A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Abject surrender



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th 04, 05:52 AM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 16th 04, 07:29 AM
The CO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 16th 04, 09:05 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 16th 04, 09:35 AM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Given that one of hte claims of the U.S. was that "you'll see when
we invade and get all those WMD's", it's unsurprising that the
popularity of the invasion declined even further when the WMD never
appeared.
Al Qaeda may have successfully exploited an issue, but poor ally
managemant put it there in the first place. A wiser-- a MUCH wiser
course woudl have been to thank Spain for their assistance, but not
put the government in the position of going into Iraq-- instead, they
could have aided us even more in Afghanistan, freeing troops for Iraqi
operations and incidentally, helping Spain's (then) government.
  #6  
Old March 17th 04, 07:06 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old March 17th 04, 10:28 PM
Simon Robbins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 18th 04, 12:56 AM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 04, 11:39 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 04, 11:47 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.