Abject surrender

[Tony]

Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?

[Yeff]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:

> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.

Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Stephen Harding]

Tony Williams wrote:

> It is facile to assume that the Spanish cower before terrorism. If the
> bombers had been ETA, the result would have been strong support for
> the existing government in its fight against terrorism. It's just that
> Iraq has always been an unpopular cause there.

Well, if I were a serious member of ETA, the message that
big bombs in crowded areas might be a good thing, would not
be lost on me.

Of course the Iraq coalition members are clearly the targets,
if this really is Al Qaeda work. Poland, Italy, Japan...

My guess, given this resounding victory for Al Qaeda, is
Italy will be next on the "hit list". Possibly the American
party conventions in summer, the Olympics.

Terrorists are doing the same thing on an international
level that they are doing locally in Iraq. Kill anyone
associated with the US effort.

And it seems from here, the only thing people can do,
especially [continental] Europe, is blame Bush. The
terror didn't start with Iraq and it won't end with Iraq.
Iraq is the "justification du jour". If it weren't Iraq,
it would be Palestine-Israel. Whatever is convenient.

The "war on terror" is the new "Cold War". It may very
well last several generations. We need to get used to
this stuff.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
> shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
> opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.

Is this the same poll as the ABC effort announced this
morning?

I'm always leery of polls, especially in such a tumbled
up place as Iraq right now. But it is an interesting
result.

While Iraqis aren't exactly thrilled about being occupied,
they definitely prefer the coalition stay rather than
leave right now. Iraqis are extremely optimistic about
the future. As you report, 70% think things will be
better next year, and most feel they are better off now
than under Saddam.

Despite the generally negative reports from the news
media (who got killed, what got blown up), water and
electricity is better now than under Saddam, more choices
in the markets, and personal income is up.

A long way yet to go, but at least things seem to be
going in the right direction, albeit slowly.


SMH

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
> > shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
> > opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.
>
> Is this the same poll as the ABC effort announced this
> morning?
>

Very likely as the BBC mentioned it had been commissioned
by a number of broadcasters

> I'm always leery of polls, especially in such a tumbled
> up place as Iraq right now. But it is an interesting
> result.
>

Indeed

Keith

[Alistair Gunn]

Stephen Harding twisted the electrons to say:
> My guess, given this resounding victory for Al Qaeda, is
> Italy will be next on the "hit list".

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
thus causing a government that was involved in the "war on terror" to be
replaced with one that has a priority of a "systematic fight against
terrorism of all kinds" - yeah, that was a real resounding victory if
ever I saw one! <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Grantland]

"The CO" > wrote:

>
>"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>> >
>> > > Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain
>has
>> > > surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>> >
>> > Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>> >
>> > -Jeff B.
>> > yeff at erols dot com
>>
>> And people often get the government they deserve. But I hope that
>isn't so
>> in this case.
>
>Might well be the case.
>
>I wonder if the new Socialist govt realises that AQ hates left wing
>almost communists
>as much as right wing conservatives? It seems to me that any govt not
>based on the
>principles of Islam is fair game in their book. We're all just infidels
>to them.
>
>The CO
>
Idiot.

Grantland

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alistair Gunn > wrote:

> So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,

Not "may."

Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
by the bombings is just fooling themselves.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Jarg]

"Grantland" > wrote in message


> Idiot.
>
> Grantland
>

Is that your new signature? Many of us just took it as a given in your
postings! ;)

Seriously, do you have any basis for disagreeing, or are you limited to ad
hominem?

Jarg

For further reading on the subject check:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[Jarg]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>
> > So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
>
> Not "may."
>
> Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
> by the bombings is just fooling themselves.
>

Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would think
the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
apparently not.

Jarg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > Alistair Gunn > wrote:
> >
> > > So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
> >
> > Not "may."
> >
> > Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
> > by the bombings is just fooling themselves.
> >
>
> Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
think
> the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
> apparently not.

al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

[Jarg]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > Alistair Gunn > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish
election,
> > >
> > > Not "may."
> > >
> > > Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
> > > by the bombings is just fooling themselves.
> > >
> >
> > Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
> think
> > the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
> > apparently not.
>
> al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?
>
>

LOL. Reminds me of the witch test in Holy Grail!

To answer your question, no. I doubt al Queda endorses any current
government, but I am also sure their leadership is nonetheless quite
satisfied with the results. I'm still eagerly waiting for Sen. Kerry's list
of secret admirers.


Jarg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Alistair Gunn > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish
> election,
> > > >
> > > > Not "may."
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily
influenced
> > > > by the bombings is just fooling themselves.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
> > think
> > > the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
> > > apparently not.
> >
> > al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> > the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> > does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?
> >
> >
>
> LOL. Reminds me of the witch test in Holy Grail!

Does John Kerry weigh the same as a duck?

> To answer your question, no. I doubt al Queda endorses any current
> government, but I am also sure their leadership is nonetheless quite
> satisfied with the results. I'm still eagerly waiting for Sen. Kerry's
list
> of secret admirers.

And so it goes ...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

North Korea likes him.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:11:54 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
>shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
>opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.
>
>Keith

I doubt anything less than a completely howling anarchy woudl be
worse than Hussein...
But-
Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist. If we'd found warehouses of chemical weapons, I
think the dynamic would have been far different.
The election appeared to be influenced by several factors:
1. Anger at the government for trying to pin it on ETA, which was,
rightly or wrongly, seen as a purely political move.
2. A feeling that the attack had come because the government, in
defiance of its own electorate, joined up with the U.S. for an
invasion that many still consider illegal.
3. A feeling that the U.S. doesn't value their alliance, which from
the U.S., I have to agree with. We've treated our allies *very*
poorly. The U.S. attacks on "old europe", the UN, and anyone who dared
disagree with us have come back to haunt us. The Neo-con disdain for
alliances was rather misplaced and definately destroyed some (not all)
of the good will existing between the U.S. and its allies.

One very interesting point however, is that this bombing didn't
change very many peoples votes, according to some exit polls, what it
did was get more people out TO vote. That's encouraging in one
respect-- in nations with a solid majority one way or the other, such
a bombing probably won't have the effect of shifting things. That
means even more so then before, the U.S. has GOT to do everything ti
can to get the people, not simply the government, on board.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
> "it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
> them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
> appear to exist.

Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Simon Robbins]

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> but also very much because his government
> tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this
> caused great outrage.

I remember only a couple of weeks ago the Spanish government anouncing that
a warning had been received that ETA was going to target the rail network
and they were going to have to check all 20,000(?) miles of track. I've not
heard mention of this warning since, or was I dreaming it? (If so, I'll let
you all know next time I have a similar dream!)

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
> repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
> was a bad idea.

"45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

Si

[Tarver Engineering]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
> > repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
> > was a bad idea.
>
> "45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

Saddam believed he had WMD.

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:00:20 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
>> "it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
>> them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
>> appear to exist.
>
>Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
>repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
>was a bad idea.

True-- I was unclear-- the whole idea of pre-empting imminent
threats was the one that brought some doubt from the Europeans. But
we did argue that Hussein was very close to having WMD's, and when
others contradicted us, we were in turns mocking and hostile...which
didn't play well when it turned out that they were *right*.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Jarg" > wrote:

>
>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>>
>> > Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>> > surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>>
>> Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>>
>> -Jeff B.
>> yeff at erols dot com
>
>And people often get the government they deserve. But I hope that isn't so
>in this case.
Some points:
* The last poll before the election had the two parties
within the margin of error.

* EVERYONE called for people to vote to show that the
terrorists could not stop them, and that favorers the left-center
in Spanish politics.

* Anzar played politics with this, trying to blame the ETA
long after he knew that it was Islamic extremists, and the
electorate punished him for dancing on 200 people's graves.

On the third point, good for them.

Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
despicable.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Matthew G. Saroff]

Alistair Gunn > wrote:

>Stephen Harding twisted the electrons to say:
>> My guess, given this resounding victory for Al Qaeda, is
>> Italy will be next on the "hit list".
>
>So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
>thus causing a government that was involved in the "war on terror" to be
>replaced with one that has a priority of a "systematic fight against
>terrorism of all kinds" - yeah, that was a real resounding victory if
>ever I saw one! <grins>
If you follow Spanish politics (Check out Salon.com), one
of the reasons that Anzar won in the first place was that the
electorate thought that some of the measures taken against Basque
separatists by the Socialists were too broad and too brutal. (in
all fairness, there was also the matter that after a dozen or so
years of socialist rule, the electorate had gotten tired of them,
and charges of corruption and cronyism).

Spanish Socialists are NOT shrinking violets.


--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
> al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?
>
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Al Queida still considers Spain to be seized Muslim land
from 1492.

I'm not joking here.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Pete]

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote
>
> Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
> despicable.

"for political advantage" are unnecessary words in that sentence.

Pete

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

>"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
>> but also very much because his government
>> tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this
>> caused great outrage.
>
>I remember only a couple of weeks ago the Spanish government anouncing that
>a warning had been received that ETA was going to target the rail network
>and they were going to have to check all 20,000(?) miles of track. I've not
>heard mention of this warning since, or was I dreaming it? (If so, I'll let
>you all know next time I have a similar dream!)
I recall hearing of such a threat in France, though not
from ETA, in about that time period.

--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> > the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> > does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?
> >
> What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Lucky Strikes.

> Al Queida still considers Spain to be seized Muslim land
> from 1492.

Yes.

> I'm not joking here.

It is Allah's will. :)

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
> > repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
> > was a bad idea.
>
> "45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.

There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
response, and activity outside the national boundary.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:00:20 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Charles Gray > wrote:
> >
> >> Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
> >> "it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
> >> them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
> >> appear to exist.
> >
> >Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
> >repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
> >was a bad idea.
>
> True-- I was unclear-- the whole idea of pre-empting imminent
> threats was the one that brought some doubt from the Europeans. But
> we did argue that Hussein was very close to having WMD's, and when
> others contradicted us, we were in turns mocking and hostile...which
> didn't play well when it turned out that they were *right*.

Too bad for Saddam and at least some of Iraq's military leadership...
*they* thought that WMDs were there and available.

[Grantland]

"Jarg" > wrote:

>"Grantland" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> Grantland
>>
>
>Is that your new signature? Many of us just took it as a given in your
>postings! ;)
>
>Seriously, do you have any basis for disagreeing, or are you limited to ad
>hominem?
>
>Jarg
>
>For further reading on the subject check:
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Cretin.

G

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote
>>
>> Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
>> despicable.
>
>"for political advantage" are unnecessary words in that sentence.

Ummm....We have a consensus that terrorism is bad.

I was making the point that using a terrorist attack as a
cheap ploy to get re-elected is a bad thing...at least if you're
a Spaniard.

OOPS!!! That's the microwave. Time for a bowl of
Freedom Rice.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>Saddam believed he had WMD.
>
I think so...the poor schmucks who worked for him were so
****-scared of him that they fed him whatever he wanted to
hear...while the ones who had earlier tried to tell him the truth
likely died on the spot with the words half out of their unlucky
mouths...
--

-Gord.

[Simon Robbins]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.
>
> There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
> response, and activity outside the national boundary.

Not a different issue at all. Tony Blair certainly wasn't made aware of the
difference, as he has stated, and neither were his voting public. We were
told he was an imminent threat, that as part of that threat he could deliver
WMDs within 45 minutes. If they were only usable within his national
boundary, then what was the threat? The government either didn't tell the
public the truth about the 45 mins through incompetence, or an intent to
mislead.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> Too bad for Saddam and at least some of Iraq's military leadership...
> *they* thought that WMDs were there and available.

Whether that's true or not is unclear. It just as possible that Saddam knew
he had no capability and yet allowed everyone to believe he may have as a
regional deterrent because he didn't believe another confrontation with an
allied coalition was a possibility unless he provoked it.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> I recall hearing of such a threat in France, though not
> from ETA, in about that time period.

Yep, could have been France, thinking about it. If that's the case it'd be
interesting to know whether the intelligence that resulted in the French
scare was related to the activities in Spain. Or maybe even France was the
original intended target, which was switched when they became aware of the
threat.

Si

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:11:29 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

> We were
>told he was an imminent threat, that as part of that threat he could deliver
>WMDs within 45 minutes.

Simon, you are conflating two ideas here. I remember no such
statement, at least not by Bush or Powell, to the effect that Saddam
could attack us with WMDs in 45 minutes.

(Well, of course he could have attacked Israel, as he did in 1991.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[The CO]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> "The CO" > wrote:

> Idiot.
> Grantland

Considering the source, I'll consider that a compliment.

BTW, seen any gorilla/human hybrids lately?
If you were any fuller of it, you'd sink to the centre of the Earth.

The CO

[Cub Driver]

>Whether that's true or not is unclear. It just as possible that Saddam knew
>he had no capability and yet allowed everyone to believe he may have as a
>regional deterrent because he didn't believe another confrontation with an
>allied coalition was a possibility unless he provoked it.

Well, it was pretty obvious to me in October 2002 that we were going
to war, so Saddam ought to have been able to figure it out. (I had a
Bush sticker on my bumper, and it was not easy-off. So I covered it up
with a local Congressional-race sticker, because I was annoyed about
the war thing. So I can date this as several weeks before the off-year
election.)

Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Simon Robbins]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Simon, you are conflating two ideas here. I remember no such
> statement, at least not by Bush or Powell, to the effect that Saddam
> could attack us with WMDs in 45 minutes.

45 minutes was a central part of Tony Blair's war sales pitch to the UK
populace.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
> weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
> were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
> everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
> convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.

The situation could be read that way, but Iraq had been maintaining publicly
that they had no such weapons, and in the end they didn't. Saddam
manouvered himself into a corner, for sure. On the one hand complying with
the UN and (apparently) disposing of all his remaining materials yet
muddying the waters enough to let his neighbours know he might still have
some. A gamble on his part that didn't pay off. Obviously much of the
quantity Iraq admitted to having at the end of '91 hasn't been found, but
whether it was down to bad accounting, poor stock-taking, saber-rattling or
conceilment isn't clear. However, I agree that considering it appears
Hussein was largely kept in the dark regarding a lot of other issues in fear
of him, it's certainly a possibility he wasn't in the picture regarding his
WMD capability either.

Si

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Charles Gray) wrote:
<snip>
Well said! At last someone who can actually see the wood for the trees.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
> Simon, you are conflating two ideas here. I remember no such
> statement, at least not by Bush or Powell, to the effect that Saddam
> could attack us with WMDs in 45 minutes.
That was very much how it was pushed in the UK. We were told in very black
and white terms that Hussain has WMDs, the American's knew exactly where
and that they could deploy them against us in 45 mins. It was never
mentioned that this was only on the battlefield, the implication being
that London, Edinburgh etc were targets.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Simon Robbins) wrote:
> or was I dreaming it?
Probably not. It was also reported that some members of ETA were picked up
with rucksacks of explosives at train stations. Needless to say, not much
sign of those reports now...

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
> Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
> weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
> were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
> everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
> convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.
I think you'd need to understand the Arab mindset to see what Saddam was
up to at this point. You don't have to agree with they way they think but
it would help to at least understand it.

[Laurence Doering]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:34:41 -0800, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Simon Robbins" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
>> > repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
>> > was a bad idea.
>>
>> "45 minutes" not sound familiar then?
>
> A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.
>
> There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
> response, and activity outside the national boundary.

In a speech made October 6th, 2002 [1], President Bush seems to me
to have strongly implied that Iraq posed a serious and immediate
threat to the United States:

"And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime
gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq
could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

...

"Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem,
why do we need to confront it now?

