A Decade Later

[Paul J Gans]

It was on this newsgroup 10 years ago when a minority of
us objected to the start of the Iraq war for a variety of
reasons. We were rapidly called names and told we were
idiots who understood nothing.

We were right.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Andrew Chaplin]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote in news:kib1bi$51q$1...@reader2.panix.com:

And you can say, "I told you so." Oh. You just did.

Good to hear from you, Paul, even on a sad anniversary.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Surreyman]

Yep, Paul, I was with you there, I think - and we were also protesting for weeks prior.
I can't remember - maybe the 'pro-war' comments were coming from the USA? 'Cos some 80% of Brits were against and we had massive protests here. To no avail.
We've just seen another prog on UK TV this week, repeating the now totally accepted stories of the 'Dodgy Dossiers'.
And, of course, there was the appalling David Kelly episode.
A terrible time for so-called democracy in the UK, thanks to Bloody Blair.

[Paul J Gans]

And bloody Bush.

Yes, you were there. And you are right, most of the pro-war sentiments
were coming from the US. Indeed, the power structure in the US has
not yet admitted the magnitude and the extent of the failure.

What is happening there now is almost exactly as predicted. The
cost was hundreds of thousands of lives. And the carnage still goes
on.

What grieves me the most is that the current president of the US
has it in his power to make the entire inside story of the origins
of the war public. Indeed, I'd say that he has that duty. But no,
he will not do it.

I am old now, and thought that I'd seen the end of major folly. Of
course, I was dead wrong about that.

More personally, how are you doing? I feel as though I've aged 10
years since Iraq began... ;-) I trust you and your are holding
together?

[Paul J Gans]

Andrew Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote in news:kib1bi$51q$1...@reader2.panix.com:

>> It was on this newsgroup 10 years ago when a minority of
>> us objected to the start of the Iraq war for a variety of
>> reasons. We were rapidly called names and told we were
>> idiots who understood nothing.
>>
>> We were right.

>And you can say, "I told you so." Oh. You just did.

>Good to hear from you, Paul, even on a sad anniversary.

It is a sad aniversary. And the carnage continues, the death
toll mounts. I think of Southey's poem "Blenheim" which ends

"And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why, that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."

[Bill]

Well they fooled me at the time, I admit it.

On the other hand I remain remarkably relaxed about the idea of the
USA driving out bloody handed tyrants and taking control of the
world's oil supply.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the uprisings against Arab dictators as
well.

I really can't see a down-side to Libya and Syria in chaos except the
dreadful series of personal tragedies, and even these seem to pale
against what happened in Yugoslavia.

But I'm in an odd position.

Bush's and Blair's wars made me enough money to retire at 50.

I find it extremely difficult to harden my heart against either of
them.

[Surreyman]

Well, I could never associate with those comments.
The downside of the Arab Spring is that xxxxxxx knows what will replace the 'dictators' - some of whom weren't so appalling. And "xxxxxx knows what" is already including Qaida-type elements.
Certainly, the Arabs have a right to sort themselves in whichever directions they wish - but do 'we' have a right to intervene?
We're already mixed up - backing the 'rebels' in most cases but the 'anti-rebels' in Mali.
As for condoning all because the US has taken over whatever smacks of Hitler.
As for condoning all because it resulted in personal profit ....
I'd better shut up!

[Surreyman]

Hi Paul,

Great to hear from you directly again.
Yep, we were right, and now most agree with us - a novel experience!
I must confess, though, that I expected far more implosion in Iraq and Afgho than has (so far) happened. So cross fingers.
Yep, I'm now in my 70s - and remember that you're about 40 years more?!
I've pulled out of my liaison work with outgoing and returning troops - the personally known body bags wore me down a bit - so do not have my previous direct lines of info

Warm regards,
Alan

[Bill]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:


>The downside of the Arab Spring is that xxxxxxx knows what will replace the 'dictators' - some of whom weren't so appalling. And "xxxxxx knows what" is already including Qaida-type elements.

True.

But for some reason Arab cultures seem to have rejected free and fair
elections in favour of tyranny. Goodness knows why.

People keep invading, (or successful revolts happen) followed by the
offer of free and fair elections and whoever is in the chair at the
time keeps saying 'No' and nobody objects too strongly.

>Certainly, the Arabs have a right to sort themselves in whichever directions they wish - but do 'we' have a right to intervene?

Libya seems to point to what is preferred by the local elite, which
is a heavily armed tribal religious militia ruling with a rod of iron.

Can we reasonably stand by and watch while the women are deprived of
education and opportunity and the educated population bullied into
some sort of feudal <apologies for using that word> relationship with
the men with guns?

>We're already mixed up - backing the 'rebels' in most cases but the 'anti-rebels' in Mali.

Well there's no real alternative there but more chaos. The former
colonial power more or less refused to allow this. In Somalia
(previously British and Italian) and Libya (previously Italian) the
former colonial powers, who are undoubtedly to blame for much of the
mess, refused to intervene.

Sierra Leone showed that intervention works.

Odd how nobody ever mentions that one...

>As for condoning all because the US has taken over whatever smacks of Hitler.

I am immensely relaxed over that. Someone has to save the world, and
we can no longer afford to do it.

>As for condoning all because it resulted in personal profit ....

It would be hypocritical of me to claim otherwise.

I'm certainly not giving the money back.

[Surreyman]

:-))

I'm fully aware of Sierra Leone - indeed, a minor classic.
After some 10 years of chaos, 1,200 Brit paras sorted it within months, and sans the headlines.
Totally different situation - no politics or religion involved - just a matter of getting rid of the gangsters.

[Bill]

I don't think there were 1,200 paratroopers available.

>Totally different situation - no politics or religion involved - just a matter of getting rid of the gangsters.

Lots of politics, some religion, but in the end it's all just more
'Social banditry'.

All these movements start somewhere.

Usually from the sweeping from the gutter. People who have nothing to
lose, know how to fight and have no time or respect for the police.

(Often described by English social historians as 'The gasworks gang')

When things fall to bits this lot already have loyalties in place and
a leadership of sorts.

When things get really bad there are always guns more or less lying
about.

After that they tend to be 'adopted' by any passing 'leader'.

The process can best be observed in 'what was Yugoslavia' where the
professional paid army fell away and the military leadership adopted
the local toughs and called them 'the militia'.

In Libya it's tribal more than social.

Syria is made muddy by Salafist/Whabbi intervention paid for by the
Saudis.

But the reality is that, as Mali and Sierra Leone (and even James
Blunt's adventures in Yugoslavia for Goodness sake) showed, a brigade
sized force supported by attack helicopters and limited armour just
scythes through irregular militia.

Boots on the ground, reasonably well led and with good intelligence,
would sort Syria, Somalia and Libya out in weeks much as they did in
Sierra Leone and are doing in Mali.

What is lacking is the political will to stop them killing each other,
mainly because it suits all the major non Arab players for Syria and
Libya to be hip deep in blood.

[Paul J Gans]

Surreyman <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[ major snip]

>Hi Paul,

>Great to hear from you directly again.
>Yep, we were right, and now most agree with us - a novel experience!
>I must confess, though, that I expected far more implosion in Iraq and Afgho than has (so far) happened. So cross fingers.

I agree. I think that the fear that the US would return its
troops if things got too far out of hand has kept major implosions
from happing rapidly.

But I do think they are going on in slow motion. The Iraqi "government"
has slowly been removing all non-Shi'a members from itself by accusing
them of various crimes which force them into hiding or, if caught, jail
cells.

