Warning To Syria
D. Spencer Hines
From Tim Reid in Washington
Bush accuses Damascus of developing chemical weapons
PRESIDENT BUSH yesterday accused Syria of having chemical weapons. In the
clearest sign yet that Washington is turning its sights on Damascus' links to
terrorism, two of his most senior Cabinet members also warned the country
against harbouring Iraqi officials.
Mr Bush told Syria that it "must co-operate" with Washington as it continues
its effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
He also repeated earlier warnings from Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence
Secretary, and Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, that Damascus must not
harbour fleeing members of Saddam's regime."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-645911,00.html
"[Secretary of Defense Donald -- DSH]Rumsfeld was asked if Syria was going to
pay a price for supporting Saddam.
"I'm sure they already are if you think about it," he said. "I mean who in
the world would want to invest in Syria? Who would want to go in tourism in
Syria? They're associating with the wrong people and the effect of that hurts
the Syrian people.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19197-2003Apr13.html
Excellent!
You've Been Warned, Syria....
Straighten Up And Fly Right....
Or Bear The Consequences Of Non-Cooperation....
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
a.spencer3
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:BMqma.478$lh3....@eagle.america.net...
your occasional genuine opinion, are telling us that we don't even have the
troops to sort Iraq yet ..........
Surreyman
Drew Nicholson
news:27uma.58$Ax5....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> But USAites far more knowledgable than you, although largely agreeing with
> your occasional genuine opinion, are telling us that we don't even have
the
> troops to sort Iraq yet ..........
>
Why should the US bother to do that? Victory is fleeting, reconstruction is
boring. On to the next incompletely pacified conquest!
Rumsfeld reminds me of a Hines with drive and a malfunctioning
transmission -- lots of power and noise, but stuck in one gear. Invading
Syria would be quite possibly the stupidest and most dangerous idea this
administration has come up with, except for the fact that it's one among so
many.
D. Spencer Hines
Syria ---- nor have I.
Hard-Left loons in America and Europe are the ones charging that in these
newsgroups.
Hilarious!
Stulti Disarmati....
All sorts of pressures can be brought on Syria without using overt Armed
Force.
The Hard-Left loons are MOST unimaginative ---- and naīve.
How Sweet It Is!
Renia
> No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about attacking
> Syria ---- nor have I.
Oh? What about this?
D. Spencer Hines
_syria_powell&cid=1503&ncid=1478
Precisely!
Good Show....
Ratchet Up The Pressures ---- Diplomatic, Military, Naval, Economic,
Financial, Intelligence ---- On The Young, Still-Wet-Behind-The-Ears Bashar
Assad ---- Who Fails To Understand All Sorts Of Realities Have Changed In The
Middle East ---- And America Is Right Next Door In Iraq....Watching Him....
Stay Tuned....
There's A New Cop On The Block ---- Among Many Other Changes.
Stop The Lying, The Prevaricating And The Fun And Games ---- Syria.
Imagine An Entire Nation Full Of Thousands Of Fools Like P. Jonathan Gans ----
And You Have Syria In A Nutshell....
a.spencer3
> No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about attacking
> Syria ---- nor have I.
>
>
But the US, in diplomatic language, is already swarming over the border!
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
>Surreyman
What I enjoyed enormously was the timing of the lucky discovery
that Syria has weapons of mass destruction...
Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
----- Paul J. Gans
John Cartmell
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> What I enjoyed enormously was the timing of the lucky discovery
> that Syria has weapons of mass destruction...
> Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
California?
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & http://www.acornpublisher.com
Fleur Designs (boardgames)
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b7hbpa$hkq$5...@reader1.panix.com...
> What I enjoyed enormously was the timing of the lucky discovery
> that Syria has weapons of mass destruction...
>
> Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
France has both nukes and a delivery system, and a military that is capable
of commando raids on the US mainland, and a history of effective resistance
fighting, and a set of land borders with sympathetic countries.
It's not France
Korea seems to have both nukes and a delivery system, so they'll get cheap
energy if they let McDonalds and Coke in. If they don't then we'll start
again, but acting both aggressively and bonkers seems to work with the US
at the moment. I wonder why?
Looks like Cuba, no nukes, no aggressive acts, poor, easy to get to.
The main problem looks like an effective military, although a couple of
weeks heavy bombing could probably solve that.
And just think, you'd be allowed to buy decent cigars again...
(Although you'll probably have to buy them from the mafia)
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Paul J Gans
>In article <b7hbpa$hkq$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> What I enjoyed enormously was the timing of the lucky discovery
>> that Syria has weapons of mass destruction...
>> Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
>California?
Hmmm. You have a point there...
---- Paul J. Gans
Renia
Britain?
Renia
Julian Richards
<D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
>From Tim Reid in Washington
>
>Bush accuses Damascus of developing chemical weapons
He ought to wait until he has found some in Iraq first. There is no
other country up for a war on Syria and plenty who could step in to
defend it.
--
Julian Richards
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Paul J Gans
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:25:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>In soc.history.medieval a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>But France _does_ have WMDs - nukes.
Well, there you go. We'll have to take them out. Besides
they are loud, arrogant, and nasty to Bush. Can't have that.
But it is only the regime we will be out to get. We expect
the common people of France, oppressed all these years by
a social system that piles taxes on the individual and forces
them to take part in government sponsored medicine and retirement,
those common people will rejoice and throw flowers at our
victorious troops as they roll by.
After we win, the US-appointed Governor-General will eliminate
most of their taxes, dismantle their educational system, destroy
their evil welfare system, and give women the right to vote.
We might even let a few into the new Parliament we will set up.
And oh yes, preachers from various of our congretations will
be sent over to convert them to Christianity.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Britain?
Not as long as they behave themselves and get rid of socialism.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "a.spencer3" wrote in message
> > But USAites far more knowledgable than you, although largely agreeing
with
> > your occasional genuine opinion, are telling us that we don't even have
> the
> > troops to sort Iraq yet ..........
> >
>
> Why should the US bother to do that? Victory is fleeting, reconstruction
is
> boring. On to the next incompletely pacified conquest!
>
> Rumsfeld reminds me of a Hines with drive and a malfunctioning
> transmission -- lots of power and noise, but stuck in one gear. Invading
> Syria would be quite possibly the stupidest and most dangerous idea this
> administration has come up with, except for the fact that it's one among
so
> many.
Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on only one
newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are batting
zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the fat
lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip it. -the
Troll
hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
> D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
> > No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about attacking
> > Syria ---- nor have I.
> >
> >
> You're totally irrelevant.
> But the US, in diplomatic language, is already swarming over the border!
......chasing Ba'athists from Iraq. Don't worry we'll not be invading Syria
beyond a snatch-and-grab operation if the bad guys should stay there. More
likely the Iraqi interim government will initiate formal extradition
proceedings against them. -the Troll
Drew Nicholson
news:J9ednZtrq65...@giganews.com...
>
> Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on only one
> newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are batting
> zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the fat
> lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip it. -the
> Troll
>
>
I can tell when someone's being stupid in the process of something.
You, I think, are a good example.
Odysseus
>
> In article <b7hbpa$hkq$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
>
> California?
>
And, who knows, maybe Monaco!
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the Bomb."
-- Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next?", _That Was the Year That Was_
--Odysseus
Neville Lindsay
Yet another insinuated monumental prediction to add to the list.
NL
Cal Gardner
Perhaps an unnamed chem dept in NYC?
Cal
a.spencer3
one
> newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are batting
> zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the fat
> lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip it. -the
> Troll
>
Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD, assume
that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in Damascus ...