"There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11.
We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash
airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies
would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use
a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat
gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait
for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the
form of a mushroom cloud."


ljd


[1] A transcript of Bush's speech is available on CNN's website at

<http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Laurence Doering" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:34:41 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Simon Robbins" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
> >> > repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was
"imminent"
> >> > was a bad idea.
> >>
> >> "45 minutes" not sound familiar then?
> >
> > A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.
> >
> > There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
> > response, and activity outside the national boundary.
>
> In a speech made October 6th, 2002 [1], President Bush seems to me
> to have strongly implied that Iraq posed a serious and immediate
> threat to the United States:

In what way does your implied guess over rule the Administration's explicit
statement otherwise? The threat from Iraq was explicitly not yet immediate
and that is why they could be tumbled. Now that Libya has quit persuing a
nuke and Iran is trying to back off of what they have done, the entire
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq plan is working.

The public in Spain was always against invading Iraq and the removal of a
government in conflict witht he will of the people is SOP for democracy.

[Laurence Doering]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:16:44 -0000, Simon Robbins > wrote:
> "Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I recall hearing of such a threat in France, though not
>> from ETA, in about that time period.
>
> Yep, could have been France, thinking about it. If that's the case it'd be
> interesting to know whether the intelligence that resulted in the French
> scare was related to the activities in Spain.

Probably not. The threat against railroads in France was very
different. In late February a group calling itself AZF claimed to
have planted 10 bombs along rail lines in France, and said it would
begin detonating them one by one if the French government didn't pay
the group about 4 million euros (about $4.9 million.) By March 5 it
was reported that 10,000 workers for the French state railway had
searched 20,000 miles of track and found no bombs. [1]

> Or maybe even France was the original intended target, which was
> switched when they became aware of the threat.

Doesn't seem likely. In contrast to the Madrid bombings, the
French threat seems almost Blofeld-esque. "My doomsday device
is in place, and I will begin to progressively destroy the French
rail network unless you pay me... [pause as villain strokes
white Persian cat] ... FIVE MILLION DOLLARS!"


ljd

[1] http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=9660

[Cub Driver]

Well, no wonder you-all were skeptical!

I would have been skeptical too.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
>> Simon, you are conflating two ideas here. I remember no such
>> statement, at least not by Bush or Powell, to the effect that Saddam
>> could attack us with WMDs in 45 minutes.
>That was very much how it was pushed in the UK. We were told in very black
>and white terms that Hussain has WMDs, the American's knew exactly where
>and that they could deploy them against us in 45 mins. It was never
>mentioned that this was only on the battlefield, the implication being
>that London, Edinburgh etc were targets.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

Ah well! This sounds perfectly reasonable to me, given what we knew
ante bellum.

And may well have been true, even given all that we have learned
since.

On 17 Mar 2004 17:23:47 GMT, Laurence Doering > wrote:

> "And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime
> gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq
> could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
> weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

It's certainly true that I fail to understand that anyone would avoid
a war by convincing the enemy that he had every reason to go to war!

I find it very hard to believe that that is the Arab mindset. Surely
you're being contemptuous of the Arabs?

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
>> Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
>> weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
>> were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
>> everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
>> convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.
>I think you'd need to understand the Arab mindset to see what Saddam was
>up to at this point. You don't have to agree with they way they think but
>it would help to at least understand it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:07:36 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>Well, no wonder you-all were skeptical!

You can read what Blair was actually saving on the debate which
authorised miliary action in parliament.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_spmin2

The 45 minutes stuff has been played up subsequently in the mass
hysteria to find disproveable claims in the intelligence dossiers to
invalidate the subsequent decision to go to war. I for one did not
understand it then to be critical to the case either way, but then
perhaps I was guilty of using some adult critical faculty to approach
the media hype with some degree of skepticism.

Gavin Bailey


--

Fochinell

"Ancient Scottish battle cry" painted on the side of a Spitfire Mk. XIV in 1944
- presumably without Air Ministry approval.

[Skysurfer]

Simon Robbins wrote :

> I remember only a couple of weeks ago the Spanish government
> anouncing that a warning had been received that ETA was going to
> target the rail network and they were going to have to check all
> 20,000(?) miles of track. I've not heard mention of this warning
> since, or was I dreaming it? (If so, I'll let you all know next
> time I have a similar dream!)

The news you've heard were about France I think, not Spain.

[Simon Robbins]

"Laurence Doering" > wrote in message
...
> Probably not. The threat against railroads in France was very
> different. In late February a group calling itself AZF claimed to
> have planted 10 bombs along rail lines in France, and said it would
> begin detonating them one by one if the French government didn't pay
> the group about 4 million euros (about $4.9 million.) By March 5 it
> was reported that 10,000 workers for the French state railway had
> searched 20,000 miles of track and found no bombs. [1]

Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten the details about the ransom.

Si

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>It's certainly true that I fail to understand that anyone would avoid
>a war by convincing the enemy that he had every reason to go to war!
>
>I find it very hard to believe that that is the Arab mindset. Surely
>you're being contemptuous of the Arabs?
>
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
>
>>In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
>>> Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
>>> weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
>>> were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
>>> everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
>>> convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.


I think so...I suspect that none of his advisors dared to tell
him anything but that his 'war machine' was all spit polished and
shined to a gnats eyeball, that it incorporated all the newest
tricks and was set to follow his highnesses beck and command on
pain of death. I'm sure that they had seen lot's of their
compatriots stop a 9mm for bearing less than glorious news.

That kind of operation tends to encourage 'glad tidings of great
joy' :)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Cub Driver) wrote:

>
> It's certainly true that I fail to understand that anyone would avoid
> a war by convincing the enemy that he had every reason to go to war!
>
> I find it very hard to believe that that is the Arab mindset. Surely
> you're being contemptuous of the Arabs?
I think you need to consider it more in terms of pride, saving face etc.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff > wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>
>> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>
>Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

No, damn cowards

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:36:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > In article >,
>> > Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>> >
>> > > So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
>> >
>> > Not "may."
>> >
>> > Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
>> > by the bombings is just fooling themselves.
>> >
>>
>> Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
>think
>> the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
>> apparently not.
>
> al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
> the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
> does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?
>
Yes.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:53:25 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:11:54 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
>>shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
>>opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.
>>
>>Keith
>
> I doubt anything less than a completely howling anarchy woudl be
>worse than Hussein...
> But-
> Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
>"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
>them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
>appear to exist. If we'd found warehouses of chemical weapons, I
>think the dynamic would have been far different.
> The election appeared to be influenced by several factors:
>1. Anger at the government for trying to pin it on ETA, which was,
>rightly or wrongly, seen as a purely political move.
>2. A feeling that the attack had come because the government, in
>defiance of its own electorate, joined up with the U.S. for an
>invasion that many still consider illegal.
>3. A feeling that the U.S. doesn't value their alliance, which from
>the U.S., I have to agree with. We've treated our allies *very*
>poorly. The U.S. attacks on "old europe", the UN, and anyone who dared
>disagree with us have come back to haunt us. The Neo-con disdain for
>alliances was rather misplaced and definately destroyed some (not all)
>of the good will existing between the U.S. and its allies.
>
> One very interesting point however, is that this bombing didn't
>change very many peoples votes, according to some exit polls, what it
>did was get more people out TO vote. That's encouraging in one
>respect-- in nations with a solid majority one way or the other, such
>a bombing probably won't have the effect of shifting things. That
>means even more so then before, the U.S. has GOT to do everything ti
>can to get the people, not simply the government, on board.
>
Amazing the contortions that some people will go to in order to
justify cowardice.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:
--cut--
>
>That is, not that he *was* able to attack say unleash WMD on Israel in
>45 mins, but that he *believed* he was able to do so. Evidently his
>own commanders believed that the guy in the next regiment/division had
>WMDs. And, after all, Iraq did indeed launch Scuds into Israel and
>Saudi in 1991, and into Kuwait last year. That the Kuwait ones had no
>chemical or biological elements seems to have come as a surprise to
>everyone.
>

Likely because Saddam had shot the man in charge of missile
warheads last week because he had asked for Friday off.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>>> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>>
>>Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>>
>>-Jeff B.
>>yeff at erols dot com
>
>No, damn cowards
>
>Al Minyard

Gave in to the school bully I guess...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"The CO" > wrote:

>
>"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
>weapon.
>>
>> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
>designed
>> to kill or maim those you're fighting?
>
>Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"
>
>The CO
>
So you use the threat of these weapons as a defense...because of
that very 'scale' they're even a better defense, right?
--

-Gord.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> >>> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> >>
> >>Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
> >>
> >>-Jeff B.
> >>yeff at erols dot com
> >
> >No, damn cowards
> >
> >Al Minyard
>
> Gave in to the school bully I guess...