Afghanistan, I think, will revert to the pre-US intervention fairly
rapidly once the bulk of the remaining forces are withdrawn. Nothing
has happened to damp down the sectarian hatred. And in fact the
major weakening of Pakistan as a power may make things worse.

>Yep, I'm now in my 70s - and remember that you're about 40 years more?!

Not quite. ;-) I will reach 80 in May. There's been talk in New
York of World War II becoming "history" as the last remaining
troops who saw combat dwindle rapidly in numbers.

>I've pulled out of my liaison work with outgoing and returning troops - the personally known body bags wore me down a bit - so do not have my previous direct lines of info

I don't know how you did that job. I don't think I'd have the emotional
strength for it. We occasionally see in the news returning veterans,
destroyed physically and often mentally, trying to cope with civilian
life. And the cost to the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan must have
been far far worse. It is though the gates of hell had been opened
on them all. And to what end?

>Warm regards,

And to you as well.

[Paul J Gans]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
><alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>>The downside of the Arab Spring is that xxxxxxx knows what will replace the 'dictators' - some of whom weren't so appalling. And "xxxxxx knows what" is already including Qaida-type elements.

>True.

>But for some reason Arab cultures seem to have rejected free and fair
>elections in favour of tyranny. Goodness knows why.

I think that the problem is that when it comes to elections, the
organized groups have all the advantage.

>People keep invading, (or successful revolts happen) followed by the
>offer of free and fair elections and whoever is in the chair at the
>time keeps saying 'No' and nobody objects too strongly.

Same reason. There are few forums in which individuals can make
their opinions known.

>>Certainly, the Arabs have a right to sort themselves in whichever directions they wish - but do 'we' have a right to intervene?

>Libya seems to point to what is preferred by the local elite, which
>is a heavily armed tribal religious militia ruling with a rod of iron.

>Can we reasonably stand by and watch while the women are deprived of
>education and opportunity and the educated population bullied into
>some sort of feudal <apologies for using that word> relationship with
>the men with guns?

This is pehaps the worst result of the US intervention. Take Iraq
as an example. Saddam was a bloody dictator with much to answer
for. But in his Iraq religion was kept from running things, women
went to school and college, and folks had a decent chance.

Sure, some were arbitrarily executed, raped, and tortured. But the
number is far less than what the intervention caused.

>>We're already mixed up - backing the 'rebels' in most cases but the 'anti-rebels' in Mali.

>Well there's no real alternative there but more chaos. The former
>colonial power more or less refused to allow this. In Somalia
>(previously British and Italian) and Libya (previously Italian) the
>former colonial powers, who are undoubtedly to blame for much of the
>mess, refused to intervene.

Agreed. For me the biggest problem is that the colonial powers,
with some major exceptions, did not even leave a cadre of locals
behind who were trained in administration.

>Sierra Leone showed that intervention works.

>Odd how nobody ever mentions that one...

>>As for condoning all because the US has taken over whatever smacks of Hitler.

>I am immensely relaxed over that. Someone has to save the world, and
>we can no longer afford to do it.

>>As for condoning all because it resulted in personal profit ....

>It would be hypocritical of me to claim otherwise.

>I'm certainly not giving the money back.

Well, it certainly did not result in a profit for the man or woman
in the street here. Real wages have declined in the US for the
bottom 90% in the last 10 years.

[Surreyman]

Re Sierra Leone, there was 1 Para, plus elements of 2 Para, plus Special Forces.
Re the rest of it, fair enough, your thoughts. I would differ with much.

[Surreyman]

One sees some PTSD of course, but I wonder if the media headlines make it appear more prevalent than possibly it is? If the lads remain in the forces they're often fine. Very sadly, some come home to redundancy, and that's when they find facing civvy street difficult.
On my own minor forays a million years ago, I well remember returning, looking at civilians in the street and thinking "They just don't even bloody well know or care!".
But I wasn't on the social or counselling end, thank goodness, more the briefing/debriefing of tactical situations.

[Surreyman]

On Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:08:23 PM UTC, Bill wrote:

There is often a strong tribal tradition with (often inherited) 'big man' leadership from the village up. Apart from the relatively recent injection of extreme Islamism, Arab communities/nations are often therefore more comfortable with this.
We have not adopted their methods of government - why should they adopt ours?

"Can we reasonably stand by and watch while the women are deprived of
education and opportunity"

We have not adopted their attitude to women (or whatever). Why should they adopt ours?
I'm by no means condoning - I obviously agree with you re women etc. - but why should I impose that thought in, say, Ouarzazate, especially through warfare?
Would you accept an Islamic invasion of, say, Florida intended to impose Islamic culture?
On one occasion, having been in an Islamic environment for some weeks, an Arab friend showed me some typical 'page 3' photos in an imported Western newspaper and remarked "How can you allow, let alone enjoy, such demeaning of your ladies?".
I didn't have much of an answer available.

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:44:21 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:08:23 PM UTC, Bill wrote:


>"But for some reason Arab cultures seem to have rejected free and fair
>elections in favour of tyranny. Goodness knows why."
>
>There is often a strong tribal tradition with (often inherited) 'big man' leadership from the village up. Apart from the relatively recent injection of extreme Islamism, Arab communities/nations are often therefore more comfortable with this.
>We have not adopted their methods of government - why should they adopt ours?

I'm not asking them to.

However if they reject a broad based democratic system of some sort
their leaders must expect to be treated as tyrants.

Power must come from a mandate from the people or it is just rule by
'a man with a gun'.

>"Can we reasonably stand by and watch while the women are deprived of
>education and opportunity"
>
>We have not adopted their attitude to women (or whatever). Why should they adopt ours?
>I'm by no means condoning - I obviously agree with you re women etc. - but why should I impose that thought in, say, Ouarzazate, especially through warfare?

Because it is equitable.

All the Arab Spring uprisings have emphasised the desire of the
participants for a democratic system.

There has been no rioting for benevolent tyrants...

>Would you accept an Islamic invasion of, say, Florida intended to impose Islamic culture?

Of course not.

However I have absolute confidence in the ability of a democratic
state to resist such an attack.

>On one occasion, having been in an Islamic environment for some weeks, an Arab friend showed me some typical 'page 3' photos in an imported Western newspaper and remarked "How can you allow, let alone enjoy, such demeaning of your ladies?".
>I didn't have much of an answer available.

The answer, of course, is that the press is free and the young lady
in question is also free to earn money in any way she sees fit that is
not criminal.

Your friend did not have to buy that newspaper.

[Surreyman]

The broader point is, of course, that some aspects of our society repel other cultures as much as vice versa.
We have no rights to impose our versions of culture.
We may criticise, object, persuade, discuss, cajole to our hearts' content, of course, but not impose.

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, demeaning is in the eye of the beholder.

But we do have a cultural gap. Most of those lousy middle easterners
don't seem to understand that the west has a god-given right to
intervene in their affairs, but they have no right to intervene in
ours.

I'm afraid we are going down a long road into the chasm.

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>The broader point is, of course, that some aspects of our society repel other cultures as much as vice versa.

True.

>We have no rights to impose our versions of culture.

True.

>We may criticise, object, persuade, discuss, cajole to our hearts' content, of course, but not impose.

Wrong.

Tyrants should be deposed.

Then the people should be given a choice.

We seem to be able to manage the first one but the mechanism for the
second has proved problematical in recent years...

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:01:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:


>But we do have a cultural gap. Most of those lousy middle easterners
>don't seem to understand that the west has a god-given right to
>intervene in their affairs, but they have no right to intervene in
>ours.

They have.

They can vote in elections here just like any other resident.

Muslims form 5% of the UK population

So far their impact on politics has been far less significant than it
should have been.

The only Arabs in the Middle East who get to vote in free and fair
election are Israeli citizens...