No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b7i8oo$skh$3...@reader1.panix.com...
Not totally on topic, but maybe relevant ...
It came to my mind (I'm old, it takes time) that I remembered an ancient
society where it was recognised that war was terrible but sometimes
necessary.
Fair enough.
The kick, though, was that the leader, recognising that he would be sending
thousands to their deaths in however righteous a cause, had to be willing to
commit suicide himself, provided that he thought the war was righteous
enough ...
That could no doubt start off a debate.
But, also, genuinely, do any others remember the society involved?
Surreyman
John Cartmell
> >Britain?
> Not as long as they behave themselves and get rid of socialism.
That's what the US said in 1945 ;-(
Paul J Gans
>> "a.spencer3" wrote in message
Gaaaa.
What a response! I'd love to ask what Hines has been right
about but I'd likely just get more troll deposit as an answer,
so I'll not bother.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
> hippo wrote in message
> > > Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on only
> one
> > newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are
batting
> > zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the
fat
> > lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip it. -the
> > Troll
> >
> Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
> Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD, assume
> that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in Damascus
...
> No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country in
the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was. We
will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am concerned,
Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
(reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
No. But on our side of the joint alt.history.british, soc.history.medieval
boundary, we are aware of times when the leaders led from in front.
We'd have had Bush with the 7th Cavalry, Rumsfeld running out of
ammunition with the Marines, and Perle flying close support missions
for the Air Force.
And I suspect we'd get letters from them to Congress begging for
more men, supplies, water, etc.
---- Paul J. Gans
a.spencer3
that would have been enough for Bush.
Maybe I do misunderstand the poor chap.
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
>"a.spencer3" wrote in message
>> hippo wrote in message
>> > > Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on only
>> one
>> > newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are
>batting
>> > zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the
>fat
>> > lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip it. -the
>> > Troll
>> >
>> Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
>> Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD, assume
>> that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in Damascus
>...
>> No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
>Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country in
>the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
This is so sadly wrong. Syria is a threat to Lebanon which
they occupied some years back without a fight. They have
also fought more wars with their neighbors than Iraq.
Further, Iraq was, as I and others kept saying, no military
threat to anyone, as events have shown. Why pretend otherwise?
>We
>will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
>inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am concerned,
>Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
>(reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
>Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
lousy human rights record?
In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
----- Paul J. Gans
Drew Nicholson
>
> Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
> an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
> lousy human rights record?
>
> In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
> they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
>
> It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
> on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want our
solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
Paul J Gans
There will be no war because we don't have the troops. We are
very short-handed in Iraq now and none of them can be spared
for Syria.
We could send in other troops, but that would use up most of
what we have left.
Further, the invasion would be difficult. It is a long supply
line from Basra to Syria -- hundreds of miles. And a second
front through Lebanon would likely also be needed which
means either an assault from Israel or a landing from the
sea.
So I suspect that the entire business is unpalatable *now* to
Bush.
Watch for it to build up about July of 2004.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
> hippo wrote in message
> > > Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
> > > Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD,
> assume
> > > that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in
Damascus
> > ...
> > > No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
> >
> > Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country
in
> > the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
We
> > will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
> > inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am
concerned,
> > Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
> > (reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
> > Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
> Add the possibility of WMD and harbouring Saddam, and I would have thought
> that would have been enough for Bush.
> Maybe I do misunderstand the poor chap.
Saddam will not be permitted sanctuary anywhere. His continued existence
would be an open-ended threat to any government in Iraq. WMD would have been
a threat to our garrisons in the Gulf which soon enough will be pulled out
and not relevant to Syria in any case. It was always Saddam's threat to the
region that was the primary reason for the invasion as I have said all
along, that and Iraq's lack of co-operation in the war against international
terrorism. What information we will discover there will further aid us in
running these bastards down. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> In soc.history.medieval a.spencer3 wrote:
>
> >hippo wrote in message
Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops with
what is already in Iraq. The Syrian military is even less capable than the
Iraqi army was and a large portion is still in Lebanon. The third Infantry
is on stand down and the fourth Infantry hasn't yet been used. The marines,
light troops, and Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains to
do in Iraq. Armored forces are resoundingly inadequate to the task in any
case. The two heavy divisions and residual air assets in the region would be
more than adequate for the job. We will not invade Syria unless they overtly
attack our troops because we do not have sufficient reason to do so. -the
Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> In soc.history.medieval hippo wrote:
> >"a.spencer3" wrote in message
>
> >> hippo wrote in message
>
> >> > > Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on
only
> >> one
> >> > newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are
> >batting
> >> > zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the
> >fat
> >> > lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip
it. -the
> >> > Troll
> >> >
> >> Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
> >> Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD,
assume
> >> that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in Damascus
> >...
> >> No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
>
> >Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country in
> >the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
>
> This is so sadly wrong. Syria is a threat to Lebanon which
> they occupied some years back without a fight. They have
> also fought more wars with their neighbors than Iraq.
You forget why they invaded and why we permitted it. Lebanon at the time was
in political chaos and badly needed stability which the Syrians have
provided. We were unwilling to do the job ourselves. Syria is no direct
military threat to any of her other neighbors.
> Further, Iraq was, as I and others kept saying, no military
> threat to anyone, as events have shown. Why pretend otherwise?
Tell that to the Kuwaitis and other Gulf States. Their disagreement with
your assessment is more valid than mine.
> >We
> >will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
> >inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am
concerned,
> >Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
> >(reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
> >Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
> Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
> an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
> lousy human rights record?
Their army is not nearly as capable as Iraq's. It is every bit as unwilling
to fight. They do have a lousy human rights record.
> In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
> they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
>
> It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
> on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities of the
region. -the Troll
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> > Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
> > an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
> > lousy human rights record?
> >
> > In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
> > they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
> >
> > It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
> > on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
> >
> > ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want our
> solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines
Gans is flaunting his Military and Naval ignorance again ---- baring his
lacerated ass for the masses. He's that sort of nasty exhibitionist.
Milk Dud Warrior Redux....
He whines, wails, whimpers and gloats ---- "We don't even have enough troops
to take on Syria!"
Rubbish and Codswallop.
Syria could easily be devastated with NAVAL Air, Surface and Sub-Surface Power
alone ---- from the Mediterranean.
Snatch-and-grab operations could be carried out with impunity.
Look At The Map ---- and consider the power Of Precision Guided Munitions
[PGMs].
Now, if you like, add in the power of shore-based U.S. Air Force and Army Air
assets in Iraq and throughout the region ---- and we could turn Syria into a
smoking cinder, if we so chose.
However, I say again, no one in the Administration has said we are going to do
that ---- and neither have I.
Gans simply wants to move the goalposts because he has proven to be so
ABYSMALLY WRONG on Iraq....
He desperately needs a new venue ---- new playing fields on which to display
his profound ignorance.
How Sweet It Is!
Hilarious Magnus!
Ratchet Up The Pressures ---- Diplomatic, Military, Naval, Economic,
Financial, Intelligence ---- On The Young, Still-Wet-Behind-The-Ears Bashar
Assad ---- Who Fails To Understand All Sorts Of Realities Have Changed In The
Middle East ---- And America Is Right Next Door In Iraq....Watching Him....
Stay Tuned....
There's A New Cop On The Block ---- Among Many Other Changes.
Stop The Lying, The Prevaricating And The Fun And Games ---- Syria.
Imagine An Entire Nation Full Of Thousands Of Fools Like P. Jonathan Gans of
NYU ---- And You Have Syria In A Nutshell....
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
William Black
> Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
with
> what is already in Iraq.
Well acording to the TV news tonight you don't.
