Abject surrender

"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.

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.

"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?

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

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

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...

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

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 ?

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

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

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.

"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