[Surreyman]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:07:22 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >The broader point is, of course, that some aspects of our society repel other cultures as much as vice versa.
>
>
>
> True.
>
>
>
> >We have no rights to impose our versions of culture.
>
>
>
> True.
>
>
>
> >We may criticise, object, persuade, discuss, cajole to our hearts' content, of course, but not impose.
>
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
> Tyrants should be deposed.
>
>

Oh well, start planning some 3 dozen invasions, including into some important allies.
(PS: You'd better sort your current couple first).

[Bill]

I would love to.

Starting with the despotic Saudi degenerates.

And what's more you know that one of these days we're going to have to
sort them out.

This morning the BBC ran a story about a heroic Saudi women who is
resisting the evil oppressors in the best way she knows, she's
driving a car...

[Paul J Gans]

Exactly. So the evidence is that deposing tyrants only ensures
a change in tyrant.

I grant that in some absolute sense you may be right, but as a
practical matter, deposing tyrants is best left to Zeus.

[Bill]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:10:50 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>><alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The broader point is, of course, that some aspects of our society repel other cultures as much as vice versa.
>
>>True.
>
>>>We have no rights to impose our versions of culture.
>
>>True.
>
>>>We may criticise, object, persuade, discuss, cajole to our hearts' content, of course, but not impose.
>
>>Wrong.
>
>>Tyrants should be deposed.
>
>>Then the people should be given a choice.
>
>>We seem to be able to manage the first one but the mechanism for the
>>second has proved problematical in recent years...
>
>Exactly. So the evidence is that deposing tyrants only ensures
>a change in tyrant.

Only recently.

Tyrants have not reemerged in Germany, Italy or Japan in recent
years, well, assuming we're being charitable about the ghastly
Angela Merkel...

What we're not doing is spending the money properly.

Employing second rate ideologues like Paul Bremer and heavily armed
thugs like Blackwater will get you a mess like Iraq every time.

Letting an ex CIA asset like Hamid Karzai run Afghanistan is just
plain stupid.

What is needed is what was done in Europe post WWII. So something
like the 'Allied Control Council' running a reasonably heavy handed
military occupation for three or four years until various institutions
of state emerge from under that organisation's wing.

It would be cheaper than fighting endless insurgencies and couldn't
possibly be any worse than the results we keep getting.

[Surreyman]

What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.
Unbelievable.
I have to suspect that you have never been within a battlefield yourself.

[Nightjar]

On 23/03/2013 23:07, Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The broader point is, of course, that some aspects of our society repel other cultures as much as vice versa.
>
> True.
>
>> We have no rights to impose our versions of culture.
>
> True.
>
>> We may criticise, object, persuade, discuss, cajole to our hearts' content, of course, but not impose.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Tyrants should be deposed.

If that is going to happen, it should be at the initiative of the people
being oppressed. Any outsider trying to do so is only likely to unite
the people against them.

> Then the people should be given a choice.

Attributed to Winston Churchill:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
the average voter.


Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>>
>> What is needed is what was done in Europe post WWII. So something
>>
>> like the 'Allied Control Council' running a reasonably heavy handed
>>
>> military occupation for three or four years until various institutions
>>
>> of state emerge from under that organisation's wing.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be cheaper than fighting endless insurgencies and couldn't
>>
>> possibly be any worse than the results we keep getting.
>
>What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.

The innocents would probably prefer it to today's Syria and Libya.

>Unbelievable.

Realistic.

>I have to suspect that you have never been within a battlefield yourself.

Attempting to deny me an opinion because I have never seen active
service in an army is dishonest.

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:59:07 +0000, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 23/03/2013 23:07, Bill wrote:

>> Wrong.
>>
>> Tyrants should be deposed.
>
>If that is going to happen, it should be at the initiative of the people
>being oppressed.

As Libya, Syria and Afghanistan have shown recently (and there are
more historical examples), that ends in warlordism and more tyrants.

The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
the tyrants after any revolution.

The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
revolution.

The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
government after the fall of the tyrant.

>Any outsider trying to do so is only likely to unite
>the people against them.

Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.

>> Then the people should be given a choice.
>
>Attributed to Winston Churchill:
>
>The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
>the average voter.

Definitely said by Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst system
of government in the world, except for all the others."

[Nightjar]

On 25/03/2013 21:31, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:59:07 +0000, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/2013 23:07, Bill wrote:
>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Tyrants should be deposed.
>>
>> If that is going to happen, it should be at the initiative of the people
>> being oppressed.
>
> As Libya, Syria and Afghanistan have shown recently (and there are
> more historical examples), that ends in warlordism and more tyrants.

It is their revolution, they should decide what they want to happen
afterwards, not have somebody else's ideas imposed upon them.

> The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
> condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
> the tyrants after any revolution.
>
> The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
> survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
> revolution.

and impose their view of what people should want upon them.

> The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
> government after the fall of the tyrant.

A government that was, in its own way, a tyranny.

>> Any outsider trying to do so is only likely to unite
>> the people against them.
>
> Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.

Do you really think that any people like being subjugated? Have you
actually asked any German of the period their opinion of the invaders?

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:44:16 +0000, Nightjar

<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2013 21:31, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:59:07 +0000, Nightjar
>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/2013 23:07, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Tyrants should be deposed.
>>>
>>> If that is going to happen, it should be at the initiative of the people
>>> being oppressed.
>>
>> As Libya, Syria and Afghanistan have shown recently (and there are
>> more historical examples), that ends in warlordism and more tyrants.
>
>It is their revolution, they should decide what they want to happen
>afterwards, not have somebody else's ideas imposed upon them.

The problem is that, as Marx worked out, the progress of revolutions
is predictable.

The great historical discovery of the Marxists is that it is not
inevitable.

>> The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
>> condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
>> the tyrants after any revolution.
>>
>> The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
>> survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
>> revolution.
>
>and impose their view of what people should want upon them.

Well yes, so what?

>> The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
>> government after the fall of the tyrant.
>
>A government that was, in its own way, a tyranny.

But a limited tyranny and it didn't last long.

I don't think you're looking at this with a historical perspective.

>>> Any outsider trying to do so is only likely to unite
>>> the people against them.
>>
>> Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.
>
>Do you really think that any people like being subjugated? Have you
>actually asked any German of the period their opinion of the invaders?

Compared to the constant bombing and starvation you mean?

That there was no real resistance to the WWII occupation of both
Germany and Japan does tend to indicate that they weren't that upset
by it.

Not when you compare it with what happened when they invaded someone.

[Surreyman]

I'm obviously not denying you an opinion.
I'm just suggesting that armchair warriors might be more inclined to nuke the world than those who have seen the prices to be paid.

[Bill]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 03:16:18 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 25, 2013 9:25:07 PM UTC, Bill wrote:

>> Attempting to deny me an opinion because I have never seen active
>>
>> service in an army is dishonest.
>
>I'm obviously not denying you an opinion.

You're attempting to say that my opinion is not valid.

It amounts to the same thing.

>I'm just suggesting that armchair warriors might be more inclined to nuke the world than those who have seen the prices to be paid.

There you go again...

It is also often said that war is far too important to be left to
generals...

We can trade bloody silly reasons why either of us shouldn't be
allowed an opinion all day.

[Surreyman]

So answer the comment:

What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.

Unbelievable.

[Bill]

Well first of all, it isn't unbelievable, and second, it is far
better than the mess we have now.

What we have is corrupt chaos with warlords running rampant and
corruption rife and the private armies of the big oil companies
carving out empires in the oil rich areas and pretending that this is
what we want.

