FAQ
Search
Members
Groups
Register
User Control Panel
Log in to check your private messages.
LoginKen, they have not offended me in any way at all, but Bush's politics, EVERYTHING the president of the world's most powerful country does, affects me and all of us personally and directly. The exorbitant oil prices, the Madrid bombings consequence of our involvemente in Irak, the growing radicalization of Islamists (let's not forget we have 30 million Moroccans and just about as many Algerians right at our back door) with all its implications, even the new procedure of being fingerprinted and photographed at NY Immigration Service when entering the USA, despite having a EU passport and a valid visa, as if we were all delinquents (where's the presumption "innocent until proven guilty"?)
No, he didn't offend me, he OFFENDS ALL OF US! Personal freedom is being curtailed in the USA, Irak is literally in shambles, and the entire Mid-East is a powder keg, and yet George Bush smilingly proclaims that he has brought freedom to Irak! I just don't get it, Ken. I don't for the life of me!
Thanks for the research of the death sentences. I know he doesn't decree the death penalty, but he had the chance to pardon over 250 people and he didn't! Does he think he's God to decide who's to live and who's to die? How many of those convicts might have been innocent? What about their mothers, wives, children? Why punish them?
My dislike for Laura Bush is instictive, I can't explain it. I mistrust people with painted-on smiles. I realize Hillary Clinton had the same smile, but somehow she was on the side of the "little" people, trying to implement a national health system. Laura Bush is unconfortable around the working class. But her worst fault in my eyes, is that she considers stem cell research a crime and yet she didn't seem affected by the millions of tons of bombs dropped over civilian Bagdad and the 35.000 dead Iraqi civilians (children included) so far. She has no conscience problems when she wants to prevent millions of people with horrible diseases to be cured, when the technology to save them exists, knowing that the USA has a clear separation of Church and State, which does not allow scientific matters to be decided from a religious point of view.
It sends chills down my spine! I'm not going to use a harsh expression, but let's just say that her attitude towards the people with diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer's, etc. is nothing short of "failure to give assistance", which in Spain at least is punishable by law.
Terechu
2004 election in the US
Moderator: Moderators
-
Terechu
- Moderator
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:43 am
- Location: GIJON - ASTURIAS
- asturias_and_me:
I think I read several times the terms "anti-American feeling".
OK, first and foremost: let me make it clear that I have no anti-American feeling whatsoever and no animosity towards America or the Americans and I'm absolutely certain that nobody in this forum does, otherwise none of us would have not become members to begin with.
Being against Bush and his buddies is not being anti-American, so please don't get things mixed up.
-----------------------------------
Creo haber leído varias veces la expresión "sentimiento antiamericano". Pues ante todo: que quede claro que no tengo ningún sentimiento antiamericano y que no siento animosidad alguna contra América ni contra los americanos y además estoy totalmente segura de que nadie aquí lo siente, de lo contrario ninguno nos habríamos hecho miembros del foro.
Estar en contra de Bush y sus colegas no es ser antiamericano, así que por favor no confundáis las cosas.
Terechu
OK, first and foremost: let me make it clear that I have no anti-American feeling whatsoever and no animosity towards America or the Americans and I'm absolutely certain that nobody in this forum does, otherwise none of us would have not become members to begin with.
Being against Bush and his buddies is not being anti-American, so please don't get things mixed up.
-----------------------------------
Creo haber leído varias veces la expresión "sentimiento antiamericano". Pues ante todo: que quede claro que no tengo ningún sentimiento antiamericano y que no siento animosidad alguna contra América ni contra los americanos y además estoy totalmente segura de que nadie aquí lo siente, de lo contrario ninguno nos habríamos hecho miembros del foro.
Estar en contra de Bush y sus colegas no es ser antiamericano, así que por favor no confundáis las cosas.
Terechu
Hi,
Carlos, me parece que lo escrito por ti, se separa demasiado de la versión "oficial" que generaciones de estadounidenses han absorbido durante décadas. Es lo que pasa en una sociedad tan patriótica, solo tienen una visión de la realidad, y todo aquel que discrepe de ella es tachado de antiamericano.
