Abject surrender

It was written,,,


The question was did he get rid of them?


Has anyone checked frenchies back yard ????

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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

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 the 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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
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/milita..._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 the 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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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.

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.

"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

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.