Pretty good analogy. Can't help but imagine what the effect of such an
attack would have been over here on this side of the big water; history
seems to point to it having likely resulted in an increase in support of
efforts aimed at draining the swamp that has given life to the butchers and
even if you don't credit Iraq with any links to terrorism (which would
require one to be somewhat myopic given their hosting of folks like Abu
Nidal and Abbas) we'd have been more determined not to cave in to their
demands, but Spain rolled over so fast it is not even funny. Their respect
rank just went down a few notches in my view.

Brooks

> --
>
> -Gord.

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:16:04 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Perhaps a defensive chemcial weapon is one you use on your own people.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:21:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>>>> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>>>
>>>Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>>>
>>>-Jeff B.
>>>yeff at erols dot com
>>
>>No, damn cowards
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>Gave in to the school bully I guess...

Yes, but in my experience the bully goes on bullying. Can anyone say
"Chamberline"??

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tony" > wrote in message
news:<WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02>...
>
> > Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> > surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> > Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?
>
> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

The proper question would be, "What drove Spain to pull out of Iraq?" The
answer would be terrorism. But since you asked the first question, how about
Abu Nidal, Abbu Abbas, and the support Saddam gave to palestinian suicide
bombers, not to mention that terrorist training facility that was overrun
during the first couple of weeks of the war (remember, the one that had
Nidal's picture on the wall?). Then there is Anser Al Salaam... get the
picture?

>
> The recent bomb attacks mainly showed that for reducing the threat
> of terrorism, the policies of the previous Spanish government (and
> that of the US government) are a failure. It is not illogical to
> elect a government that proposes another approach. To borrow Cheney's
> words, to see fighting terrorism in the context of intelligence
> gathering and policing, instead of in the context of a 'War on
> Terror', which -- if anything -- seems to play in the terrorists
> hands by fighting the battle on their terms, i.e. asymmetrically.

Ah, so that other approach is...buckle under to the terrorists demands. No
thank you.

>
> The Spanish have had a long experience with the terrorism of ETA.
> Fighting that still has the full support of people and the new
> government.

And they will presumably continue to toe whatever line the that AQ and its
friends dictate to them. Again, no thanks.

Brooks

>
> Emmanuel

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> (Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:
>
> > Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>
> Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Libya is disarming and Iran is looking for a way to back out of what they
have been doing. The terrorist still want Spain, but that was not going to
change. Sacrificing Israel would not be enough.

[[email protected]]

Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:23:33 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>>> In article >,
>>> (Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:
>>>
>>> > Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>>>
>>> Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.
>>
>>Libya is disarming and Iran is looking for a way to back out of what they
>>have been doing. The terrorist still want Spain, but that was not going to
>>change.
>
>>Sacrificing Israel would not be enough.
>
>Well, it might buy some time - like the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia
>did back in the 1930s.
>But, as in the 1930s, appeasement would actually encourage the enemy,
>and would only help us if we actually used that time to prepare for
>the inevitable conflict.

Of course, and the longer we wait while feeding them dribs and
drabs the bigger and more painful the final removal will have to
be.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

--

-Gord.

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>
> The recent bomb attacks mainly showed that for reducing the threat
> of terrorism, the policies of the previous Spanish government (and
> that of the US government) are a failure. It is not illogical to

With attitudes like that, how could anyone succeed in
any war that ends up being actually contested?

To make an omelet, you break some eggs. Who said the
world is going to be instantly better by countering
terrorism? It's going to be worse for some time due
to the very fact we are resisting it. If you want
peace and tranquility, go along!

This is a long haul fight, and the war in Iraq is now
a part of it whether you like it, or even recognize it
or not.

You really don't think world terror would regard US
failure in Iraq as a good thing? No effect at all?
You think Al Qaeda's negative opinion of the West (weak)
has mitigated from Spanish "reason" after the Madrid
attacks?

Perhaps Spain should just give the Basques their
independence. Resisting will only lead to more
bloodshed.

You seem primed for surrender, largely for the sake
of sticking it to Bush. Slice off your nose to spite
your face!


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>
>Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Good point :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[James Hart]

Cub Driver wrote:
>>> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>>
>> Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.
>
> Good point :)

Bad point.
It's akin to kicking a dog in the nuts and complaining that it then bites
you.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[[email protected]]

"James Hart" > wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
>>>
>>> Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.
>>
>> Good point :)
>
>Bad point.
>It's akin to kicking a dog in the nuts and complaining that it then bites
>you.

I think you missed the point here...

It's a good point...
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message news:<ssJ6c.279171
>
> > > Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
> >
> > Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.
>
> Well of course they are opposed to it, and reacting violently; but
> either way that is beside the point, as they would be opposed to
> *any* American involvement *anywhere* in the predominantly Muslim
> regions of the world.

For a big part of the last year, a lot of Europeans have been telling us
that Hussein and Al-Qaeda would never have anything to do with each
other, and that invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein was actually
accomplishing something that Bin Laden's boys would want to do.

All of a sudden, they're on the same side, *only* because the US invaded
Iraq.

Riiiight.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Keeney]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >>> Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?
> >>
> >> Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.
> >
> > Good point :)
>
> Bad point.
> It's akin to kicking a dog in the nuts and complaining that it then bites
> you.

Uh, in what way?

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> The real issue is not what the terrorists think but what the general
> population thinks. To operate on a significant scale terrorist groups
> need people who are willing to fund them, house and hide them, be
> recruited in their organisations or admire them as heroes. The war
> in Iraq has caused in a substantial increase both in the size of
> this population and in its militancy, and this probably determines
> the scale of their activity in Iraq --- not the level of their
> irritation (which is permanent anyway) but the support they can
> find for it.

Perhaps not entirely true.

Ten plus years of sanctions and the resulting poverty
of the Iraqi people have "Islamicized" a significant
portion of the Sunni population of Iraq. Europe was
perfectly happy to continue the sanctions, given a war
alternative.

With this perspective, Europe would be as involved in
"creating terrorists" in Iraq as the US.


SMH

[Alan Minyard]

On 21 Mar 2004 08:50:35 -0800, (Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
>
>> For a big part of the last year, a lot of Europeans have been telling us
>> that Hussein and Al-Qaeda would never have anything to do with each
>> other, and that invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein was actually
>> accomplishing something that Bin Laden's boys would want to do.
>>
>> All of a sudden, they're on the same side, *only* because the US invaded
>> Iraq.
>
>Saddam and Al-Quaeda certainly never were friends and allies. Even
>Bush admits that. But the Baathists (who are largely in favour of
>a secular state) and the islamists (who want a theocratic state) do
>now happen to have the same enemy, which appears to be far more
>important. It is a measure of the fool-hardiness of US policy in
>the region that it has managed to create such an unlikely alliance
>against itself.
>
>As Churchill said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would put in a good
>word for the Devil." And so he did.
>
>Emmanuel Gustin

Either you are incredibly ill informed, or you virulent anti-Americanism
has completely overcome your ability to reason. You talk of Hitler, then
you turn around and support his latest reincarnation, Saddam. Simply because
your little **** pot of a country is populated and run by rank cowards does
not mean that there are no brave, resolute, and honest men left.

Al Minyard

[Skysurfer]

Alan Minyard wrote :

> or you virulent anti-Americanism has completely overcome your
> ability to reason.

and then wrote :

> Simply because your little **** pot of a
> country is populated and run by rank cowards

Look at yourself in a mirror ...
Your francophobia has made you completly crazy.

PS : still no WMD ?

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...