A EEUU, como bien dijo Condoleeza Rice, solo le mueve los intereses, y EEUU intervino en las dos guerras mundiales porque se beneficiaba de ello, no por solidaridad o filantropía. Basta ya de medias verdades que son peores que las mentiras. Como ciudadanos españoles, poco tenemos que agradecer a los gobiernos de EEUU. Y Europa, hace tiempo que pagó su deuda con EEUU.
Lo que más me revienta es la doble moral. Tened en cuenta, que si vosotros consideráis culpable a los pueblos por tened dictaduras, con más razón, el mundo puede considerar culpable a la ciudadanía estadounidense de tener como presidente a Bush. Vosotros podéis elegir. Los iraquíes no pueden, y encima pagan con la muerte.
Volviendo a los comentarios de Carlos, que quedaron, si bien entendí los mensajes, sin respuesta. ¿ Pensasteis alguna vez cual es la imagen de EEUU en el mundo ? ¿ Por qué en determinados aspectos la imagen es buena, pero en otros, sobre todo en lo referente a la política exterior, es tan negativa? ¿ Por qué tanta gente odia EEUU, cuando a la vez, aspiran a la libertad y al bien estar que tenemos los occidentales ? ¿ Os habéis hecho alguna vez la pregunta ? ¿ Creéis que es la culpa del resto del mundo? ¿ No puede ser un error vuestro ?
También me gustaría que se separe claramente, cuando hablamos de los "americanos", los iraquíes, etc..., el gobierno, que si es responsable, de la ciudadanía, que en un 95 % es inocente, y es la que paga las consecuencias.
De igual forma, que no es justo culpar a los estadounidenses, o matarlos en atentados, por las acciones de sus representantes, tampoco lo es culpar a los musulmanes, o matarlos, por las acciones de determinados individuos que profesan esa fe. I think.
Un saludo,
Pedro
Carlos, me parece que lo escrito por ti, se separa demasiado de la versión "oficial" que generaciones de estadounidenses han absorbido durante décadas. Es lo que pasa en una sociedad tan patriótica, solo tienen una visión de la realidad, y todo aquel que discrepe de ella es tachado de antiamericano.
A EEUU, como bien dijo Condoleeza Rice, solo le mueve los intereses, y EEUU intervino en las dos guerras mundiales porque se beneficiaba de ello, no por solidaridad o filantropía. Basta ya de medias verdades que son peores que las mentiras. Como ciudadanos españoles, poco tenemos que agradecer a los gobiernos de EEUU. Y Europa, hace tiempo que pagó su deuda con EEUU.
Lo que más me revienta es la doble moral. Tened en cuenta, que si vosotros consideráis culpable a los pueblos por tened dictaduras, con más razón, el mundo puede considerar culpable a la ciudadanía estadounidense de tener como presidente a Bush. Vosotros podéis elegir. Los iraquíes no pueden, y encima pagan con la muerte.
Volviendo a los comentarios de Carlos, que quedaron, si bien entendí los mensajes, sin respuesta. ¿ Pensasteis alguna vez cual es la imagen de EEUU en el mundo ? ¿ Por qué en determinados aspectos la imagen es buena, pero en otros, sobre todo en lo referente a la política exterior, es tan negativa? ¿ Por qué tanta gente odia EEUU, cuando a la vez, aspiran a la libertad y al bien estar que tenemos los occidentales ? ¿ Os habéis hecho alguna vez la pregunta ? ¿ Creéis que es la culpa del resto del mundo? ¿ No puede ser un error vuestro ?
También me gustaría que se separe claramente, cuando hablamos de los "americanos", los iraquíes, etc..., el gobierno, que si es responsable, de la ciudadanía, que en un 95 % es inocente, y es la que paga las consecuencias.
