French block airlift of British troops to Basra

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in message . net...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
m...
French block airlift of British troops to Basra 16.09.2003 [06:41]


Sooner or later there will need to be some serious payback for France and
Germany.


Not while US forces in Iraq are still dying and the new election year
is looming ahead. President Bush has recently praised German forces
for their participation in Afghanistan and their evolving role in the
region.
Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
should the US properly cede military and political control of that
nation over to the UN.

Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams, Robert.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to the massive record of
past UN successes in this regard--like the Middle East, or Somalia?


The US could still have the biggest piece of
the peace dividend/restoration contracts... but Berlin wants a share
plus the reestablishment of its business contracts and monies owed.
Sounds fair enough to me. But then again, we live in the US and
consume an awful lot of gas. Iraq currently holds the second largest
oil reserves and when its industry and resources are properly
developed will surpass Saudi Arabia. For the US to relinquish control
of such a strategic asset now in the midst of unprecedented
international terrorism and national vunerability makes that proposal
unlikely.
Despite the rising death toll we will still probably arrogantly refuse
to budge until Bush's numbers start to seriously fall or another

Did you catch yesterday's poll results? Bush beats *every* Democratic
challenger by a wide margin? Where is this massive drop in Bush's
numbers you keep mumbling about?

conflict breaks out that requires calling up all the reserves.

LOL! We now have over 172K reservists on active duty; how much more
are required in order to meet this doomsday scenario you forecast?

US troops are already grumbling and we still have no exit strategy.

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.

This can't go on forever with Bush merely asking Congress for
ever-increasing funds for a failed mission.

Failed mission? My, you continue to demonstrate a tremendous
capability for fantasy. Is Saddam in control? No. Is the interim Iraqi
leadership accepting more responsibility for their own governance?
Yes. Are *all* of the schools, universities, and hospitals open again?
Yes. Are Iraqis being herded into the desert and gunned down by their
mass graves as they were throughout Saddam's reign? No. And you call
that *failure*?! God only knows what you require of our military to
acheive *success* if that is the case.

We can't go it alone no
matter how powerful we are and we look foolish on the international
scene with the conspicuous absence of any WMD proof or link of Saddam
to 9/11.

We are not alone. That you are terribly myopic to the point of
considering any venture that does not include French and German
participation as "solitary" does not change the fact that British,
Dutch, Polish, Spanish, Australian, Italian, Lithuanian, Latvian,
Estonian, Honduran, Czech, etc., ad nauseum, forces are now serving or
have served in Iraq.

Simply waving a flag and invoking 9/11 memories won't last
forever. The US is still vunerable, our missions in Afghanistan and
Iraq are failures (no Osama, no Saddam, no WMDs, no restoration),

So you say; but then again, you have not exactly told us how to define
"success", have you? FYI, military operations are usually not the best
manner to capture a single individual; merely dislocating him from
power is a rather good first step.

Brooks


snip further rant

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...


US troops are already grumbling and we still have no exit strategy.

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.

Hardly.

The old maxim that probably goes back beyond the Romans is "you start to
worry when the troops stop bitching".

Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
should the US properly cede military and political control of that
nation over to the UN.

Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams,

Actually, Schroeder's latest offer is for troops but no money!

To be sure, the troops would be used for training Iraqi police and
military, not for active use.

What's the German army like these days? Is it anything like Holland's,
over-weight, over-aged, and the troops in hair nets?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Berlin for its part would be willing to send German troops to Iraq
should the US properly cede military and political control of that
nation over to the UN.

Not gonna happen, not even in your wildest Wagnerian dreams,

Actually, Schroeder's latest offer is for troops but no money!

Schroder's current offer is to kiss GW's ass and beg forgivnance.

To be sure, the troops would be used for training Iraqi police and
military, not for active use.

Works for me.

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in
m:

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.


Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in
m:

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.


Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Brooks

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
appropriate.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
appropriate.

"Are trained"? No, Fred, this tendancy was established long before the
more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
displayed it to their British superiors.

Brooks

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
: (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
:
: :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
: :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
: :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
: fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
: :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
: :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
:
: US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
: doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
: orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
: appropriate.
:
:"Are trained"? No, Fred,

"Are trained". Yes, Brooks,

:this tendancy was established long before the
:more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
:is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
:least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
f depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
:streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
:below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
:reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
:displayed it to their British superiors.

Well, things have changed here in the last century (and not
necessarily always for the better). A lot of effort has been spent
teaching people NOT to think over the last half-century or so, more's
the pity....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
: (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
:
: :That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
: :that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
: :"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
: fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
: :told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
: :three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...
:
: US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
: doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
: orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
: appropriate.
:
:"Are trained"? No, Fred,

"Are trained". Yes, Brooks,

Duh. Context is really beyond you, isn't it Fred?


:this tendancy was established long before the
:more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
:is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
:least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
f depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
:streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
:below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
:reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
:displayed it to their British superiors.

Well, things have changed here in the last century (and not
necessarily always for the better). A lot of effort has been spent
teaching people NOT to think over the last half-century or so, more's
the pity....

Finished your sermon yet? Now what does the manner in which we train
troops today have to do with a discussion of a historical factor like
the fact that US troops have demonstrated a tendency to want to know
the "why" (and not for the reasons that they do today)?

Brooks