>>This is a long haul fight, and the war in Iraq is now
>>a part of it whether you like it, or even recognize it
>>or not.
>
> The 'long haul' argument is a false one. Of course a long
> fight is be expected. That doesn't mean that one should not
> reconsider a failing strategy. You are making the error of
> all incompetent military and political leaders, arguing that
> the Grand Plan will certainly work, if only it is allowed a
> little more time and resources... And if it fails in the end
> they will always argue that they were not given enough time
> and resources.

Then you're calling the Vietnamese communists incompetent
military strategists.

They realized full out that they could not defeat the US
one on one. They counted on a long term strategy in the
defeat of the US, even though it likely meant losing a
lot of battles.

As in America's own revolutionary war, sometimes a strategy
of simply not giving up is a winning one.

The impatience of not having won in a month or a year translating
to bad strategy isn't good war fighting thinking. Lincoln knew
the Confederacy would not be destroyed until Lee's army was
defeated. That didn't happen in one year, or two or three, and
because it didn't happen, Democrats ran a peace campaign that
argued the strategy was wrong and the war unwinable.

It was simple good fortune that Lincoln got some victories in
fall 1864.

This type of thinking is prevalent now, ignoring the primarily
it seems) lefty types that do their best to undermine any war.
The war hasn't been won in a year, therefor the strategy for
winning it is wrong, or the war is unwinable, so let's just
get out.

I am now solidly a neoisolationist, and I don't want the US
involved in any foreign adventures no matter who is being hurt
or would be helped. But I don't want the US to transition to
such a foreign policy via a self-imposed defeat in Iraq largely
due to impatience. Progress, albeit slow, *is* being made.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Skysurfer wrote:

> PS : still no WMD ?

In case you missed it, the question was never did SH have WMD.
Of course he did, and everyone has known it.

The question was did he get rid of them?

Hans Blix is making a book tour of the US right now and
is commonly interviewed. He believes Saddam's WMD were
destroyed in 2001.

Unfortunately, UN inspectors were not present at the time
to record the event, and the book-keeping on the part of
the Iraqis wasn't very good.


SMH

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>>
>> >There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.
>>
>> Define "defensive weapon".
>
>That's not my problem. The people who contend that they *are*
>"defensive" have to manage that one.

I don't see how one can define a weapon as either 'offensive' or
'defensive'. Isn't that decided in the manner that you use
them?...

In my mind a weapon is a weapon, now if you aren't under attack
and you use it 'to' attack, then that's an offensive use. If you
'get it ready' by moving it into position (and not hiding the
fact - rattling sabres) then that's a defensive use, eh?
--

-Gord.

[The CO]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "The CO" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> >> . com...
> >>
> >> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
> >weapon.
> >>
> >> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
> >designed
> >> to kill or maim those you're fighting?
> >
> >Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"
> >
> >The CO
> >
> So you use the threat of these weapons as a defense...because of
> that very 'scale' they're even a better defense, right?

I see your point Gord, but historically chem weapons have only ever been
used offensively. Now it's no doubt possible to use almost any weapon
defensively,
but something like (say) a SAM is pretty limited in it's offensive
capacity. Chem and
bio have no such limitations.

The CO

[Kevin Brooks]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "The CO" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > >> . com...
> > >>
> > >> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
> > >weapon.
> > >>
> > >> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
> > >designed
> > >> to kill or maim those you're fighting?
> > >
> > >Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"
> > >
> > >The CO
> > >
> > So you use the threat of these weapons as a defense...because of
> > that very 'scale' they're even a better defense, right?
>
> I see your point Gord, but historically chem weapons have only ever been
> used offensively. Now it's no doubt possible to use almost any weapon
> defensively,
> but something like (say) a SAM is pretty limited in it's offensive
> capacity. Chem and
> bio have no such limitations.

I am not sure I'd use a SAM as my example. It seems to me you have to look
at the overall situation. For example, the Egyptians made good use of SAM's
to support their early offensive across the Suez in 1973--while the weapon
is, in a finite analysis, a "defensive" weapon, it can be and is used in
offensive operations. Similar to the forward bounding Patriot battalions
used to support offensive ground operations.

Brooks

>
> The CO
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On 21 Mar 2004 09:04:54 -0800, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

>There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
>in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
>the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
>over the American interests in the region.

But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
upon in Iraq.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On 21 Mar 2004 09:04:54 -0800, (Emmanuel
> Gustin) wrote:
>
>>There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
>>in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
>>the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
>>over the American interests in the region.
>
> But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
> upon in Iraq.

I don't see why creation of an Iraqi police force, army,
border patrol is not Iraqi interest.

Creation of an Iraqi constitution? Creation of an initial
governing council? Return of sovereignty in July? All sorts
of development and reconstruction aid? Increased security?

Just what represents "American interest" versus that of Iraq
in all of this?

I believe we're hearing anti-American argument rather than
what is best for Iraq.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Damian Kneale wrote:

> I'm in the camp that says very few weapons can ever be called
> defensive. Most commonly its more a case of defensive use of an
> offensive weapon. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter when it comes to things
> like the current crop of missile defence weapons though.
>
> My best rule of thumb is if you aren't willing to use it on, in or
> over your own people and territory then its not defensive. Feel free
> to argue in the context of forward defence if you wish. :-)

How about mines?


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>>>There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
>>>in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
>>>the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
>>>over the American interests in the region.
>>
>>But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
>>upon in Iraq.
>
> The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
> situation in Iraq. This fundamentally undermines the credibility
> of the institutions the occupation authority, perhaps with the
> very best of intentions, is trying to create. The members of the
> Iraqi leadership council may be good patriots committed to carving
> out a better future for their country; but they carry with them
> the stigma of being more or less apppointed by Bremer. The Iraqi
> soldiers and policemen may perhaps do their duty to the best of
> their ability; but being in US pay makes them targets. The
> reconstruction of Iraq is a noble effort; but it is being run too
> much by US companies.

This is sheer nonsense!

You can't possibly believe that the UN is going to bring
something to Iraq that the US has left elsewhere.

The UN has already been successfully bombed out of Iraq
by the very persons (or at least some of them) that UN
"credibility" is supposed to now reign in??!!!

The insurgency is simply going to put down their AKs and
RPGs and take up camel driving again once the "illegitimate"
US occupier is gone?

Get real! They'll start blowing up "blue helmet occupiers"
and the Iraqis working with them in place of Americans and
their Iraqi employees.

> You can't build a nation from the outside. Americans would be
> equally disinclined to welcome institutions imposed on them by
> a foreign power, however benevolent.

And yet you seem to believe the UN can, because of its
"legitimacy"? Legitimacy in whose eyes? The man on the
street?

He doesn't count! He's not the one blowing up hotels and
power stations or assassinating translators.

"Benevolence" isn't going to win this conflict. Steady
patience is, and most especially *jobs*!!! The insurgency
will slowly start to fizzle once the common man sees his
standard of living improve and the country begin to
prosper. This is actually already beginning to happen, but
has a long way to go.

The screwup for the US started the moment looters were
allowed to carry off the country. There should have been
a Marshall Plan immediately ready to go. Baathists should
not have been roundly expelled from their jobs, nor the
Army retired.

Lots of mistakes, but it is the European error to view the
war from the beginning as unwinable simply because it is
"illegitimate" in your eyes. Insurgents blowing up people
(mostly other Iraqis you might note) could care less. The
only legitimate government is a Sunni Baathist one!


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>
>This is, in fact, the very error Bush is repeating today. He is
>creating today a situation in which the full military might of
>the USA is merely sufficient to keep a few thousand terrorists
>at bay.

An interesting point, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Iraq
hardly represents the "full military might" of the U.S. We took nearly
as many casualties in the Battle of the Bulge as there are troops
stationed in Iraq, and the Air Force and Navy are hardly engaged. And
the troops are doing many more jobs than keeping terrorists at bay.
They are, in effect, re-creating the country.

And wasn't it you, Emmanuel, who said there was no way back? In
Vietnam and Korea, at least, there was the option of reuniting the
country under the communist north. What is the option in Iraq? Should
we dust off Saddam, apologize, and give him the country back?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
>situation in Iraq.