De igual forma, que no es justo culpar a los estadounidenses, o matarlos en atentados, por las acciones de sus representantes, tampoco lo es culpar a los musulmanes, o matarlos, por las acciones de determinados individuos que profesan esa fe. I think.
Un saludo,
Pedro
-
Bob
- Moderator
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
- Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts
- asturias_and_me:
I don't really know what counts as anti-American feelings, but I do know that when I visited Asturias I was welcomed by relatives and strangers alike as someone who had returned to his home. (And I am the second generation born in the US.)
I encountered no expression whatsoever of anti-American sentiment, although I was clearly identifiable as an American. I did indeed encounter expressions of opposition to certain American (and Spanish) policies, and a strong dislike for the extinguished Franco regime. My general impression is that Asturians are a people who love freedom, perhaps all the more deeply for having been deprived of it for so long.
Bob Martinez
I encountered no expression whatsoever of anti-American sentiment, although I was clearly identifiable as an American. I did indeed encounter expressions of opposition to certain American (and Spanish) policies, and a strong dislike for the extinguished Franco regime. My general impression is that Asturians are a people who love freedom, perhaps all the more deeply for having been deprived of it for so long.
Bob Martinez
-
Bob
- Moderator
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
- Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts
- asturias_and_me:
Ken,
Please don't give up on visiting Asturias. I think that you will find a warm welcome, whether or not the people you meet agree with your political views (in any event, our political views are not usually the first topic of conversation). In my opinion, the visit is worthwhile for the culture, the scenery, and even for the food alone.
Bob Martinez
Please don't give up on visiting Asturias. I think that you will find a warm welcome, whether or not the people you meet agree with your political views (in any event, our political views are not usually the first topic of conversation). In my opinion, the visit is worthwhile for the culture, the scenery, and even for the food alone.
Bob Martinez
Last edited by Bob on Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
- asturias_and_me:
Terechu, thanks for the recent post. I still believe you are off base with your comments without knowledge. I am gaining a better insight into your hatred.
But, again, let me just cover one. The death penalty. See George Bush as governor of Texas, and Jim Perry as the current governor, do NOT as a routine review who is on death row and why. A request has to come from an interested party, usually approved by a judge, to reprieve a sentence until another hearing on the death penalty. Those are just very rough guidelines. There are 39 states out of 50 with the death penalty, and why haven't you singled out one of those states???????
Only once in my memory have I known a governor to step in and set aside the death penalty and that was a couple of years ago in Illinois when the outgoing governor, Ryan, reprieved all of those on death row to life without parole. This created quite an uproar in Illinois for several reasons besides the reprieve as Ryan was under investigation for illegal acts while governor and this just added as they say "wood for the fire".
Personnally, I prefer a sentence of life without parole, but with a stiff sentence of separation from the other prisoners in confinement with hard labor, but I don't make the laws for the individual states. If those citizens in those states disagree with the death penalty they can start a process of changing those laws. That's our system, and it has worked well over the past 200 plus years.
Who's personal freedom is being curtailed in the US. Not mine. Sure I go through security while catching a flight. Check my laptop, take my shoes off, empty my pockets, show my ID several times before boarding a flight. No big deal. Hell I have had more problems with Canadian customs in Toronto than I did in Beijing. You know anyone can forge an EU document or visa. That's the issue. Fingerprinting and photographing and feeding that into a computer data base is but one way to help prevent radicals coming into the USA. This isn't perfect as the data base is continuing to be built, and as such will have errors. Reasonable people expect that. And may never be perfect, but it is one line of defense for us. Try Israel, a nation under threat continually from its neighbors led by Hammas. As I understand it, great security. Do their citizens feel threatened by this level of security, I don't know. I remember my first time in Europe in 1972. I thought I had entered an alien world. Zurich's airport was ringed with armored vehicles, with sharp shooters on the roof top. Madrid was a little looser. This was the era of highjackings by and murders by again radical Islamic Muslims (same old folks we are fighting now). Remember the Olympics in Germany and the ship (name eludes me now as all I can think of is Largo). Who killed the Jewish guy? Boy scouts.