US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting down
the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also shot
three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and they
changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
> Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains
Right now Tony Blair is in Athens building bridges with the French. A
couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
London.
What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but he's no
Saddam, and everybody knows it.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
>
> "Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
>
> > solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
>
> Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
No oil either...
Drew Nicholson
>
> Saddam will not be permitted sanctuary anywhere. His continued existence
> would be an open-ended threat to any government in Iraq. WMD would have
been
> a threat to our garrisons in the Gulf which soon enough will be pulled out
> and not relevant to Syria in any case. It was always Saddam's threat to
the
> region that was the primary reason for the invasion as I have said all
> along, that and Iraq's lack of co-operation in the war against
international
> terrorism. What information we will discover there will further aid us in
> running these bastards down. -the Troll
>
>
The WMD that -- amazement -- Saddam didn't use even when it was clear he
could not defeat the US. Gee, what restraint from someone who is supposed
to be a psychotic homicidal manaic.
Saddam hasn't been a threat to the region for years. Go get a real reason.
Drew Nicholson
> Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities of
the
> region. -the Troll
>
>
That obviously rules you out, then.
a.spencer3
Well, we walked into Syria from that noble ally Turkey in 2001. But
admittedly only to say we'd been there. Being a few days after 11/9 we
turned round after about 50 yards!
But see friend Hippo's military itinerary just published in another post
..........
Surreyman
Michael Siemon
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@attbi.com> wrote:
He means that Syria has no oil, and Bechtel/Haliburton/etc. will
be too busy with Iraq to profit, for the time being.
Soren Larsen
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:7-SdnaRvcp6...@giganews.com...
>
> >
> > Further, the invasion would be difficult. It is a long supply
> > line from Basra to Syria -- hundreds of miles. And a second
> > front through Lebanon would likely also be needed which
> > means either an assault from Israel or a landing from the
> > sea.
> >
> > So I suspect that the entire business is unpalatable *now* to
> > Bush.
> >
> > Watch for it to build up about July of 2004.
>
> Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
with
> what is already in Iraq.
No you don't.
There is no doubt that both Syria and Iran has been told:
A) Very explicitly what would happen if they joined the war.
B) That everything was cool if they stayed out.
It is also clear that Syria and Iran told the US that
they had no intention of joining the war against
_Iraq_.
There of course no guarantee that Iran would attack if
Syria is attacked.
But it could make sense for Iran to start a preemptive war in that
case. Afterall, if Syria is attacked then no promise from the US
can be trusted by Iran.
An Iranian surprice strike against the
US carriers would likely cost them most of their airforce,
but they could get lucky and then an attack through the British
directed at the US supply line to Syria could make the
war very difficult for the US.
It is IMHO not accidental that the British is
between Iran and the US forces
So if the US attacks Syria, they will need troops not only for
that but also troops to occupy Iraq and troops for a war against
Iran just in case.
You don't have near enough forces for that.
>The Syrian military is even less capable than the
> Iraqi army was
What on earth makes you think that.
There is no weapons embargo against Syria, your chance of getting one
is zilch and they have an airforce and AAA-capability that would
need reduction.
>and a large portion is still in Lebanon.
So you would have to invade Lebanon as well.
Those guys are used to deal with occupying forces
and marines.
Someone would also be bound to see a developing pattern
and react before it was their turn
>The third Infantry
> is on stand down and the fourth Infantry hasn't yet been used. The
marines,
> light troops, and Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains to
> do in Iraq. Armored forces are resoundingly inadequate to the task in any
> case. The two heavy divisions and residual air assets in the region would
be
> more than adequate for the job. We will not invade Syria unless they
overtly
> attack our troops because we do not have sufficient reason to do so. -the
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Renia
> Hilarious!
672.
Splork!
Renia
Renia
> "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> news:7-SdnaRvcp6...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
>
> with
>
>>what is already in Iraq.
>
>
> Well acording to the TV news tonight you don't.
>
> US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting down
> the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also shot
> three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and they
> changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
>
>
>>Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains
>
>
> Right now Tony Blair is in Athens building bridges with the French.
He came to tea with us this evening.
Just joking! :-)
> A
> couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
> London.
>
> What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
>
> I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
> until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but he's no
> Saddam, and everybody knows it.
And his wife is a Brit.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Basra to Syria -- hundreds of miles. And a second front through Lebanon would
likely also be needed which means either an assault from Israel or a landing
from the sea."
P. Jonathan Gans ---- New York University ---- Milk Dud Warrior
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious!
This is a textbook case of one of Gans's favorite forays into ignorant,
flatulent, fallacious, military and naval thumb-sucking. Classic
Milk-Dud-Warrior Shtik....
1. Gans posits an absurd STRAWMAN of a preeminent American Invasion of Syria
and then labels it as a plausible future action of the Bush Administration.
2. Gans makes the STRAWMAN as ridiculous and risible as he can conger up.
This tickles his fancy.
3. Gans sucks in a few of the poguenoscenti to his anserine fallacy ----
thereby diverting their attention from more serious issues at hand.
4. Gans then takes great pleasure in proving how infeasible and doomed to
failure the STRAWMAN is ---- and demolishes it.
5. Gans then tells us that Bush will probably do it anyway because he and his
advisors are stupid, don't understand these things as well as Gans does and
will drag the United States into another quagmire and grab another tiger by
the tail.
Transparent Balderdash....
However, it works with enough of the poguenoscenti on USENET that Gans feels
quite comfortable and confident in employing it as a recurrent debating
strategy.
Failed Talmudic Scholar ---- Writ Large....
The boy whose mother dearly wanted him to become a Rabbi ---- but who couldn't
make the grade.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
How Sweet It Is!
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
> with
> > what is already in Iraq.
>
> Well acording to the TV news tonight you don't.
>
> US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting
down
> the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also shot
> three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and
they
> changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
So? What does that have to do with numbers? We expected problems in Tikrit
and have had far fewer than we thought. The people in the compound are
marines which have nothing to do with troops free to attack Syria of so
ordered.
> > Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains
>
> Right now Tony Blair is in Athens building bridges with the French. A
> couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
> London.
>
> What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
>
> I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
> until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but he's
no
> Saddam, and everybody knows it.
I know it too and have said nothing about wanting to invading Syria and
neither has the President. I said we won't and Gans said we couldn't. That
is two different things. -the Troll
hippo
"Soren Larsen" wrote in message
> "hippo" skrev i en meddelelse
An invading Iranian army would be butchered which they very well know. The
Iranian military is a mess at the moment with absolutely no offensive
capability. There is no 'turn' in the cards. We have no intention of
invading Syria unless they should attack us. -the Troll
hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
> Paul J Gans wrote in message
> > In soc.history.medieval a.spencer3 wrote:
> > >hippo wrote in message
? -the Troll
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Saddam will not be permitted sanctuary anywhere. His continued existence
Hey loser, your gas is nothing but gas. Stay over in SHM with the other
passers. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> >
> > > No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want
our
> > > solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
> >
> > Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
>
> No oil either...
Insufficient reason period. -the Troll
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities of
> the
> > region. -the Troll
> >
> >
>
> That obviously rules you out, then.
Whanna check the scoreboard loser? -the Troll
Drew Nicholson
>
> Hey loser, your gas is nothing but gas. Stay over in SHM with the other
> passers. -the Troll
>
>
What a shockingly appropriate response for you.
Drew Nicholson
Let's see... riots and looting in Baghdad... US troops shooting the
policemen they just hired... Saddam not found... people starving...
Afghanistan pure chaos... Osama bin Laden not found...
