Re: Nice war - here's the bill

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>
>
>Nice war - here's the bill<snip>

Or, with the upcomming war against North Korea, we can just explain to the
Iraqis that they've become just too much of a drain on our resources, pull all
our forces out, and leave them to their own devices to sort out their problems.
Of course, that means civil war. This is one of the dangers faced by Iraq that
the Iraqis themselves may not be considering. The time to sort out their
problems is very short.

They really need to start hustling and cooperating with US forces to root out
Saddam and whoever else is conductiing guerilla operations against the
occupation before the tax paying population of the US decides it is just
"casting it's pearls before swine" in Iraq: i.e., that the reconstruction
efforts, and its costs, do not have any proportional payback in additional
security to the US in terms of 1) reduction of a terrorist threat to the US, or
2) of securing a realiable oil supplier.

Does anyone actually believe that the Arab world will NOT take this opportunity
to miss an opportunity? My guess: Iraq will have another dictator within 7-8
years......but at least this one won't antagonize the US.
Dave

[Dav1936531]

>From: "Mark Test"
>
>
>I want to share some numbers with you all.
FACT: 1 years' worth of fighting in Vietnam (a liberal democrat president
started) cost 12% of the GDP.
FACT: Iraq military expenditure (est. to be 165 billion dollars, including
the 87 billion) is only 0.5% of our GDP.
Here's the bottom line, we listen to the Democrats that the war in Iraq is over
and we've lost, or we stay and win, yes win, the war in Iraq and defeat
terrorism. America was attacked, we cannot back down, and by the way, we can
afford ALOT more military spending to defeat terrorism.
>Mark

Umm, just in case you haven't noticed, the industrial base (the revenue
generating sector) of the US economy is packing up and heading to Mexico and
China to secure the benefits of lower labor and overhead costs of production
available in those countries.....thus rendering large portions of the US
workforce UNEMPLOYED with little likelyhood of securing employment at a wage
rate sufficient to endure much additional tax raises to support rebuilding an
Islamic paradise in Iraq.

More borrowing only increases the weakness of the financial house of cards that
the Federal government already has set up, rendering any future major terrorist
attack liable to cause the collapse of the entire economy. Osama has our number
on this....and I don't expect he and his band of renegades to show much mercy
in their attempts to destroy the West.

I agree that Iraq must be reformed, but it better be done quickly and cheaply
so that problems at home can receive the attention they deserve.
Dave

[Peter Kemp]

On 09 Sep 2003 16:51:09 GMT, (Dav1936531) wrote:

>>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>
>>
>>Nice war - here's the bill<snip>
>
>Or, with the upcomming war against North Korea, we can just explain to the
>Iraqis that they've become just too much of a drain on our resources, pull all
>our forces out, and leave them to their own devices to sort out their problems.
>Of course, that means civil war. This is one of the dangers faced by Iraq that
>the Iraqis themselves may not be considering. The time to sort out their
>problems is very short.

Wow, great idea, leave a muslim country with an enmity for the US, no
central government, and an awful lot of weapons collapse in on itself.

Have you ever heard of Afghanistan and how well that went? And this
time, the Taliban Mk II would have an enormous industrial base,
immense oil reserves, and the know how in place to produce WMD (since
there don't appear to be any WMD in the country at the moment!).

Peter Kemp

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Dav1936531
> writes
>Or, with the upcomming war against North Korea, we can just explain to the
>Iraqis that they've become just too much of a drain on our resources, pull all
>our forces out, and leave them to their own devices to sort out their problems.
>Of course, that means civil war. This is one of the dangers faced by Iraq that
>the Iraqis themselves may not be considering. The time to sort out their
>problems is very short.
>
>They really need to start hustling and cooperating with US forces to root out
>Saddam and whoever else is conductiing guerilla operations against the
>occupation before the tax paying population of the US decides it is just
>"casting it's pearls before swine" in Iraq: i.e., that the reconstruction
>efforts, and its costs, do not have any proportional payback in additional
>security to the US in terms of 1) reduction of a terrorist threat to the US, or
>2) of securing a realiable oil supplier.

You assume that the individuals with the power want a US-aligned
outcome.

All it needs is a faction whose goal is "grab and hold power at any
cost, take all the money, slowly and horribly kill anyone who annoys us"
- fits the Ba'ath Party nicely - and they're left _praying_ for a hasty
US withdrawal.

Of course, this is the perfect time for a crash WME program.