I don't know, Terechu, what to make of you and your comments. Far too much for me to believe. Attack Laura Bush. You don't know her, her background, nothing. And to go on with your brutal attacks. Give me a break. You will dig up everything possible to make your case against the Bush's, with little fact and nothing much but bitter hatred.
But, again, let me just cover one. The death penalty. See George Bush as governor of Texas, and Jim Perry as the current governor, do NOT as a routine review who is on death row and why. A request has to come from an interested party, usually approved by a judge, to reprieve a sentence until another hearing on the death penalty. Those are just very rough guidelines. There are 39 states out of 50 with the death penalty, and why haven't you singled out one of those states???????
Only once in my memory have I known a governor to step in and set aside the death penalty and that was a couple of years ago in Illinois when the outgoing governor, Ryan, reprieved all of those on death row to life without parole. This created quite an uproar in Illinois for several reasons besides the reprieve as Ryan was under investigation for illegal acts while governor and this just added as they say "wood for the fire".
Personnally, I prefer a sentence of life without parole, but with a stiff sentence of separation from the other prisoners in confinement with hard labor, but I don't make the laws for the individual states. If those citizens in those states disagree with the death penalty they can start a process of changing those laws. That's our system, and it has worked well over the past 200 plus years.
Who's personal freedom is being curtailed in the US. Not mine. Sure I go through security while catching a flight. Check my laptop, take my shoes off, empty my pockets, show my ID several times before boarding a flight. No big deal. Hell I have had more problems with Canadian customs in Toronto than I did in Beijing. You know anyone can forge an EU document or visa. That's the issue. Fingerprinting and photographing and feeding that into a computer data base is but one way to help prevent radicals coming into the USA. This isn't perfect as the data base is continuing to be built, and as such will have errors. Reasonable people expect that. And may never be perfect, but it is one line of defense for us. Try Israel, a nation under threat continually from its neighbors led by Hammas. As I understand it, great security. Do their citizens feel threatened by this level of security, I don't know. I remember my first time in Europe in 1972. I thought I had entered an alien world. Zurich's airport was ringed with armored vehicles, with sharp shooters on the roof top. Madrid was a little looser. This was the era of highjackings by and murders by again radical Islamic Muslims (same old folks we are fighting now). Remember the Olympics in Germany and the ship (name eludes me now as all I can think of is Largo). Who killed the Jewish guy? Boy scouts.
I don't know, Terechu, what to make of you and your comments. Far too much for me to believe. Attack Laura Bush. You don't know her, her background, nothing. And to go on with your brutal attacks. Give me a break. You will dig up everything possible to make your case against the Bush's, with little fact and nothing much but bitter hatred.
Ken, to be clear I'll separate my roles as participant and site admin and just speak as admin in this post.
As site admin, what I'm asking is for us to avoid branding an entire group as being responsible for terrorism. Yes, it is quite obvious to all of us that it was radical fundamentalist Muslims who attacked the US on 9-11.
Fundamentalist Muslims represent just part of contemporary Islam. We should avoid demeaning an entire group because of the actions and beliefs of a subset.
My own reason in starting this area of conversation was to learn more about how our Asturian cousins view political issues. To my surprise, I've also learned more about my American cousins' views!
----------------
Ken, para que entendamos bien, voy a distinguir mis papeles como administrador del sitio y como participante. Ahora hablo como administrador.
Como administrador, lo que pido es que evitamos tachar a un grupo entero como ser responsable por el terrorismo. Sí, es evidente a todos que era musulmanes radicales y fundamentalistas quienes atacaron al US el 11-9.
Musulmanes fundamentalistas representan solamente un parte de Islam contemporáneo. Debemos evitar degradar un grupo entero por causa de las acciones y creencias de un subconjunto.
Mi propio motivo en iniciar este sección para conversación era para aprender más sobre como nuestros primos asturianos consideran las temas políticos. ¡Para mi sorpresa, también he aprendido más sobre las opiniones de mis primos americanos!