I think _you_ don't wanna check the scoreboard.
Neville Lindsay
Of course the dividend from the rout of Iraqi forces is that a clear and
demonstrable warning is now hung out to the other dictators. If you want to
stay, recognise it is conditional. In that environment, the 'diplomacy'
which failed to solve the Iraqi problem can be proceded with with some
effect because it is now demonstrated that thumbing the nose can have severe
consequences. N Korea has learnt, presumably Assad is hearing the message
too, and Iran to date has kept quiet. Imagine the effect of letting Saddam
get away with a further 12 years of negotiations on these other countries -
they would be full steam ahead.
Now the nay-saying merchants did, and presumably still say "there was
another way" (easy - it can't be tested now, can it) but the sane fact is -
no, this foray in Iraq has succeeded if only for the fact that diplomacy is
now an option with other trouble makers. Crime is not deterred without
visible and tangible sanctions, whether it be civil or international. This
has now happened and is salutary.
So the nay-saying gripers who are now trying to beat up imaginary invasions
as part of their rabid anti-Bush-US hatred have missed both the point and
the boat - the walkover defeat of Iraq has promoted the practicability of
the very diplomatic solutions what they erroneously claimed would have been
effective before the lesson was administered. Now that it has been, onwards
with diplomatic pressure, which can now genuinely work.
NL
Julian Richards
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>But USAites far more knowledgable than you, although largely agreeing with
>your occasional genuine opinion, are telling us that we don't even have the
>troops to sort Iraq yet ..........
or Afghanistan. Remember that? Blokes with beards and pretty rugs.
Surely you do.
--
Julian Richards
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Julian Richards
<D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
>From Tim Reid in Washington
War with Syria? Rumsfeld should be carted off to the funny farm as
soon as possible. Of all the ridiculous ideas that the US could have
possibly thought up, that must be near the top of the list. Why not go
the whole way and have B52s bomb Mecca with balloons filled with pig
blood to spell out "Allah smells" in giant letters.
Julian Richards
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Add the possibility of WMD and harbouring Saddam, and I would have thought
>that would have been enough for Bush.
It's rumoured that the Syrian ambassador once "looked at George Bush
in a funny way". That'll do.
Bryn Fraser
<anicho...@attbi.com> writes
Burnt and mutilated children...
More burnt and mutilated children...
Even more burnt and mutilated children...
Oh! Its OK they all died... Serve them right for being there...
>
And its OK because American Judaeo-Christian groups say Islam is a
"wicked " religion... I'll sleep better tonight knowing that...
As a theologian... What do I know?
>
--
Bryn Fraser
The sound of distant gunfire is the government blowing its toes off...
Julian Richards
<D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about attacking
>Syria ---- nor have I.
>"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
>From Tim Reid in Washington
Conflict would imply attack.
D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
Just What We Should Be Doing....
And Saying....
Drew Nicholson
news:jrnr9vouoh43amcss...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 05:25:49 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
> <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>
> >"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
> >From Tim Reid in Washington
>
But, of course, neither Hines NOR Bushco have even _considered_ war with
Syria, right, Hiney?
> War with Syria? Rumsfeld should be carted off to the funny farm as
> soon as possible. Of all the ridiculous ideas that the US could have
> possibly thought up, that must be near the top of the list. Why not go
> the whole way and have B52s bomb Mecca with balloons filled with pig
> blood to spell out "Allah smells" in giant letters.
>
Don't give them any ideas.
Drew Nicholson
news:gSmXeqVp...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >Let's see... riots and looting in Baghdad... US troops shooting the
> >policemen they just hired... Saddam not found... people starving...
> >Afghanistan pure chaos... Osama bin Laden not found...
>
> Burnt and mutilated children...
> More burnt and mutilated children...
> Even more burnt and mutilated children...
>
> Oh! Its OK they all died... Serve them right for being there...
> >
> And its OK because American Judaeo-Christian groups say Islam is a
> "wicked " religion... I'll sleep better tonight knowing that...
>
> As a theologian... What do I know?
> >
>
Love thy Neighbor as thyself, of course, only applies to white, rich,
protestant christians to each-other...
Julian Richards
<D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>Ratchet Up The Pressures ---- Diplomatic, Military, Naval, Economic,
>Financial, Intelligence ---- On The Young, Still-Wet-Behind-The-Ears Bashar
>Assad ---- Who Fails To Understand All Sorts Of Realities Have Changed In The
>Middle East ---- And America Is Right Next Door In Iraq....Watching Him....
The US cannot attack Syria from Iraq without the support of the
Iraqis. There is no possible puppet regime that could be formed that
would support that. Likewise can't use Kuwait, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
>
>Stay Tuned....
>
>There's A New Cop On The Block ---- Among Many Other Changes.
The USA is not and will not be the cop in the sense that you mean. The
US must NOT make its own rules and impose them upon the rest of the
world.
In spite of what you have said elsewhere, you still advocate the
threat of military action. The very idea is ridiculous.
1. If Syria has WMD then the onus is upon the US to provide firm
evidence, no UN inspectors, no US invasion first.
2. If the case for WMD were proved, it must also be proved that Syria
would have the intention of using them. As they have never used them,
the case would be very hard to prove. Mere possession is not enough,
otherwise both Israel and the USA would be equally guilty.
3. Syria would not roll over and die in a war like Iraq. The
government hasn't got the best of records but the general population
do not want the USA to remove their government. In the event of war
both the army and the civilians would put up a lot more opposition.
They have no doubt studied the fall of Iraq and would alter their
strategies appropriately. US casualties would be far greater.
4. The USA would go completely alone. Not even the UK would stomach
it, especially as it would have blown apart the British diplomatic
effort for a broader longer lasting peace in the region.
5. The USA can only attack in self-defence, as (supposedly) with Iraq.
Proving the case that Syria is a threat to the USA is even more
doubtful.
Drew Nicholson
>
> 2. If the case for WMD were proved, it must also be proved that Syria
> would have the intention of using them. As they have never used them,
> the case would be very hard to prove. Mere possession is not enough,
> otherwise both Israel and the USA would be equally guilty.
>
When it comes to WMD, the US has a worse record than just about every
country out there.
hippo
"Neville Lindsay" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "William Black" wrote in message
> > I know it too and have said nothing about wanting to invading Syria and
> > neither has the President. I said we won't and Gans said we couldn't.
That
> > is two different things.
> Of course the dividend from the rout of Iraqi forces is that a clear and
Agreed except they can not now say there was another way. It is crystal
clear, even to a dunce, that the French and Russians would never have agreed
to invasion no matter the weapons found or any other provocation short of
Iraq re-invading the Gulf. Invasion has, and will, put hard evidence before
the world of their intentional complicity with Saddam and his regime, and
their intentional breaking of the very UN trade sanctions that as members of
the Security Council they were obliged to enforce. Each day the dossier gets
thicker. It will be one argument they can never use again. -the Troll
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> >
> > > "hippo" wrote in message
> >
> > > > Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities
> of
> > > the
> > > > region. -the Troll
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That obviously rules you out, then.
> >
> > Whanna check the scoreboard loser? -the Troll
> >
> >
> >
>
> Let's see... riots and looting in Baghdad... US troops shooting the
> policemen they just hired... Saddam not found... people starving...
> Afghanistan pure chaos... Osama bin Laden not found...
>
> I think _you_ don't wanna check the scoreboard.