Probably too smart for the Ba'ath, but if I had a faction in Iraq and
was a ruthless scumbag that's what I'd do. Stay feared until the Yanks
get bored and leave, grab power ASAP, then rush at some seriously
photogenic Weapons of Mass Effect to (a) fend off acquisitive neighbours
like Turkey and Iran, (b) to make the US leave us alone this time. Not
militarily, just politically... "not _more_ 'alleged Iraqi chemical
weapons!')



Don't think from the viewpoint of a sensible Iraqi citizen wanting a
quiet life: he doesn't get any say in matters. Everyone else, from the
criminals to the terrorists to the Old Regime, want the US gone first
and fighting over the carcass is 'aftermath'.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Dav1936531]

>From: Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom
>

>>(Dav1936531) wrote:
>>Or, with the upcomming war against North Korea, we can just explain to the
Iraqis that they've become just too much of a drain on our resources, pull all
our forces out, and leave them to their own devices to sort out their problems.

>Wow, great idea, leave a muslim country with an enmity for the US, no
>central government, and an awful lot of weapons collapse in on itself.
>
>Have you ever heard of Afghanistan and how well that went? And this
>time, the Taliban Mk II would have an enormous industrial base,
>immense oil reserves, and the know how in place to produce WMD (since there
don't appear to be any WMD in the country at the moment!).
>Peter Kemp

I didn't say that it was a great idea or even a course of strategy that should
be attempted......bbbbuuuuuuttttttt...........the Iraqis may get left holding
the short end of the stick should problems arise that require US resources to
be dedicated somewhere else. That is why the Iraqis themselves (at least the
ones who care about the future of Iraq) should be working at full speed to
cooperate with US attempts to root out the terrorists and former Bathist
elements and to set up a working democratic system of self government. Iraq
might just find itself at the bottom of a long list of US priorities.

In regards Afghanistan, the place surely became a hell-hole due to lack of US
attention subsequent to their war against the Soviets, however, until such time
as the place was used as a base by Osama and his gang to attack the US, the
place held little strategic interest to the US.

And once it was of strategic interest (9-11 attack), US military might made
short work of clearing out the Taliban.....just like we can make short work of
destroying whatever rears up in Iraq should we leave. (Yes I realize the
situation in Afghanistan is ongoing and that US might alone was not solely
responsible for the Taliban's defeat.)

The Iarqi Air Force and air defense system no longer exits. Whatever arises in
Iraq, if the US does pull out, is right in the cross hairs of the US Air Force
which will be able to operate with almost complete impunity in Iraqi airspace.
Ditto Iraq's armored forces.....command and control.....etc., etc.
Dave

[David Bromage]

Peter Kemp wrote:
> Wow, great idea, leave a muslim country with an enmity for the US, no
> central government, and an awful lot of weapons collapse in on itself.

Just like Afghanistan in 1992.

Cheers
David

[Peter Kemp]

On 10 Sep 2003 00:30:00 GMT, (Dav1936531) wrote:

<snip>

>In regards Afghanistan, the place surely became a hell-hole due to lack of US
>attention subsequent to their war against the Soviets, however, until such time
>as the place was used as a base by Osama and his gang to attack the US, the
>place held little strategic interest to the US.

Well, perhaps that's the problem. The Embassy bombings in 1998 were
less than a decade after the Soviets pulled out, and only since the
Taliban took over in what, 1996? was the place open for Osama and his
pals. So less than two years from base to boom. And that's in a
country racked by 15 years plus of warfare, no resources, and no
access to the sea (very useful for getting people and things around).

Do we really want to hope Iraq doesn't go downhill even faster?

>The Iarqi Air Force and air defense system no longer exits. Whatever arises in
>Iraq, if the US does pull out, is right in the cross hairs of the US Air Force
>which will be able to operate with almost complete impunity in Iraqi airspace.
>Ditto Iraq's armored forces.....command and control.....etc., etc.
>Dave

It's not the conventional weapons of war that concern me. It's the
hundreds of thousands of trained troops, a large fraction of which
will have the knowhow to build bombs (not IEDs, but real, nasty
weapons, like the one that severely damaged the UN building), and a
lot of whom are not particularly fond of the US (and the UK, but to a
much lesser degree for various reasons).

I just hope I'm wrong, and that Iraq will settle down very quickly,
and we'll all live happily ever after.

Peter Kemp

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> It's not the conventional weapons of war that concern me. It's the
> hundreds of thousands of trained troops, a large fraction of which
> will have the knowhow to build bombs (not IEDs, but real, nasty
> weapons, like the one that severely damaged the UN building), and a
> lot of whom are not particularly fond of the US (and the UK, but to a
> much lesser degree for various reasons).