As site admin, what I'm asking is for us to avoid branding an entire group as being responsible for terrorism. Yes, it is quite obvious to all of us that it was radical fundamentalist Muslims who attacked the US on 9-11.
Fundamentalist Muslims represent just part of contemporary Islam. We should avoid demeaning an entire group because of the actions and beliefs of a subset.
My own reason in starting this area of conversation was to learn more about how our Asturian cousins view political issues. To my surprise, I've also learned more about my American cousins' views!
----------------
Ken, para que entendamos bien, voy a distinguir mis papeles como administrador del sitio y como participante. Ahora hablo como administrador.
Como administrador, lo que pido es que evitamos tachar a un grupo entero como ser responsable por el terrorismo. Sí, es evidente a todos que era musulmanes radicales y fundamentalistas quienes atacaron al US el 11-9.
Musulmanes fundamentalistas representan solamente un parte de Islam contemporáneo. Debemos evitar degradar un grupo entero por causa de las acciones y creencias de un subconjunto.
Mi propio motivo en iniciar este sección para conversación era para aprender más sobre como nuestros primos asturianos consideran las temas políticos. ¡Para mi sorpresa, también he aprendido más sobre las opiniones de mis primos americanos!
Last edited by Art on Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Barbara Alonso Novellino
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:54 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- asturias_and_me:
Terechu,
I thought you might be interested in exactly what President Bush said about Stem Cell Research...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-2.html
I thought you might be interested in exactly what President Bush said about Stem Cell Research...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-2.html
Barbara I think that this anti-american feeling here in Spain derives from the many years that the left was in power. They did a very good job of putting their people at the highest levels, television (even private channels), newspapers, etc.. All you have to do is pick up the most widely read newspapers and you'll see things like the following: The US army has murdered 10 civilians in Irag (not mentioning that they are insurgents in civilian clothes) and in reverse: Insurgents killed 5 US army troops. It seems to me the word murder gives a different connatation and is much stronger than the word killed. Any strike against any industry you'll see anti-american banners and slogans. If you discuss politics with anyone here it seems that the US is the blame for every single misfortune that happens on this earth.
Ken, please don't let this keep you from visiting Asturias. I'm sure these things happen in the rest of Spain. The difference may be that the Asturians are more vocal in expressing their thoughts. These things I've been discussing here are noticible if you're here for an extended period and become part of everyday life. I'm sure if you or any other american come on vacation nobody will bring up the conversation unless you do. But if you're having a coffee in a bar pay attention and sooner or later you'll pick up what I'm talking about. Besides that, I still believe that Asturias is the most beautiful part of Spain and politics aside the people are very hospitable and friendly. Changing subjects I also believe that the Irag war was unavoidable. We've been getting bombed on planes, bombed in places where Americans hang out, etc. for many years now. Sooner or later something had to take place in the Middle East. Let's not fool ourselves. It was Irag but it could have been a different country. Some people say that Europe was not with us but the only countries I can think of that didn't go to Irag were France and Germany. Two countries that had many financial interests in Saddam's Irag. We should thank them next time they call us for help.
Ken, please don't let this keep you from visiting Asturias. I'm sure these things happen in the rest of Spain. The difference may be that the Asturians are more vocal in expressing their thoughts. These things I've been discussing here are noticible if you're here for an extended period and become part of everyday life. I'm sure if you or any other american come on vacation nobody will bring up the conversation unless you do. But if you're having a coffee in a bar pay attention and sooner or later you'll pick up what I'm talking about. Besides that, I still believe that Asturias is the most beautiful part of Spain and politics aside the people are very hospitable and friendly. Changing subjects I also believe that the Irag war was unavoidable. We've been getting bombed on planes, bombed in places where Americans hang out, etc. for many years now. Sooner or later something had to take place in the Middle East. Let's not fool ourselves. It was Irag but it could have been a different country. Some people say that Europe was not with us but the only countries I can think of that didn't go to Irag were France and Germany. Two countries that had many financial interests in Saddam's Irag. We should thank them next time they call us for help.
