who was contributing what.  I provided said information.  End of story.

The only irony present is the frequent use of "coalition forces" in press
releases without much discussion about what that coalition actually comprises. 
Kinda makes it sound bigger and that more nations are actively involved than
there really are.  Sort of political resume padding....

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)