The Battle of the VPs

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, it's a criticism of the Bush admin's attempt at acquiring allies. Allawi's forces are irrelevent to the discussion. It's not a half-truth, it is the truth.

I disagree. Iraqi forces are relevant. When discussing a force structure arrangement, how can you possibly leave the indiginous troops out of the discussion?

Bush aquired a lot of allies. Because their militaries are not as mobile as France's were in GW1 is only partially relevant. The GW1 coalition also had forces from boarder countries. The distortion of the facts is multiple on Edward's part.

[Pekka]

Ohh.. these are facts like old europe and new europe. They just never have existed.

Ben Kenobi, this is not a fact or non-fact, this is method of calculating, THIS IS HOW IT IS CALCULATED IN THE WORLD, now if someone wants to bring out new methods of calculating, then there must be an agreement of that, but there is no agreement to that. Iraqi security etc are not part of coalition. They are fighting with coalition.

[Nubclear]

Can someone remind me of the casualties taken on by the Iraqi forces (coalition) in Iraq?

[The Mad Monk]

Yeah, but that's because of all the friggin lawsuits, Senator.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Yeah, but that's because of all the friggin lawsuits, Senator.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Can someone remind me of the casualties taken on by the Iraqi forces (coalition) in Iraq?

do losses include deserters?

[The Mad Monk]

Guys? The debate has moved on, you know?

[PLATO]

Is "haliburton" Edward's response to everything?

[Jaguar]

This is a month old, so it's only counting January to mid-September, and not casualties from last year.

Since January 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.

From the US Embassy to Iraq site.

[The Mad Monk]

It does seem that way.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Guys? The debate has moved on, you know?

Thank you.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by germanos


do losses include deserters?

Of course not

[Pekka]

This is just like French resistance in WWII. They weren't Allies per se. They were helping the allied forces. Now you can claim 'but iraqis are formally trained'. So? They are HELPING, not BEING. They are their own entity. ****, I do a lot of modelling in my Uni, doing one now. If you say Iraqi forces are not their own entity, I say YOU FAIL THE CLASS and rip my hair off and kill myself .

[Ramo]

I disagree. Iraqi forces are relevant. When discussing a force structure arrangement, how can you possibly leave the indiginous troops out of the discussion?

Because the discussion was the diplomatic support for the enterprise.

Bush aquired a lot of allies.

Many of which contribute basically nothing.

Because their militaries are not as mobile as France's were in GW1 is only partially relevant. The GW1 coalition also had forces from boarder countries. The distortion of the facts is multiple on Edward's part.

The level of our participation in proportion to the world community this time is far larger than in the Gulf War. By any measure. And that's the point Edwards was making.

[Jaguar]

erm, the French resistence were allies.