Well, it's our blood and our money, with some help from the Brits. As
for the UN, if it hadn't cut & run when one bomb exploded outside its
headquarters, it might well be playing a major role in Iraq today.
Really, it's pretty hard to take Koffi Annan seriously. I'd much
rather put my faith in the Iraqi police force, and whatever leaders
the process throws up.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On 22 Mar 2004 20:56:41 -0800, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

>What Iraq needs is Iraqi leadership. Unfortunately Bush failed
>to assemble a credible opposition leadership before he rushed
>to war.

Well, I'm glad you've taken the UN off the table. But what different
course are you positing? Should Bush have assembled a ghost government
to impose upon Iraq? That's precisely what you've been arguing
*against*--a solution imposed from outside.

We didn't do that when we liberated Belgium. Nor when we occupied
Germany and Japan in 1945.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
>
>>You can't possibly believe that the UN is going to bring
>>something to Iraq that the US has left elsewhere.
>
> Who said 'UN'?
>
> Not me.

A Euro who isn't claiming UN control will make all well?
Color me astonished!

> What Iraq needs is Iraqi leadership. Unfortunately Bush failed
> to assemble a credible opposition leadership before he rushed
> to war.

An even more nebulous task than what the UN might do.

And where would these great unifying Iraqi leaders come from?

Surely not *in* Iraq, since we know where those types ended up
under Saddam.

*Outside* the country? Like the ones currently there, that
are largely unpopular for having left the country?

Where was this pool of great Iraqi leaders, that were available
for development by the US before the war, and where might they
be now?

Shortcomings of some are well known, now, and some were
questionable before the war, but the obviously great ones still
seem an elusive commodity.


SMH

[Alan Minyard]

On 22 Mar 2004 13:28:35 -0800, (Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

>Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>> >There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
>> >in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
>> >the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
>> >over the American interests in the region.
>>
>> But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
>> upon in Iraq.
>
>The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
>situation in Iraq. This fundamentally undermines the credibility
>of the institutions the occupation authority, perhaps with the
>very best of intentions, is trying to create. The members of the
>Iraqi leadership council may be good patriots committed to carving
>out a better future for their country; but they carry with them
>the stigma of being more or less apppointed by Bremer. The Iraqi
>soldiers and policemen may perhaps do their duty to the best of
>their ability; but being in US pay makes them targets. The
>reconstruction of Iraq is a noble effort; but it is being run too
>much by US companies.
>
>You can't build a nation from the outside. Americans would be
>equally disinclined to welcome institutions imposed on them by
>a foreign power, however benevolent.
>
>Emmanuel

So what would you propose? Turn it over to the incompetent and
discredited "UN"?? The UN was the cause of much of the
current misery in Iraq.

Al Minyard

[JSH5176]

It was written,,,

>
>The question was did he get rid of them?
>

Has anyone checked frenchies back yard ????

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, The CO
> writes
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> So you use the threat of these weapons as a defense...because of
>> that very 'scale' they're even a better defense, right?
>
>I see your point Gord, but historically chem weapons have only ever been
>used offensively.

Iraq used them to break up some Iranian attacks, which is moderately
"defensive" (of course they also used them to soften up Iranian
positions prior to Iraqi attacks, which is "offensive", and they were
quite keen on using them on Kurdish villages which the Iraqis would
probably call "law enforcement")

>Now it's no doubt possible to use almost any weapon
>defensively,
>but something like (say) a SAM is pretty limited in it's offensive
>capacity.

Depends whose airspace you're denying the use of: SF under your runway
with good MANPADS can be pretty "offensive", as can an AAW ship in or
near territorial waters.

--
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, 24 Mar 2004 20:15:56 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>> I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
>>> (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
>>> minefield"?
>>
>>When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
>>ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
>>"defensive" any more...
>
>Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. (Not that Iraq would have
>minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it)

Not to mention, the usual response - of course it's defensive. If
$enemy attacks us, we can use our defensive WMD to attack their rear
supply areas.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>>This is, in fact, the very error Bush is repeating today. He is
>>creating today a situation in which the full military might of
>>the USA is merely sufficient to keep a few thousand terrorists
>>at bay.
>
>An interesting point, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Iraq
>hardly represents the "full military might" of the U.S.

It's serious in that you've got very few forces available for other
crises. If $SOMEWHERE blows up, the US is going to have some seriously
unpalatable choices to make.

>We took nearly
>as many casualties in the Battle of the Bulge as there are troops
>stationed in Iraq,

We lost more troops on the first day of the Somme than are currently in
Iraq, but that doesn't mean our current forces aren't seriously
stretched at the moment. There were a *lot* more men under arms in 1944
or 1916 than we have now.

>and the Air Force and Navy are hardly engaged. And
>the troops are doing many more jobs than keeping terrorists at bay.
>They are, in effect, re-creating the country.

True, but that still means they're committed and unavailable for other
tasks.

>And wasn't it you, Emmanuel, who said there was no way back? In
>Vietnam and Korea, at least, there was the option of reuniting the
>country under the communist north. What is the option in Iraq? Should
>we dust off Saddam, apologize, and give him the country back?

That's one option. (Bang goes *his* credibility!) More likely, pull out
with a hasty "national government" that immediately does a Yugoslavia
and fragments explosively into a Kurdistan north (which the Turks may or
may not act against), a Sunni centre and a Shi'ia south which may or may
not unite with Iran (with or without their consent...)

Short of those options, the US has tied a large portion of its strength
into Iraq for some time, and that's a serious impact (because it's not
just the troops there: it's the troops recovering from the deployment,
and the troops preparing to go out there, that eat into your available
strength)


--
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, 24 Mar 2004 22:28:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>
>> >When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
>> >ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
>> >"defensive" any more...
>>
>> Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.
>
>Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
>chemical weapons.

I have to admit I can't recall of any either. Nukes, yes. Bioweapons,
probably, but not even rumours of Chem weapons.

>And, by the way, Iraq demonstrated quite directly in Gulf War I that
>they had missiles with enough range (and, despite those sanctions that
>the UN didn't quite enforce, were building missiles with overly-long
>ranges).

Err, 186km vice the legal 150km. Yes it is a breach, which teh UN
picked up, and the missiles in question (Al Samoud 2) were in teh
process of being destroyed when the UN pulled out for the war to
begin. We're not exactly talking Scuds here (none of which
incidentally were fired, and none of which have been found since - I
wonder what the official estimate of their inventory was pre-war?).


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Cub Driver
> > writes
> >>This is, in fact, the very error Bush is repeating today. He is
> >>creating today a situation in which the full military might of
> >>the USA is merely sufficient to keep a few thousand terrorists
> >>at bay.
> >
> >An interesting point, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Iraq
> >hardly represents the "full military might" of the U.S.
>
> It's serious in that you've got very few forces available for other
> crises. If $SOMEWHERE blows up, the US is going to have some seriously
> unpalatable choices to make.

Please clarify that claim a bit. Looking at the most recently posted ORBAT
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_toe.htm), I count two
full AC heavy divisions (1st AD and 1st ID(M)), one AC airborne division
(minus) (82nd), a portion of 1st CAV DIV (big minus), one BCT each from the
25th and 10th LID's, one Stryker BCT from the 2nd ID, and two ACR's (one a
minus), along with three ARNG seperate enhanced brigades (30th, 39th, and
81st). Add one BCT (plus) assigned to OEF in Afghanistan. Which means that
for the AC in terms of major combat elements we have some three full combat
divisions, plus the major portions of some four other divisions still at
their home stations (if you toss out the recently returned units, you still
have a total of three combat brigades in the "ready to deploy" category, two
more in the train-up for deployment category, and the two forward deployed
brigades in the 2nd ID). Backed up by the twelve remaining ARNG enhanced
brigades (five of whom are recently returned from other operations, leaving
seven, and the eight ARNG combat divisions.

Given the scale of the deployment for the offensive phase of OIF as a model,
it appears we are in none too severe a condition to handle a pretty
significant contingency operation, especially when you condsider that you
have the USMC units as well, with only a single MARDIV (minus) deployed to
Iraq, leaving at least one MARDIV available for operations elsewhere (and
one plus MARDIV in the train/reconstitute role).

