[lit-ideas] Re: British forces in Iraq
- From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:13:58 -0800
on 11/24/04 5:35 AM, Judy Evans at judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I bet they're desperate. That's why the Black Watch are where they are, and
> there are 650 of them covering for 3000 US troops (we haven't got that many
> spare troops either).
>
>
Two facts:
one, according to the New York Times (Nov 21, p.16--for some reason I can't
find this table on the website) British forces in Iraq were 46,000 during
march and April of 2003. There are now 8,500 in Iraq.
(Quick, can anyone name two next biggest contingents...South Korea 3,600 and
Italy 2,700)
two: if by "spare" you mean some reference to budget--few countries can
spend money they don't have on the current U.S. scale--then the news that
government has proposed amalgamating all Scottish regiments into one cheaper
and "super" regiment, supports your case.
Have you tried chicken soup?
David Ritchie
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