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
- asturias_and_me:
Sorry, Art, I did not band an entire nation of Islam, just those labeled by our news media as "radical Islamic" groups. Just repeating how it is used in the US presses and television news casts. However, I will review my postings on this subject to make sure I did not interwine the two, Muslim and radical Islamic Muslims, as one. I am sure there are Muslims out there, US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, who deplore the role and actions of the radical Islamic Muslims. Unfortunately, I haven't read too many protest from that silent "majority". Have you? Share it with me, us?
As the Site Adm., are you banding the use of "radical Islamic Muslims", although that is how the press labels them, and the 9-11 commission labeled them. Surely you aren't suggesting censorship?
As the Site Adm., are you banding the use of "radical Islamic Muslims", although that is how the press labels them, and the 9-11 commission labeled them. Surely you aren't suggesting censorship?
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
- asturias_and_me:
Manny, again, thank you for a different view from Asturias and Spain. When I read the many posting from Asturias it brought back somewhat bad memories that I have suppressed of the Asturians in Spelter. Same bitterness, back biting, emotional talks without facts or merit. Always rumor and conspiracies. Jealous of each other over who had the better jobs in the zinc plant, who was running for political office and the reasons for voting for or against, roles in the volunteer fire department, at one time trying to incorporate the town, and it goes on. However, having said that I still loved them.
Ken raised an interesting question about the "coalition of the willing." I have often wondered who was sending troops to Iraq. Several web sites offer lists.
On this site: http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list4
we read:
"European countries openly opposed to military action in Iraq in March-April 2003: France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece. Sweden and Norway had an ambiguous position...."
Of course, now we should add Spain to the list of the opposed.
Those sending troops included the following (# of troops):
-----------
Ken planteó una pregunta interesante sobre "la coalición del dispuesto." A menudo me preguntaba sobre quien enviaba tropas a Irak. Varios sitios ofrecen listas.
En este sitio:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list4
leemos:
"Países europeos abiertamente se opusieron a la acción militar en Irak en abril-marzo de 2003: Francia, Alemania, Bélgica, Rusia, Bielorrusia, Grecia. Suecia y Noruega tenían una posición ambigua .... "
Desde luego, ahora deberíamos añadir España a la lista del opuesto.
Aquellas que envian tropas incluyeron el siguiente (numero de tropas):
On this site: http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list4
we read:
"European countries openly opposed to military action in Iraq in March-April 2003: France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece. Sweden and Norway had an ambiguous position...."
Of course, now we should add Spain to the list of the opposed.
Those sending troops included the following (# of troops):
- Western Europe:
- United Kingdom (9000)
- Spain (1300) [March 2003]
- Portugal (128)
- Denmark (420)
- Norway (179)
- Netherlands (1100)
- Iceland (no troops but are part of the coalition in some other manner)
- Italy (3000)
- Estonia (31)
- Latvia (120)
- Lithuania (118)
- Poland (2460)
- Czech Republic (80)
- Slovakia (102)
- Hungary (300)
- Albania (70)
- Macedonia (37)
- Romania (700)
- Bulgaria (480)
- Turkey (?)
- Croatia (no troops but are part of the coalition in some other manner)
- Slovenia (no troops but are part of the coalition in some other manner)
- Ukraine (1600)
- Moldova (50)
-----------
Ken planteó una pregunta interesante sobre "la coalición del dispuesto." A menudo me preguntaba sobre quien enviaba tropas a Irak. Varios sitios ofrecen listas.
En este sitio:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html#list4
leemos:
"Países europeos abiertamente se opusieron a la acción militar en Irak en abril-marzo de 2003: Francia, Alemania, Bélgica, Rusia, Bielorrusia, Grecia. Suecia y Noruega tenían una posición ambigua .... "
Desde luego, ahora deberíamos añadir España a la lista del opuesto.