The US wants the oil, but they're not prepared to pay a small price in
blood for it, they'd rather the locals paid a huge price in blood for
it...

[Les Cargill]

Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:48:23 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.
>> Unbelievable.
>
> Well first of all, it isn't unbelievable, and second, it is far
> better than the mess we have now.
>
> What we have is corrupt chaos with warlords running rampant and
> corruption rife and the private armies of the big oil companies
> carving out empires in the oil rich areas and pretending that this is
> what we want.
>

The problem is that whatever "we" replace warlords with will be
subject to the same pressures as the existing warlords.

A great deal of what we're dealing with now are .... "aftershocks"
left over from the 1950s, with MI6, the OSS/CIA ala Dulles
under Eisenhower.

In other words, there are long-wave/long-tail transitions
still in play.

The US was never designed to be a global power. Besides...
<http://www.booktv.org/Program/9802/The+Irregulars+Roald+Dahl+and+the+British+Spy+Ring+in+Wartime+Washington.aspx>

> The US wants the oil,

<insert Dilbert "fungible" cartoon here> Most of what we see was,
curiously enough, because the price of oil *declined* after WWII
when a lot of fields in the Western US came online.

> but they're not prepared to pay a small price in
> blood for it, they'd rather the locals paid a huge price in blood for
> it...
>

There's plenty of bloody-mindedness to go around;
saying it's poorly distributed seems an extraordinary claim. Assuming
Stephen Pinker isn't completely wrong, there's also less and less blood
year by year.

Have you read "A Peace to End All Peace", and if so, what
are your thoughts on it?

--
Les Cargill

[Nightjar]

On 26/03/2013 00:05, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:44:16 +0000, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2013 21:31, Bill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:59:07 +0000, Nightjar
>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/2013 23:07, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tyrants should be deposed.
>>>>
>>>> If that is going to happen, it should be at the initiative of the people
>>>> being oppressed.
>>>
>>> As Libya, Syria and Afghanistan have shown recently (and there are
>>> more historical examples), that ends in warlordism and more tyrants.
>>
>> It is their revolution, they should decide what they want to happen
>> afterwards, not have somebody else's ideas imposed upon them.
>
> The problem is that, as Marx worked out, the progress of revolutions
> is predictable.
>
> The great historical discovery of the Marxists is that it is not
> inevitable.

How is that relevant to the concept of allowing people to determine
their own fate?

>>> The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
>>> condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
>>> the tyrants after any revolution.
>>>
>>> The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
>>> survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
>>> revolution.
>>
>> and impose their view of what people should want upon them.
>
> Well yes, so what?

If you can't see what is fundamentally wrong with that doctrine, I
somehow doubt you will understand much else of what I write.

>>> The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
>>> government after the fall of the tyrant.
>>
>> A government that was, in its own way, a tyranny.
>
> But a limited tyranny and it didn't last long.

Not particularly limited if you were expelled from your home, or
happened to live in the East. It lasted 10 years in the West and 45
years in the East.

> I don't think you're looking at this with a historical perspective.
>
>>>> Any outsider trying to do so is only likely to unite
>>>> the people against them.
>>>
>>> Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.
>>
>> Do you really think that any people like being subjugated? Have you
>> actually asked any German of the period their opinion of the invaders?
>
> Compared to the constant bombing and starvation you mean?

If you wish, have you? I know people who lived through it and I think
you would be amazed at the depth of feeling against the invaders.

> That there was no real resistance to the WWII occupation of both
> Germany and Japan does tend to indicate that they weren't that upset
> by it.

You are overlooking the ferocity of the resistance to the advance of the
Allies into Germany and the expectation that an invasion of Japan would
be met with fanatical resistance. Once the German war machine had been
defeated there was not much left for them to resist with and Japan had
the spectre of A bombs hanging over it.

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:45:47 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:48:23 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.
>>> Unbelievable.
>>
>> Well first of all, it isn't unbelievable, and second, it is far
>> better than the mess we have now.
>>
>> What we have is corrupt chaos with warlords running rampant and
>> corruption rife and the private armies of the big oil companies
>> carving out empires in the oil rich areas and pretending that this is
>> what we want.
>>
>
>The problem is that whatever "we" replace warlords with will be
>subject to the same pressures as the existing warlords.

I didn't happen in Germany or Japan in 1945, therefore it is not
inevitable.

Germany was ruled by warlords and aristocrats who held power by force
of arms until less than 100 years before...

>The US was never designed to be a global power.

No country ever is.

>Have you read "A Peace to End All Peace", and if so, what
>are your thoughts on it?

It is now on the list...

Try 'The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli
Conflict' by Schneer for a horribly cynical view of British
machinations.

[Les Cargill]

Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:45:47 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:48:23 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What a lovely future you envisage, and even seem to wish, for USians, let alone countless innocents within your targets.
>>>> Unbelievable.
>>>
>>> Well first of all, it isn't unbelievable, and second, it is far
>>> better than the mess we have now.
>>>
>>> What we have is corrupt chaos with warlords running rampant and
>>> corruption rife and the private armies of the big oil companies
>>> carving out empires in the oil rich areas and pretending that this is
>>> what we want.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that whatever "we" replace warlords with will be
>> subject to the same pressures as the existing warlords.
>
> I didn't happen in Germany or Japan in 1945, therefore it is not
> inevitable.
>

Something was a little different there, don't you think?

> Germany was ruled by warlords and aristocrats who held power by force
> of arms until less than 100 years before...
>
>

Absolutely. Arguably, Bismarck started WWII - all in the name of peace,
of course...

>> The US was never designed to be a global power.
>
> No country ever is.
>

I really like that :) The US more than most. I'd say british culture
adapted to suit its Empire at points, and in significant ways.
American culture never really did - of course, we're
not *really* an Empire in the same way.

Some people think American provincialism is a bug; I am not
so sure.

>> Have you read "A Peace to End All Peace", and if so, what
>> are your thoughts on it?
>
> It is now on the list...
>
> Try 'The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli
> Conflict' by Schneer for a horribly cynical view of British
> machinations.
>

It's on the list now of all the books I'll never get to. :)

"A Peace..." rather generalizes beyond just Israel, I think.
Short, punchy chapters, each thrown onto a huge pile of
errors. It's not a "fair" book but it's well-footnoted and
makes the spine of comprehensive history.

--
Les Cargill

[Bill]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:15 +0000, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 26/03/2013 00:05, Bill wrote:

>> The problem is that, as Marx worked out, the progress of revolutions
>> is predictable.
>>
>> The great historical discovery of the Marxists is that it is not
>> inevitable.
>
>How is that relevant to the concept of allowing people to determine
>their own fate?

They are welcome to do so after the establishment of free and fair
elections.

Until then they need help. Everyone does if they're not to end under
the heel of tyrants.

The first major turning point when a democratic system of sorts formed
was after the extraordinarily peaceful 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688
in England, and even then the aftermath was unpleasant.

>>>> The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
>>>> condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
>>>> the tyrants after any revolution.
>>>>
>>>> The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
>>>> survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
>>>> revolution.
>>>
>>> and impose their view of what people should want upon them.
>>
>> Well yes, so what?
>
>If you can't see what is fundamentally wrong with that doctrine, I
>somehow doubt you will understand much else of what I write.

I don't want a Communist solution. I want the imposition of a
democratic system.

>>>> The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
>>>> government after the fall of the tyrant.
>>>
>>> A government that was, in its own way, a tyranny.
>>
>> But a limited tyranny and it didn't last long.
>
>Not particularly limited if you were expelled from your home, or
>happened to live in the East. It lasted 10 years in the West and 45
>years in the East.

