GAO Report: GA Security Threat

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
Can you give me a citation or two?

I have run across references to gurrilla activity by both Germans and
Japanese in my reading. These incidents were not battles, per se. They were
in the form of sniping, demolition, and as you say, hiding and refusing to
recognize the end of the war. IIRC, the last Japanese to "surrender" was in
the 60's sometime.

Germany, of course, had their grand plan for the establishment of the Alpine
Redoubt, where picked troops would hole up awaiting the chance to rebuild
the Reich - but it never happened. The threat of such an installation did
substantially affect Allied tactics in the drive for the Rhine, drawing off
men and materials from the Third Army.

I'll ax my certifiable neighbor to see if he can give me a reference or two.
His living room is chock-a-block full of WWII books and tapes. I think he
has a gold plaque from the Hitler. . . er. . . History Channel for buying
more sets of tapes than the Library of Congress.

I don't suppose a pitched battle between Skinheads and Munich police would
qualify? p

Rich S.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mark,

We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies.

I don't think that comparison is valid in any way. There are no
parallels to the situation.

Yep, a much higher percentage of the population hated us after the war
in Japan and Germany. Turned out pretty much OK though, huh?

.... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
Saddam in power???

I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation on
earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
civilized nations.

You didn't answer the question (but I know you can't because then
you'd have to admit that the outcome was worth the price).

The RULES that weren't adhered to were those that are supposed to
govern the UN. If the financial interests of France and Germany are
more important than enforcing UN resolutions, then the UN is no longer
the organization that it was chartered to be. International law
allows for nations to defend themselves, and if an agressive dictator
with admitted stockpiles of WMD, who is known to directly fund
terrorists against democratic countries, and with no love at all for
the US is NOTa threat, who is or will ever be until after the shooting
starts?

I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
to believe. There are no WMD, period.

Heh heh heh... I get a kick out of people who trust Saddam more than
GWB.

I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
possible alternatives.

The teorrists stop when one of two things happens - they run out of
infidels to kill, or their support dries up. Now I dunno about you,
but I like the sound of the second option a lot better.

Mark Hickey

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:55:58 +0000, Ian Graeme wrote:

And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order troops not
to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the military
well.

This would be a lot easier to believe with a few details that could
be checked against other sources.

Which bases do you have in mind and how many have been killed off base in
the last year just because they were servicemen?

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Rich,

We won in Iraq,

Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Errr, yeah... have you? We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies. I
think it's safe to say we "won" there, too (though not nearly as
easily and with many, many more lives lost).


Poor analogy. A better analogy would be the Phillipines, or South
Florida.

--

FF

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
| John,
|
| Have you been following the news lately, at all?
|
| Are you trying to make a point?
|
|
| Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
| the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
| last checked.
|

Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
|
| I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
| isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
| watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
| to believe. There are no WMD, period.
|

Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They have
told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the WMDs
were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not mean
that the US is 'losing' the war.

You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We will
be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:05:04 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
... | John,
|
| Have you been following the news lately, at all? |
| Are you trying to make a point?
|
|
| Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the | definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last | checked.
|
|
Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'

It looks to me like no one is winning this war.

Saddam certainly lost. His supporters and military lost. The people in
Iraq who opposed the regime will quite likely be crushed again once the US
leaves and the Bathists have even more free rein than they have now. So
they too will probably eventually lose.

The concept of a UN able to solve major international crisis certainly
lost.

If there were WMD, they seem to have gone underground, quite possibly into
the hands of al Qaeda, which would make the US less safe than before the
invasion.

If there were no WMD (which is what most of the world outside the US now
believes), then the US has lost a huge amount of credibility, and even
fewer countries will be willing to come running next time the US cries
"Wolf".

The US taxpayer has certainly lost. There is little hope of other
countries picking up the bill for what they consider a war that was
started under false pretenses.

The only people who are wining are those who delight in having even more
people mad enough at the US that they can convert them into terrorists.
This war surely created many thousands more prospective terrorists. This
is the greatest recruiting campaign al Qaeda ever dreamed of, all funded
by the US taxpayer.

The US military certainly won the "offical" war, but the peace seems to be
slipping through their fingers. The whole point of the exercise was to
make the US safer, and that does not seem likely now.



--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the
WMDs
were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not
mean
that the US is 'losing' the war.

You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We
will
be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

C. J. ..........

Will you shoot me an email at capn27 *at* yahoo *dot* com *dot* sg, please?
I have tried to email you but can't seem to get through.

Rich S.

What war? Did we declare war?

--
Dan D.



..
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
Rich,

We won in Iraq,


Have you been following the news lately, at all?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I just don't go anymore. I cannot believe that we americans allow our government to treat us this way...

--
Dan D.



..
"Rich S." wrote in message ...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This stuff has to be getting Brock Meeks' goat. Here is a guy who thinks
privately that the security screening the airlines do has no value
whatsoever, being forced to write a piece like this. Note that he devotes
far more space to the general aviation view -- making the premise of the
piece sound idiotic even as he complies with editorial guidelines.

Here's another idiotic exercise in futility to shake your head about.

Last Saturday I went to the air show at Nellis Air Force Base. To get in,
one had to drive to the Las Vegas NASCAR speedway and park. Then get in a
line ~1/4 mile long and shuffle through a gate with metal detectors. They
confiscated all those little Swiss Army knives from key rings. I think the
only reason we didn't have to remove our shoes was that we were walking on
sharp gravel. It took over an hour to get through the screening and board a
bus for the base.

Once at the base, we were greeted by camo-clad 19 year-olds manning a Humvee
and armed with a .50 caliber machine gun. I am sorry they were so frightened
of us. When we got home, I was telling a friend (a retired USAF Chief Master
Sergeant) about our experience. He agreed with the security precautions,
saying that he understand the motives behind them. He felt that, should an
"incident" occur, the public would place the blame directly on the base
commander and that he was within his bounds in his actions. I asked him what
type of incident he was referring to. He replied that, "A terrorist could
get loose on the base". Of course, they had the spectator area fenced and
patrolled, but he didn't know that.

It is a sorry state of affairs when the leaders of our military forces allow
their actions to be dictated by CNN. I am ashamed of how they are shaking in
their boots for fear that Wolf Blitzer might criticize their security. I
want to puke in disgust at this crap. We won in Iraq, but lost our balls
here.

Rich S.