We'll put your sorry ass on one of the recently vacated statue bases in
downtown Baghdad and you can make that speech to the Iraqis. We'll see how
long you last. 'Here lies Drew, hero of the American Left and one time
poster to SHM, torn to shreds by 50 Iraqi widows of the regime for saying
the war to free them shouldn't have been fought.' With all that redundant
statuary lying around we might even find a bronze foot as a grave marker for
ya. In a thousand years it might give the archaeologists a thrill. -the
Troll
hippo
"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
> "Bryn Fraser" wrote in message
> > >Let's see... riots and looting in Baghdad... US troops shooting the
> > >policemen they just hired... Saddam not found... people starving...
> > >Afghanistan pure chaos... Osama bin Laden not found...
> >
> > Burnt and mutilated children...
> > More burnt and mutilated children...
> > Even more burnt and mutilated children...
> >
> > Oh! Its OK they all died... Serve them right for being there...
> > >
> > And its OK because American Judaeo-Christian groups say Islam is a
> > "wicked " religion... I'll sleep better tonight knowing that...
> >
> > As a theologian... What do I know?
> > >
> >
>
> Love thy Neighbor as thyself, of course, only applies to white, rich,
> protestant christians to each-other...
Go suck on a lemon you sour bastard. You have everything in common. -the
Troll
Drew Nicholson
> >
> > Let's see... riots and looting in Baghdad... US troops shooting the
> > policemen they just hired... Saddam not found... people starving...
> > Afghanistan pure chaos... Osama bin Laden not found...
> >
> > I think _you_ don't wanna check the scoreboard.
>
> We'll put your sorry ass on one of the recently vacated statue bases in
> downtown Baghdad and you can make that speech to the Iraqis. We'll see how
> long you last. 'Here lies Drew, hero of the American Left and one time
> poster to SHM, torn to shreds by 50 Iraqi widows of the regime for saying
> the war to free them shouldn't have been fought.' With all that redundant
> statuary lying around we might even find a bronze foot as a grave marker
for
> ya. In a thousand years it might give the archaeologists a thrill. -the
> Troll
>
>
Ah, quite typically not-refuted. Well done!
Drew Nicholson
> > >
> >
> > Love thy Neighbor as thyself, of course, only applies to white, rich,
> > protestant christians to each-other...
>
> Go suck on a lemon you sour bastard. You have everything in common. -the
> Troll
>
>
It's Hippo's LOGIC that really set him apart, don't you think? His ability
to logically and rationally refute statements is legendary.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
>> In soc.history.medieval a.spencer3 wrote:
>>
>> >hippo wrote in message
>> >> > Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
>> >> > Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD,
>> >assume
>> >> > that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in
>Damascus
>> >> ...
>> >> > No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
>> >>
>> >> Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country
>in
>> >> the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
>We
>> >> will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
>> >> inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am
>concerned,
>> >> Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
>> >> (reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
>> >> Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
>> >>
>> >Add the possibility of WMD and harbouring Saddam, and I would have
>thought
>> >that would have been enough for Bush.
>> >Maybe I do misunderstand the poor chap.
>> There will be no war because we don't have the troops. We are
>> very short-handed in Iraq now and none of them can be spared
>> for Syria.
>>
>> We could send in other troops, but that would use up most of
>> what we have left.
>>
>> Further, the invasion would be difficult. It is a long supply
>> line from Basra to Syria -- hundreds of miles. And a second
>> front through Lebanon would likely also be needed which
>> means either an assault from Israel or a landing from the
>> sea.
>>
>> So I suspect that the entire business is unpalatable *now* to
>> Bush.
>>
>> Watch for it to build up about July of 2004.
>Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops with
>what is already in Iraq. The Syrian military is even less capable than the
>Iraqi army was and a large portion is still in Lebanon. The third Infantry
>is on stand down and the fourth Infantry hasn't yet been used. The marines,
>light troops, and Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains to
>do in Iraq. Armored forces are resoundingly inadequate to the task in any
>case. The two heavy divisions and residual air assets in the region would be
>more than adequate for the job. We will not invade Syria unless they overtly
>attack our troops because we do not have sufficient reason to do so. -the
>Troll
Ignorant eh? And who is to be left behind to keep the peace
in Iraq? Washington estimates 75,000 to 100,000 troops for
quite a while yet.
And we don't have enough people on the ground in Iraq *NOW*.
That's quite plain to anyone who reads the newspapers with
any intelligence.
Things haven't gotten rough there yet. They may not, but I'd
not bet on that.
Further examples of ignorance: the Iraqi army has been shown
to be a hollow shell with nobody really interested in fighting
for Saddam. They were no threat to anybody. Of course, you'll
continue to pretend otherwise because that bit rather destroys
the rationale for war.
As does the remarkable absence of weapons of mass destruction.
By the way, what was the rationale for the war again?
Syria, on the other hand, has a small but reasonable military.
Of course the US would win a war but it might not be nearly
as easy. And the US will NOT fight a difficult war in an
election year. Besides it would take months of demonizing
Assad in order to pull it off -- all the while being accused
by the rest of the world of doing it only to aid Israel.
And for the record, I'd note that Israel is not asking for
any intervention in Syria, just as they did not in Iraq.
Would you also like to address my ignorance of political
matters and explain to me how we have now become the
state that the Arab world wants to emulate? I keep
hearing Iraqis chant "US go home!".
You don't hear that, do you?
----- Paul J. Gans, who should know better than
to walk under bridges.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
>> In soc.history.medieval hippo wrote:
>> >"a.spencer3" wrote in message
>>
>> >> hippo wrote in message
>>
>> >> > > Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on
>only
>> >> one
>> >> > newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are
>> >batting
>> >> > zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when the
>> >fat
>> >> > lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip
>it. -the
>> >> > Troll
>> >> >
>> >> Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
>> >> Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD,
>assume
>> >> that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in Damascus
>> >...
>> >> No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
>>
>> >Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country in
>> >the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
>>
>> This is so sadly wrong. Syria is a threat to Lebanon which
>> they occupied some years back without a fight. They have
>> also fought more wars with their neighbors than Iraq.
>You forget why they invaded and why we permitted it. Lebanon at the time was
>in political chaos and badly needed stability which the Syrians have
>provided. We were unwilling to do the job ourselves. Syria is no direct
>military threat to any of her other neighbors.
Oh? As I recall we went running out of Lebanon with
our tails between our legs. And we helped force the
Israelis out of Lebanon too.
That left a neat power vacuum created by the Palestinian
"immigrants" that destoyed the Christian power structure,
most of Beirut, caused a reign of kidnappings, etc.
Syria had no "permission" from anyone. They took over
what had historically been part of Syria (you knew that,
didn't you -- much as Saddam took over Kuwait which had
historically been part of Iraq) and have run it as a
private possession ever since -- without a comment from
any western country.
They have also several times attacked Israel, but then,
that never counts, does it?
>> Further, Iraq was, as I and others kept saying, no military
>> threat to anyone, as events have shown. Why pretend otherwise?
>Tell that to the Kuwaitis and other Gulf States. Their disagreement with
>your assessment is more valid than mine.
They did not and do not disagree. Kuwait did not ask the US
to invade Iraq. They had a guarantee of protection from the
US already.
I have no idea why you keep repeating these self-invented
legends. NO Arab state was or is *happy* about our
invasion of Iraq. It has helped destablize the region.
And we do not want that.
>> >We
>> >will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
>> >inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am
>concerned,
>> >Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
>> >(reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
>> >Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
>> Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
>> an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
>> lousy human rights record?
>Their army is not nearly as capable as Iraq's. It is every bit as unwilling
>to fight. They do have a lousy human rights record.