It was a sight better for all concerned than either warlordism or the
rise of a dictator.

East Germany wasn't a terribly nice place to live but I bet the
Afghans of today would prefer it to their current situation.

>>>> Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.
>>>
>>> Do you really think that any people like being subjugated? Have you
>>> actually asked any German of the period their opinion of the invaders?
>>
>> Compared to the constant bombing and starvation you mean?
>
>If you wish, have you? I know people who lived through it and I think
>you would be amazed at the depth of feeling against the invaders.

There's a reasonable depth of feeling against the Germans in most of
Europe.

But even so, everyone keeps on voting...

Which is all that matters.

>> That there was no real resistance to the WWII occupation of both
>> Germany and Japan does tend to indicate that they weren't that upset
>> by it.
>
>You are overlooking the ferocity of the resistance to the advance of the
>Allies into Germany and the expectation that an invasion of Japan would
>be met with fanatical resistance.

The point is that it wasn't resisted.

Once the German war machine had been
>defeated there was not much left for them to resist with and Japan had
>the spectre of A bombs hanging over it.

Germany in 1945/6 was awash with guns and bombs and fanatical Nazis.

The Nazis even tried to recruit and train a resistance organisation.

It failed utterly.

[Surreyman]

"imposition of a democratic system"'

WOT!!!!!!!!!

[Bill]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:47:48 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:38:58 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:15 +0000, Nightjar

>

>"imposition of a democratic system"'
>

Which democratic systems have not been imposed on the point of a
sword?

[Nightjar]

On 27/03/2013 16:38, Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:15 +0000, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2013 00:05, Bill wrote:
>
>>> The problem is that, as Marx worked out, the progress of revolutions
>>> is predictable.
>>>
>>> The great historical discovery of the Marxists is that it is not
>>> inevitable.
>>
>> How is that relevant to the concept of allowing people to determine
>> their own fate?
>
> They are welcome to do so after the establishment of free and fair
> elections.

That is imposing your idea of what they ought to want upon them. It is
not allowing them to determine their own fate.

> Until then they need help. Everyone does if they're not to end under
> the heel of tyrants.

If they want help, they can ask for it.

> The first major turning point when a democratic system of sorts formed
> was after the extraordinarily peaceful 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688
> in England, and even then the aftermath was unpleasant.

That was a people inviting help from outside to determine their own
fate, not having an outsider thrust it upon them.

>>>>> The basic Communist doctrine that 'Those who forget history are
>>>>> condemned to repeat it' related originally to the inevitable rise of
>>>>> the tyrants after any revolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Communist 'solution' was the 'Vanguard Party' that was able
>>>>> survive the disruption and provide leadership and a to guide the
>>>>> revolution.
>>>>
>>>> and impose their view of what people should want upon them.
>>>
>>> Well yes, so what?
>>
>> If you can't see what is fundamentally wrong with that doctrine, I
>> somehow doubt you will understand much else of what I write.
>
> I don't want a Communist solution. I want the imposition of a
> democratic system.

If you cannot see what is fundamentally wrong with the concept of
imposing your views on others, you are no better than the tyrants you
claim to oppose.

>>>>> The post WWII western solution was the imposition of a military
>>>>> government after the fall of the tyrant.
>>>>
>>>> A government that was, in its own way, a tyranny.
>>>
>>> But a limited tyranny and it didn't last long.
>>
>> Not particularly limited if you were expelled from your home, or
>> happened to live in the East. It lasted 10 years in the West and 45
>> years in the East.
>
> It was a sight better for all concerned than either warlordism or the
> rise of a dictator.

In some societies a warlord will be a better solution than a democracy.

> East Germany wasn't a terribly nice place to live but I bet the
> Afghans of today would prefer it to their current situation.

You think they would like mass rape by the occupying forces, forced
labour camps and deportation?

>>>>> Post war Germany and Japan shows this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think that any people like being subjugated? Have you
>>>> actually asked any German of the period their opinion of the invaders?
>>>
>>> Compared to the constant bombing and starvation you mean?
>>
>> If you wish, have you? I know people who lived through it and I think
>> you would be amazed at the depth of feeling against the invaders.
>
> There's a reasonable depth of feeling against the Germans in most of
> Europe.

Today, mainly because they are successful.

> But even so, everyone keeps on voting...
>
> Which is all that matters.

In that, you show the limitations of your understanding.

>>> That there was no real resistance to the WWII occupation of both
>>> Germany and Japan does tend to indicate that they weren't that upset
>>> by it.
>>
>> You are overlooking the ferocity of the resistance to the advance of the
>> Allies into Germany and the expectation that an invasion of Japan would
>> be met with fanatical resistance.
>
> The point is that it wasn't resisted.

That the occupation wasn't resisted after total defeat does not indicate
that the people were not upset by it.

> Once the German war machine had been
>> defeated there was not much left for them to resist with and Japan had
>> the spectre of A bombs hanging over it.
>
> Germany in 1945/6 was awash with guns and bombs and fanatical Nazis.

More of your fantasies. The country was disarmed and demilitarised, a
large proportion of its male population was in POW camps and a huge
denazification programme was initiated.

> The Nazis even tried to recruit and train a resistance organisation.

A myth or, more accurately, a bit of Goebbels' propaganda during the
last days of the war. Werwolf was actually a plan for a military unit
intended to operate behind enemy lines, in much the same way as the SAS.
Despite the propaganda, it was never intended as a post-war resistance
unit. The leadership never believed that they would lose, so never
planned for a post-war resistance.

Colin Bignell

[Surreyman]

Absolutely, all the way down the line.
You just have more patience with this fellow than I.

[Nightjar]

On 30/03/2013 09:50, Surreyman wrote:
....

> Absolutely, all the way down the line.
> You just have more patience with this fellow than I.
>

I simply came into the thread later than you :-)

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:11:14 +0000, Nightjar

<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 27/03/2013 16:38, Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:15 +0000, Nightjar
>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/03/2013 00:05, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>> The problem is that, as Marx worked out, the progress of revolutions
>>>> is predictable.
>>>>
>>>> The great historical discovery of the Marxists is that it is not
>>>> inevitable.
>>>
>>> How is that relevant to the concept of allowing people to determine
>>> their own fate?
>>
>> They are welcome to do so after the establishment of free and fair
>> elections.
>
>That is imposing your idea of what they ought to want upon them. It is
>not allowing them to determine their own fate.

You misunderstand the forces of history.

>> Until then they need help. Everyone does if they're not to end under
>> the heel of tyrants.
>
>If they want help, they can ask for it.

How?

>> The first major turning point when a democratic system of sorts formed
>> was after the extraordinarily peaceful 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688
>> in England, and even then the aftermath was unpleasant.
>
>That was a people inviting help from outside to determine their own
>fate, not having an outsider thrust it upon them.

That is open to interpretation.

There was certainly a war that followed after.

Our interpretation today is of an orderly take-over but at the time it
wasn't quite so clear cut.

>> I don't want a Communist solution. I want the imposition of a
>> democratic system.
>
>If you cannot see what is fundamentally wrong with the concept of
>imposing your views on others, you are no better than the tyrants you
>claim to oppose.

So you'd allow a Nazi government in Germany in 1946?

Or a Fascist one in Italy in 1944?

>>> Not particularly limited if you were expelled from your home, or
>>> happened to live in the East. It lasted 10 years in the West and 45
>>> years in the East.
>>
>> It was a sight better for all concerned than either warlordism or the
>> rise of a dictator.
>
>In some societies a warlord will be a better solution than a democracy.

A warlord is never ever a better solution.

That you think they may be shows the utter bankruptcy of your
political philosophy.