Aquellas que envian tropas incluyeron el siguiente (numero de tropas):
- Europa occidental:
- El Reino Unido (9000)
- España (1300) [marzo de 2003]
- Portugal (128)
- Dinamarca (420)
- Noruega (179)
- Países Bajos (1100)
- Islandia (ningunas tropas pero es la parte de la coalición en alguna otra manera)
- Italia (3000)
- Estonia (31)
- Letonia (120)
- Lituania (118)
- Polonia (2460)
- República Checa (80)
- Eslovaquia (102)
- Hungría (300)
- Albania (70)
- Macedonia (37)
- Rumania (700)
- Bulgaria (480)
- Turquía (?)
- Croacia (ningunas tropas pero es la parte de la coalición en alguna otra manera)
- Eslovenia (ningunas tropas pero es la parte de la coalición en alguna otra manera)
- Ucrania (1600)
- Moldova (50)
Last edited by Art on Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
- asturias_and_me:
Art, thanks as those are interesting numbers, and more countries than I was aware of. Now what would be interesting to know is what percent of each countries total active armed forces were committed? I. e, was the UK's 9,000 one percent, ten percent and so on. Also, ratio to population. What I am trying to determine here is a country contributes "X" number of troops to Iraq and that represents 10% of its forces, as an example. Also, size of forces ratioed to population. Just stats, and sometimes that can lead us somewhere in understanding the level of commitment.
From history it has been the US that has commited the most money, equipment and/or personnel, and shedding lots of blood, to help stop agressive nations or terriorist in their tracks, and later be criticized as being too powerful. Saved France twice in the 20th Century, got help from them once---Revolutionary War. Liberated Germany and later East Germany and still no help when we ask for help.
Friends----who needs the old Europe, give me the liberated eastern block countries as they seem to understand where their freedoms come from or if they don't understand they are still willing to help one who helped them.
From history it has been the US that has commited the most money, equipment and/or personnel, and shedding lots of blood, to help stop agressive nations or terriorist in their tracks, and later be criticized as being too powerful. Saved France twice in the 20th Century, got help from them once---Revolutionary War. Liberated Germany and later East Germany and still no help when we ask for help.
Friends----who needs the old Europe, give me the liberated eastern block countries as they seem to understand where their freedoms come from or if they don't understand they are still willing to help one who helped them.
-
Bob
- Moderator
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
- Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts
- asturias_and_me:
Ken,
Even here in the US, determining the percentage of troops sent to any given action can be tricky. There are the regular armed services, the reserves (of several different kinds, though I may be dating myself by this statement and it may no longer be true: I think there used to be both a reserve and a ready reserve, or an active reserve and an inactive reserve), and the national guard. Also, it's not clear to me how we should we count those who have been held in military service beyond their original service agreement.
Your question to Art was a very good one. I just wonder how we can deal with the complexities, both for our own military and for those of other nations, which may have quite different terms of service, and how we can make appropriate comparisons.
The only thing I am sure of is that whatever we may think of any given military action of any country, including our own, we should all be deeply grateful to the men any women who choose to serve in the armed forces. Any arguments we have should be with the politicians who control them, not with the troops themselves.
Abrazos,
Bob
Even here in the US, determining the percentage of troops sent to any given action can be tricky. There are the regular armed services, the reserves (of several different kinds, though I may be dating myself by this statement and it may no longer be true: I think there used to be both a reserve and a ready reserve, or an active reserve and an inactive reserve), and the national guard. Also, it's not clear to me how we should we count those who have been held in military service beyond their original service agreement.
Your question to Art was a very good one. I just wonder how we can deal with the complexities, both for our own military and for those of other nations, which may have quite different terms of service, and how we can make appropriate comparisons.
The only thing I am sure of is that whatever we may think of any given military action of any country, including our own, we should all be deeply grateful to the men any women who choose to serve in the armed forces. Any arguments we have should be with the politicians who control them, not with the troops themselves.
Abrazos,
Bob