You don't *know* that they are unwilling to fight. And Iraq,
in the actual event, had no army at all. It was a hollow
shell and clearly had been for some years. Iraq was bankrupt
and what little was coming in was being stolen by the Baath
party officials, which includes Saddam.
>> In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
>> they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
>>
>> It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
>> on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
>Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities of the
>region. -the Troll
Ah yes. You do understand don't you.
Tell me, mighty sage, if free elections were held in Saudi
Arabia tomorrow what group would win? Kuwait? Qatar? Egypt?
Do you have a clue?
If you did, you'd understand what a problem we have right now.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
>> "Paul J Gans" wrote in message
>> > Don't you believe they have weapons of mass destruction? And
>> > an army more willing to fight than Saddam's? And a perfectly
>> > lousy human rights record?
>> >
>> > In other words Syria is everything Iraq was and more, since
>> > they have *actively* tried to destabilize their neighbors.
>> >
>> > It is passing strange that you (and others) were so keen
>> > on fighting Iraq but not at all keen on fighting Syria.
>> >
>> > ----- Paul J. Gans
>>
>> No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want our
>> solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
>Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
Now that's an argument I'd not considered.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
>news:kIGcncnn_95...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
>>
>> > No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want our
>> > solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
>>
>> Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
>No oil either...
If there is no profit, there is no need for risk.
----- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
William Black wrote .
>
> hippo wrote..
>
> > Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
> with
> > what is already in Iraq.
>
>
> US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting
down
> the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also shot
> three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and
they
> changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
>
>
> couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
> London.
>
> What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
>
> I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
> until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but he's
no
> Saddam, and everybody knows it.
Wasn't it only last summer that he and Tony Blair were almost hand in hand
on a podium somewhere, going on about friendship and understanding?
It looked rather good I thought? Maybe some local sympathisers on the
border, who knows? I must say, the prospect of invading Syria is not a
pleasant one logistically... they can fight like hell, are well equipped and
experienced and the coalition forces are already spread so thinly they can't
quite manage... not a good idea, even in jest!
Cheers
Martin
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:b7jvvt$fbq$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In soc.history.medieval a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
>> >news:oeecnRZlwo3...@giganews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "a.spencer3" wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > hippo wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > > > Why don't you restrict your scope to making an ass of yourself on
>> >only
>> >> > one
>> >> > > newsgroup? Thus far Hines has been resoundingly right and you are
>> >> batting
>> >> > > zero. We will only be able to decide who and what was stupid when
>the
>> >> fat
>> >> > > lady sings. Meanwhile with your batting average to date I'd zip
>> >it. -the
>> >> > > Troll
>> >> > >
>> >> > Hippo - a genuine question that could clarify your thinking for me.
>> >> > Assume the current knowledge of Syria's possible meddling with WMD,
>> >assume
>> >> > that we learn that they *are* giving refuge to Saddam & co. in
>Damascus
>> >> ...
>> >> > No other if's & but's ... would you invade tomorrow?
>> >>
>> >> Nope, not even close. Syria is no military danger to any other country
>in
>> >> the region and as such is not nearly the destabilizing force Iraq was.
>We
>> >> will not be obliged to garrison the region for decades in consequence,
>> >> inflaming both nationalists and fundamentalists. As far as I am
>concerned,
>> >> Syria's only important crimes are her continued occupation of Lebanon
>> >> (reduced by 20,000 troops recently) and her direct support for Arab
>> >> Nationalist terrorist organizations. -the Troll
>> >>
>> >Add the possibility of WMD and harbouring Saddam, and I would have
>thought
>> >that would have been enough for Bush.
>> >Maybe I do misunderstand the poor chap.
>>
>> There will be no war because we don't have the troops. We are
>> very short-handed in Iraq now and none of them can be spared
>> for Syria.
>>
>> We could send in other troops, but that would use up most of
>> what we have left.
>>
>> Further, the invasion would be difficult. It is a long supply
>> line from Basra to Syria -- hundreds of miles. And a second
>> front through Lebanon would likely also be needed which
>> means either an assault from Israel or a landing from the
>> sea.
>>
>> So I suspect that the entire business is unpalatable *now* to
>> Bush.
>>
>> Watch for it to build up about July of 2004.
>>
>Well, we walked into Syria from that noble ally Turkey in 2001. But
>admittedly only to say we'd been there. Being a few days after 11/9 we
>turned round after about 50 yards!
>But see friend Hippo's military itinerary just published in another post
>..........
>Surreyman
I did.
By the way, I know you understand that I am in no way
advocating any attack on Syria. It just seems that
accusing them of the same sins that Iraq was accused
of -- all out of the blue -- is about the most annoying
thing I've heard lately.
And by the way, will all the folks here so certain
that the US will NOT attack Syria, why should Syria
pay any attention to what is being said?
Or perhaps they are not as convinced as some.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"William Black" wrote in message
>> "hippo" wrote in message
>> > Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the troops
>> with
>> > what is already in Iraq.
>>
>> Well acording to the TV news tonight you don't.
>>
>> US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting
>down
>> the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also shot
>> three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and
>they
>> changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
>So? What does that have to do with numbers? We expected problems in Tikrit
>and have had far fewer than we thought. The people in the compound are
>marines which have nothing to do with troops free to attack Syria of so
>ordered.
>> > Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains
>>
>> Right now Tony Blair is in Athens building bridges with the French. A
>> couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
>> London.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
>>
>> I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
>> until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but he's
>no
>> Saddam, and everybody knows it.
>I know it too and have said nothing about wanting to invading Syria and
>neither has the President. I said we won't and Gans said we couldn't. That
>is two different things. -the Troll
I didn't say we *couldn't*. I said the effort would draw
our reserves down to unacceptable levels and so would not
be done for that reason. Don't forget the US wants always
to keep enough on hand to fight a second simultaneous war.
Please go back under the bridge. Your drool is boring.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"William Black" wrote in message
>> "hippo" wrote in message
>> > "Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
>> >
>> > > No it's not. Syria might actually put up a fight. We wouldn't want
>our
>> > > solidiers to actually be in any real danger. Looks bad in the polls.
>> >
>> > Go suck on a lemon you dreary little shit. -the Troll
>>
>> No oil either...
>Insufficient reason period. -the Troll
Actually, here you are quite wrong.
If the US wanted to establish democracy in the region,
the simplest way to do it would have been to demand
Syria get out of Lebanon.
According to you they would have wet their pants
in their hurry to avoid a fight with us. We'd
bomb them a bit just to hurry them along.
But even if we had to fight, it would be in
a good cause.
Then we could have re-established democracy in
Lebanon. The tradition is there. And we'd
score points with some by rehabilitating the
Christians who used to make up 40% of the
poplulation -- though one wonders how many
are now left.
With the Lebanese example before them, the
entire region would fall on their knees,
begged for forgiveness, turned to democracy
and converted to Christianity.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Drew Nicholson" wrote in message
>> "hippo" wrote in message
>> > Not to anyone who understands the geopolitics and military realities of
>> the
>> > region. -the Troll
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That obviously rules you out, then.
>Whanna check the scoreboard loser? -the Troll
There's no score yet. Early indications show
no WMDs. But the score won't start to trickle
in until we see how things are going to turn
out in Iraq.
A clever ploy to call the game over before the
first results are in.
Everyone agreed we'd get to this stage without
enormous trouble.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
There would be easily that many with what I have laid out. You need to learn
this stuff if you are going to post to military subjects. Brits: 40,000,
101st: 15,000, Marines: 20,000, one Brigade of the 82nd, 5000 plus lots of
odd bits of the 1st Inf and others.