>> East Germany wasn't a terribly nice place to live but I bet the
>> Afghans of today would prefer it to their current situation.
>
>You think they would like mass rape by the occupying forces, forced
>labour camps and deportation?

Ask the women there...

>> There's a reasonable depth of feeling against the Germans in most of
>> Europe.
>
>Today, mainly because they are successful.

Wrong.

>> But even so, everyone keeps on voting...
>>
>> Which is all that matters.
>
>In that, you show the limitations of your understanding.

It is the limit of the involvement in the political system that most
people bother to exercise.

>>>> That there was no real resistance to the WWII occupation of both
>>>> Germany and Japan does tend to indicate that they weren't that upset
>>>> by it.
>>>
>>> You are overlooking the ferocity of the resistance to the advance of the
>>> Allies into Germany and the expectation that an invasion of Japan would
>>> be met with fanatical resistance.
>>
>> The point is that it wasn't resisted.
>
>That the occupation wasn't resisted after total defeat does not indicate
>that the people were not upset by it.

They were certainly less upset that the people they invaded.

>> Once the German war machine had been
>>> defeated there was not much left for them to resist with and Japan had
>>> the spectre of A bombs hanging over it.
>>
>> Germany in 1945/6 was awash with guns and bombs and fanatical Nazis.
>
>More of your fantasies. The country was disarmed and demilitarised, a
>large proportion of its male population was in POW camps and a huge
>denazification programme was initiated.

The Nazi Party had 8.5 million members in 1945.

There were some 1.3 million SS men.

In theory all ownership of firearms was banned, but in reality there
were plenty of guns about.

There was no serious control of firearms in Germany until the Federal
Weapons Act of 1972 (Which was of great interest to me at the time
because I'd qualified as a pistol instructor the previous year and was
interested in the almost total lack of controls on firearms in
Germany) which was followed by an amnesty when several million
firearms of various types were handed in.

Now you claim that all these people were in camps and the guns somehow
unavailable...

>> The Nazis even tried to recruit and train a resistance organisation.
>
>A myth or, more accurately, a bit of Goebbels' propaganda during the
>last days of the war. Werwolf was actually a plan for a military unit
>intended to operate behind enemy lines, in much the same way as the SAS.
>Despite the propaganda, it was never intended as a post-war resistance
>unit. The leadership never believed that they would lose, so never
>planned for a post-war resistance.

So who killed Dr Openhoff?

[Surreyman]

Yes, frankly, if they confined their activities within their own borders and did not enter into the gross excesses of the Holocaust (as Italy did not, by and large).
The UK & US tolerated, even praised, Hitler & Mussolini for years until their policies impinged too much.
The US tolerated them until their own territory was attacked by a Japanese government that had also been tolerated until then.
There was very little ideology involved in the WWII declarations of war.

[Bill]

Well I wouldn't, and at the time neither would anyone else.

As for 'did not enter into the gross excesses of the Holocaust', how
do you stop them?

But your support for a Nazi government in post war Germany is
noted...

[Surreyman]

At the time, everyone DID - with Italy for some 17 years and with Germany from 1933, and with the US waiting after most others until their own backyard was hit.

You cannot stop any other nation's government doing anything; you can only react if you wish.

And don't try and pretend that I liked Hitler's government - I lived as a youngster under their bombs.

National Socialism, and Communism, and everything else in between are simply forms of government. What those governments might do in practice at any particular time is another matter entirely.
There are quite a few unsavoury governments around in the world currently - why don't you start listing and invading them rather than ignoring history?

[Bill]

I have been mentioning regimes that need replacing for many years
here, from the dreadful degenerate Gulf sultans to the appalling
repressive and obnoxious Chinese despots.

Unfortunately the democratic governments of the world aren't listening
to me.

But my position remains the same.

Intervention in the affairs of other countries in support of democracy
is perfectly acceptable.

Leaving revolutions and revolts to run their course just invites the
inevitable aftermath.

Leaving bloody handed tyrants to do as they wish just invites more
bloody handed tyrants.

[Surreyman]

So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......

[Bill]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......

We at least we tried...

What would your solution to an Afghanistan providing a bolt hole for
organised terrorism be?

As for Iraq, Saddam won't be missed, what failed there was the
lamentable reconstruction, ruined by doctrinaire American politics.

[Les Cargill]

Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......
>
> We at least we tried...
>
> What would your solution to an Afghanistan providing a bolt hole for
> organised terrorism be?
>

<insert a half dozen Kipling poems here> :)

> As for Iraq, Saddam won't be missed, what failed there was the
> lamentable reconstruction, ruined by doctrinaire American politics.
>

Doctrine was merely a convenient story generator. There was the
smell of blood in the air. This was met by cynical careerism
and sign on bonuses.

America traded Enron "operatives" installing telecommunications
gear in peaceful Vietnam for the same basic stripe of
activity "in the sandbox." It''s not quite rotten boroughs but
it'll do.

--
Les Cargill

[Bill]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:31:02 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......
>>
>> We at least we tried...
>>
>> What would your solution to an Afghanistan providing a bolt hole for
>> organised terrorism be?
>>
>
><insert a half dozen Kipling poems here> :)

The British managed, with some difficulty, to control the Afghans
through a series of puppet governments and aggressive punitive
expeditions.

The point about the British in Afghanistan is that they did prevail
despite the locals objecting in a violent manner.

What is necessary is to stop them raiding over the border, which is
what the British did...

And what, it seems, both NATO and the Pakistani Army can't do.

Goodness knows why. The way it was done from 1880 to 1947 is well
recorded.

The publicity couldn't be any worse than it is now...

>> As for Iraq, Saddam won't be missed, what failed there was the
>> lamentable reconstruction, ruined by doctrinaire American politics.
>>
>
>Doctrine was merely a convenient story generator. There was the
>smell of blood in the air. This was met by cynical careerism
>and sign on bonuses.

>America traded Enron "operatives" installing telecommunications
>gear in peaceful Vietnam for the same basic stripe of
>activity "in the sandbox." It''s not quite rotten boroughs but
>it'll do.

Whereas what they should have done was what they did in Germany in
1945, which would have taken less time and probably cost a great deal
less as well...

[a425couple]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message...
> It was on this newsgroup 10 years ago when a minority of
> us objected to the start of the Iraq war for a variety of
> reasons. We were rapidly called names and told we were
> idiots who understood nothing.
>
> We were right.
> --- Paul J. Gans

I find that nearly 2 weeks after your post,
I'm still wondering about your thoughts.
Who do you consider "we" ?

I've gotten the impression from your posts, that every time
you have had the chance, you have voted for the likes of
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and/or John Edwards
(you know, the ones who voted FOR that war, and
have been running our forign policy for over 4 years).
Is that true?

And Afganistan, that they voted for, and is still going on,
and being run by them, were you against that also?

If those 4 named, were so wrong:
Why have you voted for them?
What do you figure that you knew, that they didn't?

[Les Cargill]

Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:31:02 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......
>>>
>>> We at least we tried...
>>>
>>> What would your solution to an Afghanistan providing a bolt hole for
>>> organised terrorism be?
>>>
>>
>> <insert a half dozen Kipling poems here> :)
>
> The British managed, with some difficulty, to control the Afghans
> through a series of puppet governments and aggressive punitive
> expeditions.
>
> The point about the British in Afghanistan is that they did prevail
> despite the locals objecting in a violent manner.
>

It was very difficult. "... and roll to your rifle..." difficult.

The level to which British culture adapted to the Service, both land
and sea, still boggles my mind.

> What is necessary is to stop them raiding over the border, which is
> what the British did...
>
> And what, it seems, both NATO and the Pakistani Army can't do.
>

Imagine that...