Don't worry about it.

The standard of training for most Iraqi troops was so pathetic that I
sorta *hope* the renegade types are out there trying to make bombs.
We'll be able to find them by the smoking craters that will appear
wherever their workshops were.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:42:47 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>> It's not the conventional weapons of war that concern me. It's the
>> hundreds of thousands of trained troops, a large fraction of which
>> will have the knowhow to build bombs (not IEDs, but real, nasty
>> weapons, like the one that severely damaged the UN building), and a
>> lot of whom are not particularly fond of the US (and the UK, but to a
>> much lesser degree for various reasons).
>
>Don't worry about it.
>
>The standard of training for most Iraqi troops was so pathetic that I
>sorta *hope* the renegade types are out there trying to make bombs.
>We'll be able to find them by the smoking craters that will appear
>wherever their workshops were.

I take it you've not been keeping track of the news? Several intact
bomb makers and bomb making labs seized, no reports of own goals. You
may be overstating the case somewhat.

Peter Kemp

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:42:47 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Don't worry about it.
> >
> >The standard of training for most Iraqi troops was so pathetic that I
> >sorta *hope* the renegade types are out there trying to make bombs.
> >We'll be able to find them by the smoking craters that will appear
> >wherever their workshops were.
>
> I take it you've not been keeping track of the news? Several intact
> bomb makers and bomb making labs seized, no reports of own goals. You
> may be overstating the case somewhat.

The labs and bombers that have been "in play" have been the leftover
Saudis, Syrians, and other "hired guns" that the Hussein regime kept
in-country. The ones who have been causing the most trouble are, for
the most part, foreign to Iraq.

Note also that there just haven't been that many attacks (and they're
getting less and less common as time goes by). One or two bombs, but
they just don't have the talent pool to draw on to make a concerted
effort.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Peter Kemp
> writes
>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:42:47 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>The standard of training for most Iraqi troops was so pathetic that I
>>sorta *hope* the renegade types are out there trying to make bombs.
>>We'll be able to find them by the smoking craters that will appear
>>wherever their workshops were.
>
>I take it you've not been keeping track of the news? Several intact
>bomb makers and bomb making labs seized, no reports of own goals. You
>may be overstating the case somewhat.

Well, the Guardian did a detailed report following up one own-goal: a
local criminal and tough guy blew himself and three friends up while
showing off the bomb he was going to kill some Americans with. So, the
Iraqi 'resistance' *are* losing a few to their own IEDs. Trouble is, the
rate's not high enough to prevent a lot of attempts and some successes.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:24:34 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Peter Kemp
> writes
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:42:47 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>The standard of training for most Iraqi troops was so pathetic that I
>>>sorta *hope* the renegade types are out there trying to make bombs.
>>>We'll be able to find them by the smoking craters that will appear
>>>wherever their workshops were.
>>
>>I take it you've not been keeping track of the news? Several intact
>>bomb makers and bomb making labs seized, no reports of own goals. You
>>may be overstating the case somewhat.
>
>Well, the Guardian did a detailed report following up one own-goal: a
>local criminal and tough guy blew himself and three friends up while
>showing off the bomb he was going to kill some Americans with. So, the
>Iraqi 'resistance' *are* losing a few to their own IEDs. Trouble is, the
>rate's not high enough to prevent a lot of attempts and some successes.

Bomber own goals are perhaps the sweetest form of poetic justice.
Always leaves a smile on my face, right up there with suicide bombers
who fail to take anyone with them.

Peter Kemp

[Jim]

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Michael Williamson wrote:
> > On the subject of WMDs, however, it has been noted
> > that Iraq had 12 years of opportunity to prove that it had dismantled
> > its programs (as required by the ceasefire agreements), but many of
> > those same programs came to light in spite of, rather than due to,
> > the regime's actions in regard to inspections. The government of
> > Iraq declined all of their opportunities to do so, and eventually
> > paid the price.
>
> In any civilised proceedings the onus of proof is (or should be) on the
> plaintif.
>
> Cheers
> David

Generally agreeded.
However in this case there is undisputable proof he had WMD and had in fact
used them.
At this point the burdin of proof shifted. The plantif needed to show no
longer had them.


A note weather he had WMD wasn't debated or considered an item of contention
by any country.
The debate was on the methiod or riding him of them.

Jim