> And we don't have enough people on the ground in Iraq *NOW*.
> That's quite plain to anyone who reads the newspapers with
> any intelligence.
No it isn't. We didn't have enough for the first three or four days in
Baghdad. Follow on units have been cancelled and two carriers released for
return to the States.
> Things haven't gotten rough there yet. They may not, but I'd
> not bet on that.
>
> Further examples of ignorance: the Iraqi army has been shown
> to be a hollow shell with nobody really interested in fighting
> for Saddam. They were no threat to anybody. Of course, you'll
> continue to pretend otherwise because that bit rather destroys
> the rationale for war.
>
> As does the remarkable absence of weapons of mass destruction.
>
> By the way, what was the rationale for the war again?
>
> Syria, on the other hand, has a small but reasonable military.
> Of course the US would win a war but it might not be nearly
> as easy. And the US will NOT fight a difficult war in an
> election year. Besides it would take months of demonizing
> Assad in order to pull it off -- all the while being accused
> by the rest of the world of doing it only to aid Israel.
>
> And for the record, I'd note that Israel is not asking for
> any intervention in Syria, just as they did not in Iraq.
>
> Would you also like to address my ignorance of political
> matters and explain to me how we have now become the
> state that the Arab world wants to emulate? I keep
> hearing Iraqis chant "US go home!".
>
> You don't hear that, do you?
Nope, it is a very small minority. If you only listen to the wee voices you
want to hear you will be forever.......Paul Gans. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
>"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Hey loser, your gas is nothing but gas. Stay over in SHM with the other
>> passers. -the Troll
>>
>>
>What a shockingly appropriate response for you.
He could remove SHM from the headers...
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
>
> And for the record, I'd note that Israel is not asking for
> any intervention in Syria, just as they did not in Iraq.
>
Hmmmm.
""Israel's defence minister, Shaul Mofas, whose comments were reported today
in the Maariv daily newspaper, said: 'We have a long list of issues we are
thinking of demanding of the Syrians, and it would be best done through the
Americans.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,936664,00.html
Paul J Gans
>"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
>news:LKidnRwB_oD...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "William Black" wrote in message
>>
>> > "hippo" wrote in message
>>
>> > > Yet another triumph military ignorance. We certainly do have the
>troops
>> > with
>> > > what is already in Iraq.
>> >
>> > Well acording to the TV news tonight you don't.
>> >
>> > US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and shooting
>> down
>> > the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also
>shot
>> > three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and
>> they
>> > changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
>>
>> So? What does that have to do with numbers? We expected problems in Tikrit
>> and have had far fewer than we thought. The people in the compound are
>> marines which have nothing to do with troops free to attack Syria of so
>> ordered.
>>
>> > > Brits are more than sufficient to handle what remains
>> >
>> > Right now Tony Blair is in Athens building bridges with the French. A
>> > couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner in
>> > London.
>> >
>> > What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
>> >
>> > I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London up
>> > until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but
>he's
>> no
>> > Saddam, and everybody knows it.
>>
>> I know it too and have said nothing about wanting to invading Syria and
>> neither has the President. I said we won't and Gans said we couldn't. That
>> is two different things. -the Troll
>Of course the dividend from the rout of Iraqi forces is that a clear and
>demonstrable warning is now hung out to the other dictators. If you want to
>stay, recognise it is conditional. In that environment, the 'diplomacy'
>which failed to solve the Iraqi problem can be proceded with with some
>effect because it is now demonstrated that thumbing the nose can have severe
>consequences. N Korea has learnt, presumably Assad is hearing the message
>too, and Iran to date has kept quiet. Imagine the effect of letting Saddam
>get away with a further 12 years of negotiations on these other countries -
>they would be full steam ahead.
>Now the nay-saying merchants did, and presumably still say "there was
>another way" (easy - it can't be tested now, can it) but the sane fact is -
>no, this foray in Iraq has succeeded if only for the fact that diplomacy is
>now an option with other trouble makers. Crime is not deterred without
>visible and tangible sanctions, whether it be civil or international. This
>has now happened and is salutary.
>So the nay-saying gripers who are now trying to beat up imaginary invasions
>as part of their rabid anti-Bush-US hatred have missed both the point and
>the boat - the walkover defeat of Iraq has promoted the practicability of
>the very diplomatic solutions what they erroneously claimed would have been
>effective before the lesson was administered. Now that it has been, onwards
>with diplomatic pressure, which can now genuinely work.
What about Lebanon?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:16:06 +0100, "a.spencer3"
><a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>But USAites far more knowledgable than you, although largely agreeing with
>>your occasional genuine opinion, are telling us that we don't even have the
>>troops to sort Iraq yet ..........
>or Afghanistan. Remember that? Blokes with beards and pretty rugs.
>Surely you do.
You mean that place where the Taliban murdered an Italian
just last week?
Never heard of it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
><D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>>"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
>>From Tim Reid in Washington
>War with Syria? Rumsfeld should be carted off to the funny farm as
>soon as possible. Of all the ridiculous ideas that the US could have
>possibly thought up, that must be near the top of the list. Why not go
>the whole way and have B52s bomb Mecca with balloons filled with pig
>blood to spell out "Allah smells" in giant letters.
Actually, that's under active consideration right now.
:-)
By the way, note the headline above. What do you
suppose "conflict" means in that context?
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
><D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>>No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about attacking
>>Syria ---- nor have I.
>>"US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict"
>>From Tim Reid in Washington
>Conflict would imply attack.
We have Hines' word that no such thing is even
being considered.
Interesting how he doesn't read what he posts.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Unless they've screwed each other in a business deal.
---- Paul J. Gans
Drew Nicholson
>
> >Love thy Neighbor as thyself, of course, only applies to white, rich,
> >protestant christians to each-other...
>
> Unless they've screwed each other in a business deal.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Well, of course. I mean, they're christians and all, but that's BUSINESS...
tiglath
His comedic value, his only value, had gone down to almost nothing. It
might be worth reading again for a laugh.
How come the hawks are not being treated as victors should? Even with
their propaganda in the front page everyday there is no ovation, no triumph.
Feels Pyrrhic.
Neville Lindsay
I don't think they are on the list. They have already been invaded by Syria
which, although it has established a 'protectorate' over it, at least has
curbed the orgy of mutual self-destruction which the Lebanese factions
indulged themselves in. However, Lebanon and Syria, as prime players in the
Israeli-Palestinian problem, have to decide to either participate in a
settlement of the latter problem, or expose themselves as an integral
obstacle to the process. Which is where the lesson from Iraq comes in.
It would be stupid and negligent of the US not to use this leverage as a
dividend from the war - ultimate Middle East peace depends on resolution of
this problem by negotiations to provide tolerable terms to both sides. To
have bordering countries (and Iran and Saudi back-door money) continuing to
fan the flames as has happened in the past whenever a Palestinian resolution
appears on the horizon can't be tolerated. This time around this dividend is
available, and should not be squandered by letting the other countries
foster/tolerate spoiling tactics. If that means naked threats, as we have
seen made to Syria in the past few days, so be it to keep this unique window
open.
NL
Neville Lindsay
Pretty pathetic from a nay-sayer who has been dribbling on with trash which
has been consistently demonstrated to be wrong and twisted. Your ego seems
to insulate you from recognising just how discredited you have been by your
denials, evasions and perversions.
NL
Neville Lindsay
As one of the wee voices himself, he imagines they are important, instead of
the endless background noise which happens on everything which happens. We
still have flat-earthers, but no one takes any notice of them,
self-important as they may consider themselves. So also with the nay-sayers
and doomsdayers, which he considers himself to be a proud member of, instead
of the reality of being just a pack of fringe whingers and snivellers.