>
> >We took nearly
> >as many casualties in the Battle of the Bulge as there are troops
> >stationed in Iraq,
>
> We lost more troops on the first day of the Somme than are currently in
> Iraq, but that doesn't mean our current forces aren't seriously
> stretched at the moment. There were a *lot* more men under arms in 1944
> or 1916 than we have now.

Is there a significant deployment load preasent--yes. Would it result in
serious consequences if another contingency arose suddenly? No. (Some wonk
like Henry will undoubtedly start squealing about the DPRK, and how we have
to be able to send zillions of ground troopies over there to play in the
meatgrinder--but that is no longer the case, with the ROK's three field
armies being capable of handling the lion's share of the ground combat fight
if one were to arise--and that has been the situation there for a number of
years now, as even our own DoD has recognized).

>
> >and the Air Force and Navy are hardly engaged. And
> >the troops are doing many more jobs than keeping terrorists at bay.
> >They are, in effect, re-creating the country.
>
> True, but that still means they're committed and unavailable for other
> tasks.

But you apparently don't have a very good understanding of just how many
more forces we still have in our pockets.

<snip>

>
> Short of those options, the US has tied a large portion of its strength
> into Iraq for some time, and that's a serious impact (because it's not
> just the troops there: it's the troops recovering from the deployment,
> and the troops preparing to go out there, that eat into your available
> strength)

And those are accounted for in the numbers I gave you above.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> 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

[[email protected]]

"Tony" > wrote:

>Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?
>
Better question might be 'Do the Spanish really think'?

Sure doesn't seem like they have a great deal of foresight...
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> "Tony" > wrote:
>
> >Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> >surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> >Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?
> >
> Better question might be 'Do the Spanish really think'?
>
> Sure doesn't seem like they have a great deal of foresight...

The above comment was wrong, anyway.

The first surrender in the War on Terror was Libya.

Gaddhafi isn't stupid - he saw the trend.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,

>
> The above comment was wrong, anyway.
>
> The first surrender in the War on Terror was Libya.
>

I'd suggest that 'honor' belongs to Pakistan which incubated
the Taliban and Al Qaeda. After 9-11 Musharraf looked
over the brink and decided cooperation with the US was
a better idea.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
> the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
> arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc.

Here's a quick test:

Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
things you suggest above for *any* country.

> But Iraq is still
> at war and the UN is not a fighting organisation.

The UN has peacekeepers in several countries right now. Armed
peacekeepers.

> It is far too early for them to take a significant role.

On the other hand, they've been involved in reconstruction and relief
efforts in countries that were in much worse shape than Iraq, and didn't
run away when they were attacked.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kerryn Offord]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
>>the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
>>arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc.
>
>
> Here's a quick test:
>
> Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
> things you suggest above for *any* country.

East Timor

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Kerryn Offord > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
> >
> >>"Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
> >>the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
> >>arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc.
> >
> > Here's a quick test:
> >
> > Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
> > things you suggest above for *any* country.
>
> East Timor

They managed to have some elections, but the economy there is still in
shambles, and is basically still run by UN bureaucrats (and will be for
the forseeable future).

After three years of UN control plus two years of independence, East
Timor's infrastructure is still in worse shape than Iraq's...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Cub Driver]

>> Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
>> things you suggest above for *any* country.
>
>East Timor

Wow. Hundreds of million (billions?) of dollars, hundreds of thousands
of personnel (millions?), and this is the sole successful military
intervention of the United Nations absent the U.S.? That's about the
most damning comment I've ever read on the UN.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>But I am happy to point out that it is becoming an US tradition
>to hand off the hot potato to either the UN or NATO when the
>shooting ends. Kosovo and Afghanistan and recent examples,

Actually, Kosovo was a European operation that was handed off like a
hot potato to NATO, meaning the U.S., because Europe -- Europe! -- all
of Europe! -- didn't have the firepower to defeat a portion of the
former Yugoslavia.

And nobody has handed off Afghanistan to the UN. It was a NATO
operation from early on.

And as perhaps you have noticed, the U.S. has not followed this
non-existent tradition in Iraq, to everyone's annoyance, with the
possible exception of Kofi Anna, whose people cut and ran from Baghdad
the first time a bomb went off in their vicinity.

Indeed, the UN was created in large part (and financed in large part)
by the United States, which believed it would be a force for good in
the world. But I cannot think of a military operation that the UN has
successfully carried out since Korea, 1950-1953, and that was
successful only because the Soviet Union had pulled a walkout of the
Security Council.

Really, what good does the UN do, except to serve as a sounding board
for anti-Semites?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:52:37 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Well, I'm glad you've taken the UN off the table.
>
>"Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
>the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
>arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc. But Iraq is still
>at war and the UN is not a fighting organisation. It is far too
>early for them to take a significant role.

Oh, so you want to set up the UN steal more Iraqi money/oil??
>
>> But what different course are you positing? Should Bush
>> have assembled a ghost government to impose upon Iraq?
>
>He should have promoted self-assembly of a credible body
>to represent Iraqi interests. A half-hearted attempt in that
>direction was actually made, but it lacked a serious effort
>to reconcile the large internal differences, and included
>dubious creatures such as Chalabi.
>
You are aware that Iraq is not a homogeneous society, aren't you?
When you have that many factions wanting to kill each other there
is no way to "reconcile the large internal differences"

>He should also have formulated a policy towards the future
>of Iraq that was more thought out than the "those that survived
>the bombing lived long and happily ever after" line the
>administration put out. Political reasons aside, such a policy
>would have had military value; it might have been possible
>to get Turkey on board.

The Turks would only be "on board" if they were able to kill all
of the Kurds. We are not willing to sacrifice the Kurds for your idea
of "military value"

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did
> > all of the things you suggest above for *any* country.
>
> I don't see why I should, when -- in case you have forgotten --
> the USA is a major UN member. It could be fairly stated that
> the UN is an institution _created_ by US politicians to undertake
> jobs like that.
>
> But I am happy to point out that it is becoming an US tradition
> to hand off the hot potato to either the UN or NATO when the
> shooting ends.

Mostly because the UN relies on the US to do the shooting. And then
they send us the bill for the rest.

> > The UN has peacekeepers in several countries right now. Armed
> > peacekeepers.
>
> Peacekeeping, even carrying arms, is not nearly the same as getting
> involved in a shooting war. The UN has no organised armed forces
> and no command structure, and its members are not going to create
> them. Experience with military operations under nominal UN
> command strongly indicates that one should not repeat the experience.

In other words, the *worst* thing that the US could have done was invite
the UN to help liberate Iraq.

Thanks.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> Really, what good does the UN do, except to serve as a sounding board
> for anti-Semites?

It also serves as a neon sign to show where they are.

The really funny part is that they don't seem to *realize* it, and are
always shocked when someone mentions it.

The recent "Israel shouldn't have blown up that harmless old genocidal
maniac" resolution is just the most recent, not the worst.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kerryn Offord]

Cub Driver wrote:
>>>Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
>>>things you suggest above for *any* country.
>>
>>East Timor
>
>
> Wow. Hundreds of million (billions?) of dollars, hundreds of thousands
> of personnel (millions?), and this is the sole successful military
> intervention of the United Nations absent the U.S.? That's about the
> most damning comment I've ever read on the UN.

The request was "Name one".. that's what I did... East Timor just
happens to be 'local'..

There are others.. Mainly in Africa.. e.g., when the UN et al finally
started to do something about Rwanda ....

[Kerryn Offord]

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
>
>>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
>>>>the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
>>>>arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc.
>>>
>>>Here's a quick test:
>>>
>>>Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
>>>things you suggest above for *any* country.
>>
>>East Timor
>
>
> They managed to have some elections, but the economy there is still in
> shambles, and is basically still run by UN bureaucrats (and will be for
> the forseeable future).
>
> After three years of UN control plus two years of independence, East
> Timor's infrastructure is still in worse shape than Iraq's...

