Russia joins France and Germany

"Boris Goodenough" wrote in message
. net...

"captain!" wrote in message
. ca...

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"captain!" wrote in message
a...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message

it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.

Michael

i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was
still
young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem
better
than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every
country
does.

Oh in that sense... Well not only russians and americans.

the iraqis did it too. it was also funny to see the iraqi defense
minister
claiming that the americans were nowhere near bagdad while bombs were
falling in the background.


I think you meant while US tanks were within view.


same thing




human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
official military reports before, during and after
that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
while according to german reports all these disasters after
disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
papers published in that time on that matters. German
materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
****ty propaganda.

are you saying that there was ****ty propaganda about stalin or that
stalin
had problems with (writing) ****ty propaganda?


Michael

russian forces under US command? you must hate the very thought eh michael?

How about reversing the situation, and putting US forces under Russian or,
heavens forbid, French command.

You have to admit that would get some of our old Cold War red baiters rolling
over in their graves.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html

"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.

Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

If there is a policy between the current actions of the US
administration of Iraq, it must be a well-kept secret. It
seems to change course every week, but this zig-zagging
does not prevent the situation going from bad to worse.
The real question is not "who is going to be the commander?"
but "what will his orders be?".

Quite right, and the devil resides among the details that go with it.
Every UN mission is handed a mandate by the Security Council, and the
Rules of Engagement stem from that mandate. If the UN does resolve to
establish a mission to establish a functioning democratic state in
Iraq, the US will have to watch carefully that the RoE fit with their
understanding of the need for force protection consistent with the
maintenance of order. Poorly written or ill-fitting RoE have dogged UN
missions (the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda come to mind) in the past.

More likely Vietnam that comes to my mind:

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_arti...=18586&lang=en

Sending extra British troops 'pushes Army to break point'

07 September 2003

The British Army will be at breaking point when it sends thousands of
extra troops to Iraq, military experts have warned.

Already at "considerable overstretch", the decision to bolster the
British presence in the Gulf will mean almost half of the trained
strength of the Army will be in use. An announcement is expected as
early as tomorrow that around 1,200 soldiers will be deployed with a
further 1,800 put on standby.

"The British Army cannot do any more than that," Charles Heyman,
editor of Jane's World Armies, said yesterday. And he predicted that a
long-term commitment in Iraq, against the background of an
over-extended Army, would adversely affect morale.

The pressure on Britain to back its American allies continues to
increase as the French and German leaders have yet to give a clear
indication that they will join an international force in Iraq.

Ahead of expected wrangling at the UN this week, France was keen not
to again be seen as blocking international progress following the
enormous damage to Franco-American relations caused by its decision to
withhold its backing for military action against Saddam Hussein.

But President Jacques Chiraq is equally determined to sign nothing
which seems to justify the American-led invasion of Iraq after the
event. He insists the UN should not be just a rubber-stamp for
American strategy.

France wants the US draft resolution amended to give the UN the
primary, legal and political responsibility for the transition to
Iraqi rule. France would accept the continuing presence of American
military commanders and civilian administrators, so long as they
report regularly and directly to the UN.

France is also demanding a clear and brief timetable for the
restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and assurances that access to Iraqi
oil and rebuilding contracts will be shared fairly among the
international community.

But any failure to secure international agreement will leave the
British armed forces exposed. Latest figures show that Britain is
relying on attracting overseas recruits - from far-flung countries,
including Fiji - as numbers decline and the trainee drop-out rate
rises. The figures for July show overall armed forces numbers have
dropped to 206,150, marking an overall fall of more than 10,000 since
1997.

Experts have repeatedly warned that the armed forces are
overstretched. But the demands on British troops - 45,000 of whom are
currently deployed - continue to increase.

As ever more soldiers serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and
Croatia, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Gibraltar and the
Falklands, a recruitment crisis is looming.

The Army is already operating at 5 per cent below strength. But
between April and July this year, only 5,290 new recruits were taken
on to replace 6,010 people leaving the services. There is a high
drop-out rate among trainees.

In 2002-03, 37 per cent of Army recruits dropped out before completing
their training. In the armed forces as a whole, the overall drop-out
rate was 32 per cent. As a response to the growing crisis in
recruitment and retention of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence
has turned to other countries to find recruits.

In the past three years, the Royal Navy and the Army have sent
selection teams to Commonwealth countries including Fiji, St Lucia, St
Vincent and the Grenadines. It is also understood that recruits have
been drawn from Australia and New Zealand.

The MoD has also been forced to call up more reserves. At 2 May, the
number of reserves called up to take part in Operation Telic in Iraq
had reached 8,706 with just over 5,000 being accepted into service.
There are currently some 2,600 reservists in the Gulf, amounting to
more than a quarter of the total British force.

Bernard Jenkin, shadow defence secretary, said last night: "The armed
forces are desperately overstretched. The trouble is that while the
armed forces are being used more and more, they have been getting
smaller.

"We are expecting further manpower cuts in the autumn defence review.
We can't afford to go on losing experienced personnel."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=440955

Source: Jo Dillon, John Lichfield, and David Usborne The Independent