NL
Neville Lindsay
Why, if it's true? If Saddam had met his obligations, he would not have been
invaded. Now the others are in the same position, being told what the should
do/not do. Now if they do it, they will not be invaded. If they don't, they
know now what they are risking. In this atmosphere, the much-vaunted
nay-sayer diplomacy _can_ work, without a 12 year pause to see if it will,
as was the previous case.
> And by the way, will all the folks here so certain
> that the US will NOT attack Syria, why should Syria
> pay any attention to what is being said?
>
> Or perhaps they are not as convinced as some.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
That is precisely the biggest dividend from the Iraqi walkover - they all
now know just how easily they can be rolled over, and the regimes of those
countries, wanting to stay in power, now have some stark alternatives.
Knowing that they might be a target, they have a powerful incentive to not
become the next target by harbouring WMD and destabilising their neighbours
and the ME peace process.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Julian Richards" <julian-...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:d5or9v4t9loaqr02u...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:31:12 +0100, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Add the possibility of WMD and harbouring Saddam, and I would have
thought
> >that would have been enough for Bush.
>
> in a funny way". That'll do.
>
>
> --
>
> Julian Richards
>
> "My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
> He's ten years old, he should make his own"
With the response above, are you sure that it is your son who is ten years
old?
NL
Neville Lindsay
Was it you who said if WMD were found, it would have been because the US
planted them?
NL
Neville Lindsay
Back to schoolyard repartee?
NL
Neville Lindsay
> >> In soc.history.medieval Jon Meltzer <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:25:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> >> >wrote:> >> >>>D. Spencer Hines <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:P%Fma.536$lh3....@eagle.america.net...
> >> >>>> No one in the Administration has said a damned thing about
attacking
> >> >>>> Syria ---- nor have I.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>But the US, in diplomatic language, is already swarming over the
> >border!
> >> >>
> >> >>>Surreyman
> >> >>
> >> >>What I enjoyed enormously was the timing of the lucky discovery
> >> >>that Syria has weapons of mass destruction...
> >> >>
> >> >>Who is next? Cuba? North Korea? France?
> >>
> >> >But France _does_ have WMDs - nukes.
> >>
> >> Well, there you go. We'll have to take them out. Besides
> >> they are loud, arrogant, and nasty to Bush. Can't have that.
> >>
> >> But it is only the regime we will be out to get. We expect
> >> the common people of France, oppressed all these years by
> >> a social system that piles taxes on the individual and forces
> >> them to take part in government sponsored medicine and retirement,
> >> those common people will rejoice and throw flowers at our
> >> victorious troops as they roll by.
> >>
> >> After we win, the US-appointed Governor-General will eliminate
> >> most of their taxes, dismantle their educational system, destroy
> >> their evil welfare system, and give women the right to vote.
> >> We might even let a few into the new Parliament we will set up.
> >>
> >> And oh yes, preachers from various of our congretations will
> >> be sent over to convert them to Christianity.
> >>
>
> >Not totally on topic, but maybe relevant ...
> >It came to my mind (I'm old, it takes time) that I remembered an ancient
> >society where it was recognised that war was terrible but sometimes
> >necessary.
> >Fair enough.
> >The kick, though, was that the leader, recognising that he would be
sending
> >thousands to their deaths in however righteous a cause, had to be willing
to
> >commit suicide himself, provided that he thought the war was righteous
> >enough ...
> >That could no doubt start off a debate.
> >But, also, genuinely, do any others remember the society involved?
>
> No. But on our side of the joint alt.history.british,
soc.history.medieval
> boundary, we are aware of times when the leaders led from in front.
> We'd have had Bush with the 7th Cavalry, Rumsfeld running out of
> ammunition with the Marines, and Perle flying close support missions
> for the Air Force.
>
> And I suspect we'd get letters from them to Congress begging for
> more men, supplies, water, etc.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
All this silly, juvenile, sour grapes diversionary stuff cannot detract from
a brilliant military victory, which has so stunned the Arab world, and
chastened North Korea, that there is some chance of getting sane outcomes
from main-chancers who in the past have thought that they could get away
forever with doing as they pleased. They now have to face up to their own
restive populations, which will keep them busy for quite a period, and take
their mind off meddling in other countries' affairs.
NL
a.spencer3
Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:K2lna.9521$hF.7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> news:LKidnRwB_oD...@giganews.com...
> >
> > "William Black" wrote in message
> >
> > > "hippo" wrote in message
> >
> troops
> > > with
> > > > what is already in Iraq.
> > >
> > >
> > > US Marines in Mosul are holled up in the governers mansion and
shooting
> > down
> > > the civilians who turn up to throw stones every day. Today they also
> shot
> > > three of thier new cops, either because their stomachs got turned and
> > they
> > > changed sides after two days or they got in the way.
> >
> > So? What does that have to do with numbers? We expected problems in
Tikrit
> > and have had far fewer than we thought. The people in the compound are
> > marines which have nothing to do with troops free to attack Syria of so
> > ordered.
> >
> > >
> > > couple of months ago he gave the new President of Syria a good dinner
in
> > > London.
> > >
> > > What on earth makes you think he'd back an invasion?
> > >
> > > I should add that the President of Syria was an eye surgeon in London
up
> > > until a few years ago. He might not be Dubya's favourite person but
> he's
> > no
> > > Saddam, and everybody knows it.
> >
> > I know it too and have said nothing about wanting to invading Syria and
> > neither has the President. I said we won't and Gans said we couldn't.
That
> > is two different things. -the Troll
>
advantage out of all this. So for Gawd's sake let's use it, fast and hard.
The diplomats failed us badly previously (I still feel they could have been
far, far more effective. That's where I lay the major blame). It's down to
them again now, and they have the ammunition (I'll rephrase that!).
Surreyman
Sophia
>
>
> His comedic value, his only value, had gone down to almost nothing. It
> might be worth reading again for a laugh.
>
> How come the hawks are not being treated as victors should? Even with
> their propaganda in the front page everyday there is no ovation, no triumph.
> Feels Pyrrhic.
>
With any luck the electorate will give them the kind of victory
celebration that Clytemnestra gave Agamemnon come 2004.
Sophia
>
>
>
>
a.spencer3
>
> > And we don't have enough people on the ground in Iraq *NOW*.
> > That's quite plain to anyone who reads the newspapers with
> > any intelligence.
>
> No it isn't. We didn't have enough for the first three or four days in
> Baghdad. Follow on units have been cancelled and two carriers released for
> return to the States.
>
In that case why aren't the streets of all towns well patrolled, security
assured, the towns made safe enough for the aid services to come in, the
engineering forces having restored water & power? Seven-eights of Baghdad is
still without water. Medical services are still declining! Most of the aid
services still won't even leave Umm Qatr for Basra (possibly the best
controlled major town along with Mosul & Kirkuk), let alone further up the
rivers. The Brit forces leaving Iraq are on rotation, not producing a net
departure. Net departures are amongst the no longer needed air & naval power
(I hope) - and I still wonder why we didn't put the navy personnel into
back-up rather than pulling them out. Most of all opinions in this agree
that the back-up is under-manned, including your own people.
The back-up was under-planned, and is still under-manned - fact. And that's
by the Coalition, which includes the Brits and Aussies, before more insults
come flying in my direction. I must admit I would have thought the Brits, at
least, would have been far more aware, but I don't know how much say they
had in The Plan. Seems some of the US Generals didn't have too much, either!
Surreyman