Abject surrender

"The CO" wrote in message
...

"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.

I am not sure I'd use a SAM as my example. It seems to me you have to look
at the overall situation. For example, the Egyptians made good use of SAM's
to support their early offensive across the Suez in 1973--while the weapon
is, in a finite analysis, a "defensive" weapon, it can be and is used in
offensive operations. Similar to the forward bounding Patriot battalions
used to support offensive ground operations.

Brooks


The CO

On 21 Mar 2004 09:04:54 -0800, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
over the American interests in the region.

But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
upon in Iraq.

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

Cub Driver wrote:

On 21 Mar 2004 09:04:54 -0800, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
over the American interests in the region.

But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
upon in Iraq.

I don't see why creation of an Iraqi police force, army,
border patrol is not Iraqi interest.

Creation of an Iraqi constitution? Creation of an initial
governing council? Return of sovereignty in July? All sorts
of development and reconstruction aid? Increased security?

Just what represents "American interest" versus that of Iraq
in all of this?

I believe we're hearing anti-American argument rather than
what is best for Iraq.


SMH

Damian Kneale wrote:

I'm in the camp that says very few weapons can ever be called
defensive. Most commonly its more a case of defensive use of an
offensive weapon. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter when it comes to things
like the current crop of missile defence weapons though.

My best rule of thumb is if you aren't willing to use it on, in or
over your own people and territory then its not defensive. Feel free
to argue in the context of forward defence if you wish. :-)

How about mines?


SMH

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
over the American interests in the region.

But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
upon in Iraq.

The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
situation in Iraq. This fundamentally undermines the credibility
of the institutions the occupation authority, perhaps with the
very best of intentions, is trying to create. The members of the
Iraqi leadership council may be good patriots committed to carving
out a better future for their country; but they carry with them
the stigma of being more or less apppointed by Bremer. The Iraqi
soldiers and policemen may perhaps do their duty to the best of
their ability; but being in US pay makes them targets. The
reconstruction of Iraq is a noble effort; but it is being run too
much by US companies.

This is sheer nonsense!

You can't possibly believe that the UN is going to bring
something to Iraq that the US has left elsewhere.

The UN has already been successfully bombed out of Iraq
by the very persons (or at least some of them) that UN
"credibility" is supposed to now reign in??!!!

The insurgency is simply going to put down their AKs and
RPGs and take up camel driving again once the "illegitimate"
US occupier is gone?

Get real! They'll start blowing up "blue helmet occupiers"
and the Iraqis working with them in place of Americans and
their Iraqi employees.

You can't build a nation from the outside. Americans would be
equally disinclined to welcome institutions imposed on them by
a foreign power, however benevolent.

And yet you seem to believe the UN can, because of its
"legitimacy"? Legitimacy in whose eyes? The man on the
street?

He doesn't count! He's not the one blowing up hotels and
power stations or assassinating translators.

"Benevolence" isn't going to win this conflict. Steady
patience is, and most especially *jobs*!!! The insurgency
will slowly start to fizzle once the common man sees his
standard of living improve and the country begin to
prosper. This is actually already beginning to happen, but
has a long way to go.

The screwup for the US started the moment looters were
allowed to carry off the country. There should have been
a Marshall Plan immediately ready to go. Baathists should
not have been roundly expelled from their jobs, nor the
Army retired.

Lots of mistakes, but it is the European error to view the
war from the beginning as unwinable simply because it is
"illegitimate" in your eyes. Insurgents blowing up people
(mostly other Iraqis you might note) could care less. The
only legitimate government is a Sunni Baathist one!


SMH

This is, in fact, the very error Bush is repeating today. He is
creating today a situation in which the full military might of
the USA is merely sufficient to keep a few thousand terrorists
at bay.

An interesting point, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Iraq
hardly represents the "full military might" of the U.S. We took nearly
as many casualties in the Battle of the Bulge as there are troops
stationed in Iraq, and the Air Force and Navy are hardly engaged. And
the troops are doing many more jobs than keeping terrorists at bay.
They are, in effect, re-creating the country.

And wasn't it you, Emmanuel, who said there was no way back? In
Vietnam and Korea, at least, there was the option of reuniting the
country under the communist north. What is the option in Iraq? Should
we dust off Saddam, apologize, and give him the country back?


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

The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
situation in Iraq.

Well, it's our blood and our money, with some help from the Brits. As
for the UN, if it hadn't cut & run when one bomb exploded outside its
headquarters, it might well be playing a major role in Iraq today.
Really, it's pretty hard to take Koffi Annan seriously. I'd much
rather put my faith in the Iraqi police force, and whatever leaders
the process throws up.

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

On 22 Mar 2004 20:56:41 -0800, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

What Iraq needs is Iraqi leadership. Unfortunately Bush failed
to assemble a credible opposition leadership before he rushed
to war.

Well, I'm glad you've taken the UN off the table. But what different
course are you positing? Should Bush have assembled a ghost government
to impose upon Iraq? That's precisely what you've been arguing
*against*--a solution imposed from outside.

We didn't do that when we liberated Belgium. Nor when we occupied
Germany and Japan in 1945.

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

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

You can't possibly believe that the UN is going to bring
something to Iraq that the US has left elsewhere.

Who said 'UN'?

Not me.

A Euro who isn't claiming UN control will make all well?
Color me astonished!

What Iraq needs is Iraqi leadership. Unfortunately Bush failed
to assemble a credible opposition leadership before he rushed
to war.

An even more nebulous task than what the UN might do.

And where would these great unifying Iraqi leaders come from?

Surely not *in* Iraq, since we know where those types ended up
under Saddam.

*Outside* the country? Like the ones currently there, that
are largely unpopular for having left the country?

Where was this pool of great Iraqi leaders, that were available
for development by the US before the war, and where might they
be now?

Shortcomings of some are well known, now, and some were
questionable before the war, but the obviously great ones still
seem an elusive commodity.


SMH

On 22 Mar 2004 13:28:35 -0800, (Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

There is no way back -- the rebuild of Iraq has to succeed,
in one way or another. That is unlikely to happen, alas, if
the interests of the Iraqi people are not given priority
over the American interests in the region.

But surely, Emmanuel, this is precisely the course Bush is embarked
upon in Iraq.

The problem is that the US insists on effective control of the
situation in Iraq. This fundamentally undermines the credibility
of the institutions the occupation authority, perhaps with the
very best of intentions, is trying to create. The members of the
Iraqi leadership council may be good patriots committed to carving
out a better future for their country; but they carry with them
the stigma of being more or less apppointed by Bremer. The Iraqi
soldiers and policemen may perhaps do their duty to the best of
their ability; but being in US pay makes them targets. The
reconstruction of Iraq is a noble effort; but it is being run too
much by US companies.

You can't build a nation from the outside. Americans would be
equally disinclined to welcome institutions imposed on them by
a foreign power, however benevolent.

Emmanuel

So what would you propose? Turn it over to the incompetent and
discredited "UN"?? The UN was the cause of much of the
current misery in Iraq.

Al Minyard