> Goodness knows why. The way it was done from 1880 to 1947 is well
> recorded.
>
> The publicity couldn't be any worse than it is now...
>

Heh. Oh yes it could...

>>> As for Iraq, Saddam won't be missed, what failed there was the
>>> lamentable reconstruction, ruined by doctrinaire American politics.
>>>
>>
>> Doctrine was merely a convenient story generator. There was the
>> smell of blood in the air. This was met by cynical careerism
>> and sign on bonuses.
>
>> America traded Enron "operatives" installing telecommunications
>> gear in peaceful Vietnam for the same basic stripe of
>> activity "in the sandbox." It''s not quite rotten boroughs but
>> it'll do.
>
> Whereas what they should have done was what they did in Germany in
> 1945, which would have taken less time and probably cost a great deal
> less as well...
>

That's a very interesting idea, and I'd love to read a well-done
book on why they didn't.

I suspect there's a public-choice economics problem under that
observation ( with which I agree ). But the driver is a lot about
the false economies shown in government due, IMO, to "starve
the beast" and other such entertainment-tropes that pass
here for politics.

I don't think <name elided but you-know-who> was chosen
because they were the *best*, but because corporate merger
and acq. activity made them the *only* choice.

That wasn't an accident.

The other
company of Pinkerton-style mercenaries was a way to stand
up-and-out on its head. It's all about adapting to the
option-tending at high management levels while avoiding
the ugly reality of having to actually... *ahem* perform.


I would love to see Chris Hedges do *the* book on that, in
the level of quality that say, Will Durant could. Chris
would have to knob down the vituperation and that seems
unlikely. He has a fine mind, though. "Empire of Illiusion"
is a very good start on it.

"But I make a profit of three and a quarter cents an egg by selling
them for four and a quarter cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy
them from for seven cents an egg. Of course, I don't make the profit.
The syndicate makes the profit. And everybody has a share."
Milo Minderbinder,"

--
Les Cargill

[Bill]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:48:48 -0500, Les Cargill

<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

>Bill wrote:

>> The British managed, with some difficulty, to control the Afghans
>> through a series of puppet governments and aggressive punitive
>> expeditions.
>>
>> The point about the British in Afghanistan is that they did prevail
>> despite the locals objecting in a violent manner.
>>
>
>It was very difficult. "... and roll to your rifle..." difficult.
>
>The level to which British culture adapted to the Service, both land
>and sea, still boggles my mind.

The bulk of the control was done by the British officered 'Frontier
Force' who suffered most of their European casualties in what are
today known as 'green on blue attacks' when they were shot dead by
their own men.

Despite the dangers service in the Frontier Force was considered
highly desirable as it was just about the only active service posts
available for young and ambitious officers.

Reading David Niven's autobiography about the dreadful time young
officers had between 1918 and 1939 with no active employment available
and 30 year old subalterns littering the messes of the British army
you can understand why...

>> What is necessary is to stop them raiding over the border, which is
>> what the British did...
>>
>> And what, it seems, both NATO and the Pakistani Army can't do.
>>
>
>Imagine that...

They really shouldn't have the problem they do have.

The people on the other side's main advance since 1922 has been them
being given access to automatic weapons...

>> Goodness knows why. The way it was done from 1880 to 1947 is well
>> recorded.
>>
>> The publicity couldn't be any worse than it is now...
>>
>
>Heh. Oh yes it could...

No it couldn't.

It doesn't get any worse than the father of a dead soldier standing
against the Prime Minister in a general election and people swearing
out warrants for the arrest of senior politicians.

[Surreyman]

Agreed, and it was similar in Afgho too, a successful operation then wasted.
But Afgho (not Iraq) was definitely needed. I don't fancy spending the next decades working down a list.

[Surreyman]

Well, I suppose we Brits did sort of hold Afgho in the 19th/20th centuries, but barely, and via some horrendous losses. And we, then, didn't have the Pakistani Army wondering which side they were on. I've a feeling that Pakistan & its nuclear capability is going to be one of the big worries in the mid-future.

[Bill]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:54:00 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

We didn't suffer heavy losses after 1848, which was, you have to
admit, exceptional.

>And we, then, didn't have the Pakistani Army wondering which side they were on.

We didn't have a Pakistani Army. They seem to have converted the
Frontier Scouts from a reasonably well led paramilitary border force
of seven battalions into a vast (100,000 strong) private army who are
paid for by the Americans ($1.5 Billion a year just for the Frontier
Force) to, erm, shoot across the border at Americans...

[Bill]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:08:40 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So just convert Iraq & Afgho into successes and carry on working down your list .......
>>
>>
>>
>> We at least we tried...
>>
>>
>>
>> What would your solution to an Afghanistan providing a bolt hole for
>>
>> organised terrorism be?
>>
>>
>>
>> As for Iraq, Saddam won't be missed, what failed there was the
>>
>> lamentable reconstruction, ruined by doctrinaire American politics.
>
>Agreed, and it was similar in Afgho too, a successful operation then wasted.
>But Afgho (not Iraq) was definitely needed. I don't fancy spending the next decades working down a list.

Why not?

What else have all those expensive soldiers got to do?

Then there's those two vast carriers they're building (no aircraft in
sight yet, but you never know...)

With all those soldiers and ships you could probably introduce
democracy in a couple of dozen small Arab tyrannies before the UN
noticed...

Most of their officers are still British trained so chances are that
we could engineer a coup without too much trouble and then turn up and
change things.

The Foreign Office would love it, they delight in playing with Arabs,
and it would give all those soldiers something to do that wasn't as
dangerous as Afghanistan, or even as dangerous as breaking up
Richmond on Friday and Saturday nights...

[Surreyman]

I now have to assume you're a troll! :-))

[Bill]

OK, what's your reason for us building the carriers?

In Scotland...

And then buying aircraft (that don't yet work) from the USA...

It can't be to scupper the Scottish independence referendum. It would
be cheaper by almost exactly 50% to actually go around and say 'We'll
give you £1,000 to vote for the Union' to 50% of the voters. (and
that's based on what they say they'll cost before the inevitable cost
overruns...)

There's no credible enemy.

We might as well turn the Gulf states into something just a touch more
democratic.

That's got to be better that poor old Liz having to have some
degenerate around for tea on a regular basis just because we want to
sell them yet another shed load of guns they won't be able to use...

Well, except for torturing doctors who have had the temerity to
treat people who have been beaten up by their ghastly secret police...

[Surreyman]

For many years I've travelled numerous African & Arab countries, and what you say of them can certainly be true. I've had to skip across borders several times myself to avoid downright dangerous tactics occasioned by mere business, let alone anything more lethal. I'm under no illusions.

But I'm a realist and, unlike you, I know that your multiple invasion list ain't going to change nuffink except for grief to ourselves.
In 10 years time, or less, Iraq & Afgho will be much the same as previously.
This does grieve me.
I have personal experience (mumble years ago) of such ultimately pointless military action and the loss of close mates, defending a patch of sand that no-one even goes to any more.
I have personal experience of briefing & debriefing Iraq/Afgho troops who ended up in body bags.

Most European & Scandinavian countries don't feel that they have to rule the world. Nor should the UK any more.

[Bill]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:


>For many years I've travelled numerous African & Arab countries, and what you say of them can certainly be true. I've had to skip across borders several times myself to avoid downright dangerous tactics occasioned by mere business, let alone anything more lethal. I'm under no illusions.
>
>But I'm a realist and, unlike you, I know that your multiple invasion list ain't going to change nuffink except for grief to ourselves.

It works now and again.

Sierra Leone is a decent example.