Well.. East Timor doesn't have billions of dollars worth of oil... that
always makes a difference. Plus the infrastructure was pretty well
completely destroyed by the Indonesians (what there was to start with)
in the 'war'.

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

>>But I am happy to point out that it is becoming an US tradition
>>to hand off the hot potato to either the UN or NATO when the
>>shooting ends. Kosovo and Afghanistan and recent examples,
>
> Actually, Kosovo was a European operation that was handed off like a
> hot potato to NATO, meaning the U.S., because Europe -- Europe! -- all
> of Europe! -- didn't have the firepower to defeat a portion of the
> former Yugoslavia.

Absolutely the case. How it can be interpreted Emmanuel's way
is really beyond me.

Yugoslavia was *Europe's* interest, not the US, except in the
most broadly general way. I can hear the howls and wails of
protest coming from Europe had the US demanded exclusive control
of Balkan peacekeeping after the air operations against Serbia.

Europe should consider itself fortunate that US forces are in Bosnia
or Kosovo at all...*still*...and for whom knows how much longer.
Europe got freebie US involvement by means of NATO.

> And nobody has handed off Afghanistan to the UN. It was a NATO
> operation from early on.
>
> And as perhaps you have noticed, the U.S. has not followed this
> non-existent tradition in Iraq, to everyone's annoyance, with the
> possible exception of Kofi Anna, whose people cut and ran from Baghdad
> the first time a bomb went off in their vicinity.
>
> Indeed, the UN was created in large part (and financed in large part)
> by the United States, which believed it would be a force for good in
> the world. But I cannot think of a military operation that the UN has
> successfully carried out since Korea, 1950-1953, and that was
> successful only because the Soviet Union had pulled a walkout of the
> Security Council.
>
> Really, what good does the UN do, except to serve as a sounding board
> for anti-Semites?

Although pretty much isolationist, I would maintain US presence in
the UN. While not much of a politically molding force, it has "a sort
of" credibility as a neutral that no other nation or institution has.
Even with some damage to this view coming from allegations of oil-for-food
corruption, it's still better than most any other organization out there.

The UN seems to have a fair record in humanitarian actions as long as it
doesn't stray into the politics of "nation building".


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Kerryn Offord wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> After three years of UN control plus two years of independence, East
>> Timor's infrastructure is still in worse shape than Iraq's...
>
>
> Well.. East Timor doesn't have billions of dollars worth of oil... that
> always makes a difference. Plus the infrastructure was pretty well
> completely destroyed by the Indonesians (what there was to start with)
> in the 'war'.

Well it seems Iraq isn't really that different.

Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
of course.

And Iraq's infrastructure was in none too good shape either, due to
decades of mismanagement, and finally the sanctions.


SMH

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
...
>

> Well.. East Timor doesn't have billions of dollars worth of oil... that
> always makes a difference.

Well actually it does.

The Bayu-Undan field alone contains proven reserves of 102 billion cubic
meters
(3.6 trillion cubic feet) of gas and associated hydrocarbon liquids,
the equivalent of about a billion barrels of oil.

Production and sale of the liquids is due to start in late 2003 or early
2004.
In phase two of the project, the group plans to pipe the gas onshore for
sale in Australia and export it to Asian markets in the form of LNG,
liquefied natural gas.

The East Timor zone is divided into three areas.

Area C, at the northern end, was administered
by Indonesia but is now being taken over by the UN on behalf of East Timor.

Area B, at the southern end, will remain under Australian control under the
terms on an agreement signed with Indonesia.

Area A, in the middle of the zone and accounting for about half its area,
was
administered by a joint Australian-Indonesian authority, which is now
becoming
a joint Australian-UN authority, with the UN acting for East Timor.

Taxes are split 50-50, after producing firms have recovered their costs.
The Bayu-Undan field is in Area A.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
>a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
>of course.

Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
against its then-OPEC quota.

This is good news. Good news about Iraq doesn't get much play in the
media in the U.S., and I suspect this is even more true in Europe.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:29:52 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message

>Allow me to point out that
>Washington hasn't shown much enthusiasm for such a venture,
>to put it mildly.

Considering that 'europe' basically asked the US to pay for it, what did
you expect ?


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
> >a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
> >of course.
>
> Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
> BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
> production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
> against its then-OPEC quota.
>

In the southern sector the fields around Basra are now at
127% of pre-war output and exports will rise now
the Khor al-Amaya terminal has been re-opened for the first
time since 1991

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Kerryn Offord > wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
> >>>Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
> >>>things you suggest above for *any* country.
> >>
> >>East Timor
> >
> > Wow. Hundreds of million (billions?) of dollars, hundreds of thousands
> > of personnel (millions?), and this is the sole successful military
> > intervention of the United Nations absent the U.S.? That's about the
> > most damning comment I've ever read on the UN.
>
> The request was "Name one".. that's what I did...

But the thing is that you named "one-half." Their reconstruction
efforts are in the "drop in a bucket" range, and are *not* sufficient.
If the US/Iraq situation were judged on the same scale, we'd have been
finished in about July 2003.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> >Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
> >a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
> >of course.
>
> Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
> BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
> production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
> against its then-OPEC quota.

You misspelled "million."

If they were producing over a billion barrels a day, they'd empty out
all known reserves by July.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Boyle]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Well, I'm glad you've taken the UN off the table.
>
>
> "Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
> the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
> arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc. But Iraq is still
> at war and the UN is not a fighting organisation. It is far too
> early for them to take a significant role.
>
>
>>But what different course are you positing? Should Bush
>>have assembled a ghost government to impose upon Iraq?
>
>
> He should have promoted self-assembly of a credible body
> to represent Iraqi interests. A half-hearted attempt in that
> direction was actually made, but it lacked a serious effort
> to reconcile the large internal differences, and included
> dubious creatures such as Chalabi.
>
> He should also have formulated a policy towards the future
> of Iraq that was more thought out than the "those that survived
> the bombing lived long and happily ever after" line the
> administration put out. Political reasons aside, such a policy
> would have had military value; it might have been possible
> to get Turkey on board.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS GARBAGE TO DO WITH
REC.MILITARY. AVIATION

[Tex Houston]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "John Boyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS
> > GARBAGE TO DO WITH REC.MILITARY. AVIATION
>
> I admit that there is plenty of 'garbage' of off-topic messages
> in the group, but I for one would never want to ban all off-topic
> discussions. And I would certainly argue against banning all
> political debate --- If you presume military issues to be entirely
> separated from political issues, you are a few millenia too late.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin


An all off topic ban would be an ideal goal. Unfortunately it won't happen.
Damn!

What we should talk about is military aviation...no airline stuff, no tanks,
no submarines, no artillery, no politics, no civilian arms, no cross posting
to unrelated groups.

My 'Block Sender' file grows larger daily.

Tex

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Abject surrender
>From: "Tex Houston"
>Date: 4/27/04 8:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>> "John Boyle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS
>> > GARBAGE TO DO WITH REC.MILITARY. AVIATION
>>
>> I admit that there is plenty of 'garbage' of off-topic messages
>> in the group, but I for one would never want to ban all off-topic
>> discussions. And I would certainly argue against banning all
>> political debate --- If you presume military issues to be entirely
>> separated from political issues, you are a few millenia too late.
>>
>> --
>> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
>An all off topic ban would be an ideal goal. Unfortunately it won't happen.
>Damn!
>
>What we should talk about is military aviation...no airline stuff, no tanks,
>no submarines, no artillery, no politics, no civilian arms, no cross posting
>to unrelated groups.
>
>My 'Block Sender' file grows larger daily.
>
>Tex
>
>

I find that being here a lot less helps. I used to be here almost every day now
I am down to less than once a week, if that. It is a lot better that way.
(sigh)





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cub Driver]

Nor can I think of a more important topic in the world today!

(And it involves plenty of military aircraft :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>
>
>I find that being here a lot less helps. I used to be here almost every day now
>I am down to less than once a week, if that. It is a lot better that way.
>(sigh)
>
>Arthur Kramer

So that's what's going on!...I agree with you!...

(...you DID leave yourself wide open after all!)

:)
--

-Gord.