If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Jarg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Abject surrender
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message news:WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02...
Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq. Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand? I'm as disturbed as anyone that Al Quaeda has apparently influenced the outcome of a democratic election; in other words, engaged in its own 'regime change' with a lot less effort than it took in Iraq. On the other hand we need to remember that the vast majority of the Spanish people were always strongly against Spanish involvement in Iraq, and it had always been the opposition party's (now the government's) declared intention to pull out. Aznar lost the election partly because the bombs reminded the voters just how much they disliked his policy on Iraq, but also very much because his government tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this caused great outrage. It is facile to assume that the Spanish cower before terrorism. If the bombers had been ETA, the result would have been strong support for the existing government in its fight against terrorism. It's just that Iraq has always been an unpopular cause there. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Gray" wrote in message ... On 16 Mar 2004 00:05:01 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote: "Tony" wrote in message news:WOt5c.5074$%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? 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. And it is very important to note that thier support for the invasion of Afghanistan never flagged-- FOXNEWs aside, it is possible to be allies and yet disagree on the course of action one needs to take-- and most of Europe felt that Iraq didn't need to be invaded. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins? Or could unleash battlefield WMDs within 45 mins? By all appearances, this was a reasonable statement, and one that Saddam would have agreed with. But I don't really understand why an intelligent gent like Blair would have advanced a causus belli that involved the enemy's ability to retaliate against an invasion. Surely the logical answer to that would have been: so don't invade! There's no imminent threat in an enemy's ability to respond on the battlefield. I doubt Blair argued that, and I know Powell didn't. On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:13:35 -0000, "Simon Robbins" wrote: "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 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
... Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins? No, the inference I drew was that he could attack his neighbours within 45 minutes. There's no imminent threat in an enemy's ability to respond on the battlefield. I doubt Blair argued that, and I know Powell didn't. Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no? Unless of course the imminent threat was him providing those materials to terrorist organisations for use in the region or further afield. Whether there are other countries out there more likely to have done so is another matter. Seems to me like Iraq was simply the easiest target to justify based on past-record when quite possibly it wasn't believed to be the most serious threat. Si |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins? Or could unleash battlefield WMDs within 45 mins? By all appearances, this was a reasonable statement, and one that Saddam would have agreed with. Yes, it seems that Saddam himself believed he could unleash WMDs with a 45 min notice of his forces! The fact that his scientists were apparently boldfaced lying to him to keep their heads attached, and a general belief among the weapons R&D community that "the other" WMD program was actually making progress even though "mine" wasn't, doesn't really let him off the hook as an eventual danger to the US IMO. SMH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:28:04 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
wrote: Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins? No, the inference I drew was that he could attack his neighbours within 45 minutes. Ah well, given what we knew then, and what we have been able to deduce since, that seems a reasonable statement. (A wrong statement, in all likelihood, but being wrong isn't the same as being unreasonable.) 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. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:28:04 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
wrote: Seems to me like Iraq was simply the easiest target to justify based on past-record when quite possibly it wasn't believed to be the most serious threat. Yes, I can go along with that. That's why I personally was against the war--well, no, that's not entirely true. I was against the war because terrible things can happen (viz Korea with the Chinese coming in, and Vietnam with our utter inability to resolve it in an acceptable fashion). No doubt Bush (and Blair) underestimated the end game--that it would be so expensive and so complicated. But the war was a walkover, and it has had a salutary effect on Libya at least. We were incredibly lucky in Iraq. We may even have been lucky that it played out so poorly, since that will discourage Bush from trying it again. But North Korea and Iran can't know that for certain. Personally, I think the world is a safer place now that it was on September 10, 2001. Fewer Iraqis are losing their lives, and the survivors are infinitely better off. Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it was--with all due respect to the Spanish tragedy, or the Bali one, 200 deaths is on the scale of what the IRA, the ETA, and the Palestianian groups have been capable of for generations. They are a far cry from September 11 or even the Cole. Just my two cents. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vic Tatelman's Pictures of "Dirty Dora", "Dirty Dora II" and the Surrender Mission | Adam Lewis | Military Aviation | 0 | February 3rd 04 03:39 PM |