>Most European & Scandinavian countries don't feel that they have to rule the world. Nor should the UK any more.

The US says quite categorically that we have a responsibility to our
former colonies.

We are required to take in refugees from them when their ghastly
murderous governments start killing people for no good reason.

I have mentioned nowhere that was not previously a British colony
except Afghanistan, which wasn't ever quite a colony, but almost
was...

[Surreyman]

Sierra Leone and ............... ?
We've supported ex-colonies for 50 years. We're still supporting many indirectly through immigration rights, overseas aid, etc.
But now we also seem to be supporting the soft underbelly of the EU via immigration.
And nations unrelated to ourselves via NATO & UN.
We can no longer afford the economics nor the lives.
Something's gotta give.
The ex-colonies wanted independence, so let them now have it. We've paid our debts, if that's how it's regarded.
We still have a supportive community via the Commonwealth.
We are the world's 3rd. largest military spenders - and more than Russia - it's ridiculous.
Our military should now relate to the likes of Canada & co.
We can no longer act as a dominant world power when we're not.

[Bill]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:11:12 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>We've supported ex-colonies for 50 years. We're still supporting many indirectly through immigration rights, overseas aid, etc.

Except for the right to vote after becoming a legal British resident
what rights to Commonwealth get than other immigrants don't get.

Pay special attention to the rights of EC migrants in your answer...

>But now we also seem to be supporting the soft underbelly of the EU via immigration.

Which isn't what we're talking about.

>We can no longer afford the economics nor the lives.

But we're keeping all the swag we stole...

Or haven't you been for a walk around the BM or the Royal Armouries?

>The ex-colonies wanted independence, so let them now have it. We've paid our debts, if that's how it's regarded.

Not only is that not how its regarded, it's not how the UN or any
British government since WWII has regarded it.

>We still have a supportive community via the Commonwealth.

And we get that without any payment. Sometimes I wonder why this
country is so well regarded in Commonwealth countries. All we seem to
do is keep stabbing them in the back.

>We are the world's 3rd. largest military spenders - and more than Russia - it's ridiculous.

True.

>Our military should now relate to the likes of Canada & co.

Also true.

However they're about to buy those carriers and nuclear submarines
with absolutely no role for any of them.

That rich buffoon Cameron was on TV last night saying that North Korea
just might have the ability to hit us with a nuke in a decade or so.

The idea that they could both build as missile of such range and if
they could they'd point it at us is so manifestly absurd as to be
laughable but the press are parroting his lunacy with a straight face.

[Surreyman]

I agree that you agree that current policies don't match realities.
So what's the argument?
There is a (totally unnecessary) Empire guilt complex around - Blair(?) recently apologising for slavery etc. - ridiculous. Empire history virtually disappeared from school subjects, or also apologised for - ridiculous. It's past fact and should be known, even if not agreed with.
Many ex-Empire nations/people do "still like us". I've seen it so often myself - remarks such as "We wish the Brits were back in charge" are common in Africa, at least.
But no thanks! A totally thankless task/obligation/duty or whatever.
From now on, for me, it should be "no blame" and also no more paying out, in cash or obligations.

[Bill]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 01:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I agree that you agree that current policies don't match realities.
>So what's the argument?

We've bought a shed load of 'boy's toys' and employ lots of big strong
boys to play with them.

Why not do something constructive with them rather than going around
holding America's coat and fighting to the death for expensive oil so
that wealthy Arab degenerates can buy even more weapons theyc an't use
properly.

>There is a (totally unnecessary) Empire guilt complex around - Blair(?) recently apologising for slavery etc. - ridiculous. Empire history virtually disappeared from school subjects, or also apologised for - ridiculous. It's past fact and should be known, even if not agreed with.

Not sure the apologies don't serve some p[urpose.

They certainly play well in the press in former colonies.

>Many ex-Empire nations/people do "still like us". I've seen it so often myself - remarks such as "We wish the Brits were back in charge" are common in Africa, at least.

In India as well.

Usually after paying a hefty bribe for a service that should turn up
without one...

>But no thanks! A totally thankless task/obligation/duty or whatever.

Well, yes...

>From now on, for me, it should be "no blame" and also no more paying out, in cash or obligations.

You can't get away from 'no blame' when blame is obvious.

Somalia being the horribly obvious case in point.

But Pakistan's another.

If the dreadfully closed minded administration in India during WWII
hadn't fallen repeatedly into the trap of Congress provocation India
would be a unified country and most of the problems caused by Pakistan
wouldn't exist.

As for Israel, the British made a complete and utter hash of the
whole area, to the extent that one single Middle Eastern country is a
member of the Commonwealth, although Israel has expressed interest in
the past... (Now there's an entertaining idea)

[Surreyman]

It's all very well to talk about Amritsar, Sykes-Picot etc., but we have to deal from where we are.
You seem to want to spend the next decades invading people.
I don't.

[Bill]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

And that we got where we are by traveling a particular road.

>You seem to want to spend the next decades invading people.
>I don't.

I consider it cleaning up our own mess.

[Surreyman]

You agree that our forces should reduce, but you want to spend future decades 'rescuing' the world. Make your mind up.

[Bill]

My personal feelings accord with those of the late Earl St Vincent,
Sir John Jervis; that what we need is a large and powerful navy and
Royal Marine force and a well trained militia for home service.

However in reality we're going to keep a large conventional army
equipped for mechanised war.

We might as well use it to do some good rather than using it to back
up America's more lunatic military adventures.

[Surreyman]

"Using it" means killing our troops for patches of sand and with no thanks.
No thanks.

[Bill]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 03:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> We might as well use it to do some good rather than using it to back
>>
>> up America's more lunatic military adventures.
>
>"Using it" means killing our troops for patches of sand and with no thanks.

There going to be used anyway.

It's what they're for, and anyway, politicians can't resist a good
war.

We might as well use them constructively...

[Surreyman]

When you volunteer for the front line I'll listen to you.

[Bill]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:10:45 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:23:24 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 03:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> We might as well use it to do some good rather than using it to back
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> up America's more lunatic military adventures.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >"Using it" means killing our troops for patches of sand and with no thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> There going to be used anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's what they're for, and anyway, politicians can't resist a good
>>
>> war.
>>
>>
>>
>> We might as well use them constructively...
>
>When you volunteer for the front line I'll listen to you.

I'm far too old for such things these days, and I've mentioned before
your desire to disqualify me for the conversation by your spurious
demand to disqualify from the conversation anyone who has not been
shot at for a living.

It's about as valid as saying that Blair shouldn't have got us into
his wars because he's never been a soldier.

[Surreyman]

I obviously didn't expect to be taken literally.
But it's all too easy for armchair soldiers to rush into battle, including Blair.

[Bill]

Then use the smiley face.

Irony does not translate well into Usenet.

>But it's all too easy for armchair soldiers to rush into battle, including Blair.

They're soldiers, all the soldiers I ever worked with, and I worked
with plenty of them, always wanted to go to war because that's what
they joined up to do.

Plus we have a large and very expensive set of armed forces who I feel
should be employed on better things than ceremonial duties in London.

Now, as I've said, I'd be delighted with a large navy and Royal
Marines and a national militia for defence, but I've no realistic
expectation of that happening.

As we're stuck with a large army and associated forces we might as
well use them to do some good...

[Surreyman]

Just because we have a standing army doesn't mean that we need to kill them unnecessarily.

[Bill]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 01:51:39 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Just because we have a standing army doesn't mean that we need to kill them unnecessarily.

But as Churchill said "If we can't afford to lose them we shouldn't
have them'.

Wars are what they're for.

If we're not going to fight we might as well send them all home.