"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2003 15:42:36 -0800, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a
war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

One word: Surrender

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand
Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of
AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

Or just avoid the whole invasion to begin with. Right up until the
final ultimatum, Saddam probably could have avoided an invasion with
unconditional surrender of all bases, etc, to U.S. inspection.
Would we have let him stay in power? Would he have survived the
loss of prestige? I don't know, but his chances were sure as hell
higher than getting into a shooting match with the United States.

He was left in power ten years ago. I think that GWB has learned from
his father's mistake, however.

In other cases, a non-despotic leader will probably be able to retain
power.



Ray Drouillard