Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?

Cheers

Bull$hit myth.

In the version published by The New York Times on
September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to
Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America".

Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what
was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a
(failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising
tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General
Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting
thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say
that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into
line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth.

My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern,
secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non-
sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of
economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health
and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long
as it was not directed against the regime.

Cheers

On Feb 29, 4:54*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:


I could be wrong, but this seems plausible to me. Why do something that
nails a few thousand people and really ****es off the rest of the people
, when you can sit back and let the idiot politicians divide and destroy
the country for you?


Too right! The only "terror" I see is being generated by the
governrnent against it's own citizens. Daily terror alert level?
Homeland security? When the UK was under terrorist attacks by the IRA,
it was business as usual but with increased vigilance. One should not
do what the terrorist wants -which is to disrupt your economy and
cause fear and disquiet.

Cheers

On Feb 28, 1:16*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
As unprepared as American was at that time, if the U.S. had been part
of Europe, Germany could have rolled over us as well. *Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

I don't think anyone makes fun of the French for surrendering to Hitler's
blitzkrieg. *The Wehrmacht rolled over everything in its path, until Hitler
decided that they should winter in the Soviet Union. * Bad move for them,
good for us.

No, what makes the French the butt of so many jokes was their collaboration
with the Nazis after the surrender. * The Vichy government was an
abomination.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yeah, the collaboration is part of it. But I think the French had an
extra-embarrassing surrender because they had invested so much in
their "impregnable" Maginot line. When the Germans simply went around
it, it really made the French look like fools.

Phil

On Feb 29, 6:48*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
*We're dealing with
people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people

Jay, your thinking illustrates why such problems exist. You need to
try to understand that these are passionate believers in their cause.
No more or less. The suicide bombers are not mentally handicapped and
their goal is to enact retribution against their enemy. Wouldn't the
US call them freedom fighters if they were were working for your
interests? Did you know that your #1 enemy was a US sponsored "freedom
fighter" before he was cut off and left out to dry? That might have
made him realize something don't you think?

Cheers

On Feb 28, 1:18*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz

Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their
combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive-
bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat.
Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the
FW-190.

Phil

Jay, your thinking illustrates why such problems exist. You need to
try to understand that these are passionate believers in their cause.
No more or less. The suicide bombers are not mentally handicapped and
their goal is to enact retribution against their enemy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/

If strapping explosives to kids with Down's Syndrome isn't sick, I don't
know what is.

Wing, you really need to keep up here. Your defense of the insurgency is
way out of step with the current reality on the ground in Iraq. Two years
ago, you may have been correct. Now, however, more and more the people of
Iraq have turned against the operatives that have so desecrated and
decimated their country -- and Al Qaeda has responded with increasingly
desperate (and immoral) behavior.

Which has only helped our cause. When the insurgency started violating
Islamic law, they lost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Phil J" wrote in message
...

Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their
combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive-
bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat.
Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the
FW-190.


The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the
scene.

Jay Honeck wrote:

It's a plausible explanation, except for one thing: We're dealing with
people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people and blow up
school buses. These aren't the sharpest sticks in the bunch, and I
think you're giving them more credit for strategic thinking than they
deserve.

Well....don't forget that the strategic thinking doesn't happen at the
suicide bomber level. That's a bit above their pay grade I would imagine.
The bombers are simply the "tools" of the movement. The "thinking" comes
much higher up, and these people are the chess players.

I have always believed that 9-11 was devised by the chess players to
create the exact result it has achieved. I've never for a moment
believed that those buildings were brought down to destroy the buildings
or kill the people. That to me was simply the "tool" designed to open
the door that the "thinkers" believed would split the United States wide
open politically which it and the events post 9-11 certainly has done.

Now that the country has been split like it has, the scenario for the
"thinkers" has changed. Another attack would undue what they have
achieved and re-unite the country against them.
In other words, using the immortal phrases of one Kenny Rogers,
"You got to know when to hold up!!"

To me, the terrorist strategy is glaringly apparent. You first split the
country, then you let it destroy itself from within. You sit back and
watch. It's the old divide and conquer all over again, only this time it
smells of camel crap :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

"Tina" wrote in message
...


The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful
Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also

have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only
threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to
deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new
Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

The old sailors in my workgroup here are roaring. What I'd really like to
hear is, what do the other countries joke about Americans.

Anybody know any "How many Americans does it take to screw in a light bulb"
jokes? Let 'em fly.

-c
(Oregon)

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?
Cheers
Bull$hit myth.

In the version published by The New York Times on
September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to
Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America".

Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what
was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a
(failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising
tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General
Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting
thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say
that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into
line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth.

Of course Schwartzkopf was war gaming US v Iraq. He was also war gaming
US v Iran, US & Israel v just about anyone with a towel on their head.
What do you expect the commander of CentCom to do when there isn't a war
on?



My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern,
secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non-
sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of
economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health
and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long
as it was not directed against the regime.


I think that last sentence says a bunch.