PDA

View Full Version : Kenneth Timmerman



Major_Armstrong
22 Mar 04,, 02:43
Kenneth Timmerman makes some allegations against France, mainly Chirac.


http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1095579/posts


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400053668/qid=1078949863/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/102-1890034-3831325

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 04,, 02:54
WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK!

Most of the events that took place happenned during the Iran-Iraq War when Iran was the hotbed of Islamic terrorism.

Completely out of context and not reflective of the actual situations.

Confed999
23 Mar 04,, 01:09
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK!

Most of the events that took place happenned during the Iran-Iraq War when Iran was the hotbed of Islamic terrorism.

Completely out of context and not reflective of the actual situations.
What about the post Iran-Iraq stuff? Either way, just like anyone trying to sell a political book durring an election year, he's going to spin it hard to make the sales.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 04,, 03:43
Originally posted by Confed999
What about the post Iran-Iraq stuff? Either way, just like anyone trying to sell a political book durring an election year, he's going to spin it hard to make the sales.

When did Iran stop being a priah? The only period when you start stating things going south is right after the Kuwait Invasion. Before then, Iran was (and is) still exporting the Islamic Revolution.

Confed999
23 Mar 04,, 06:41
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
The only period when you start stating things going south is right after the Kuwait Invasion.
Because that's when the short-sighted people of the world's governments acknowledged the problems in/with Iraq.

Not sure what the Iran-Iraq war has to do with French support of a government under UN sanction that fired on US and UK forces constantly.

Major_Armstrong
24 Mar 04,, 01:17
Before then, Iran was (and is) still exporting the Islamic Revolution.


Check this out:

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/islamist/islamist.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3273

Officer of Engineers
24 Mar 04,, 01:48
Originally posted by Confed999
Not sure what the Iran-Iraq war has to do with French support of a government under UN sanction that fired on US and UK forces constantly.

Before 11 Sept, the choice was between an Iraq or an Iran to dominate the area. Realpolitik was speaking then as it is now.

Confed999
24 Mar 04,, 02:34
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Before 11 Sept, the choice was between an Iraq or an Iran to dominate the area. Realpolitik was speaking then as it is now.
As 99 red baloons float by? Realpolitik doesn't float in my tub. What are we without our morality and ethics? This kind of thing is exactly why we are where we are today. Evil is evil, regardless of it's location.

Officer of Engineers
24 Mar 04,, 07:32
Originally posted by Confed999
As 99 red baloons float by? Realpolitik doesn't float in my tub. What are we without our morality and ethics? This kind of thing is exactly why we are where we are today. Evil is evil, regardless of it's location.

And commit to over 100,000 men occupation of Iraq over a 10 year period at a cost of $5bil a year - for oil? How fast do you want to be voted out of office?

11 Sept gave the justification to do this. Not before.

I would not have wanted to commit to an occupation of Iraq back in 91. There was no justification. The war was over oil. I was in Kuwait with the 1CER after the war. Kuwait was no more a democrazy then and neither is it now. In fact, Iraq was more democratic then and even more so now under the Americans.

Back to the original topic, to the French (and the Chinese and the Russians), Saddam was a puppet they feel that they could control and in a Middle East dominated by the Americans and the British, it was their one card to break into the OPEC circle.

Confed999
24 Mar 04,, 23:49
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
And commit to over 100,000 men occupation of Iraq over a 10 year period at a cost of $5bil a year - for oil? How fast do you want to be voted out of office?
If SH's Iraq had never been supported by anyone, there would be no one to invade. I don't like the US supporting these people so it isn't shocking that I don't like France doing it. If it were the Congo it would have been for cobalt and uranium to some, I stay away from individual motives when talking about millions.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
11 Sept gave the justification to do this. Not before.
If all the bad guys were left with only each other to talk to, they would be extinct by now.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I would not have wanted to commit to an occupation of Iraq back in 91. There was no justification. The war was over oil. I was in Kuwait with the 1CER after the war. Kuwait was no more a democrazy then and neither is it now. In fact, Iraq was more democratic then and even more so now under the Americans.
I didn't want a war in Iraq ever, and if we stop supporting the people like Saddam now we won't have to repeat this again in 30 years. There are 2 things I like about Kuwait, the kids are nice and polite, and the stance the government took leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I don't care what form of government anyone chooses to support, as long as it's benevolent. I'm not sure any truly benevolent governments exist anymore, but some are obviously evil and should be dealt with quickly by those governments pretending to be benevolent.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Back to the original topic, to the French (and the Chinese and the Russians), Saddam was a puppet they feel that they could control and in a Middle East dominated by the Americans and the British, it was their one card to break into the OPEC circle.
Then the "Axis of Weasels" could have looked like heros by pulling the "I'll just go live in France with Arifat's wife" string. They played their cards, they lost and I will forever put a portion of the blame on their sholders. Now don't get me wrong, that blame is spread over most of the governments of the world for one thing or another, I'm very critical of supporting bad guys. In my book, France was supporting Saddam even after the war started, and until the government and attitude changes I'll just wish them the best and try to keep track of what they're doing.

Officer of Engineers
25 Mar 04,, 02:55
Originally posted by Confed999
If SH's Iraq had never been supported by anyone, there would be no one to invade. I don't like the US supporting these people so it isn't shocking that I don't like France doing it. If it were the Congo it would have been for cobalt and uranium to some, I stay away from individual motives when talking about millions.

Have you forgotten about the Iran Hostage Crisis? Why are you surprised that we chosed to support Saddam?


Originally posted by Confed999
If all the bad guys were left with only each other to talk to, they would be extinct by now.

The fact that Stalin and Hitler talked scared the shit out of me. The saving grace was that they didn't divide the world between them.


Originally posted by Confed999
I didn't want a war in Iraq ever, and if we stop supporting the people like Saddam now we won't have to repeat this again in 30 years. There are 2 things I like about Kuwait, the kids are nice and polite, and the stance the government took leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I don't care what form of government anyone chooses to support, as long as it's benevolent. I'm not sure any truly benevolent governments exist anymore, but some are obviously evil and should be dealt with quickly by those governments pretending to be benevolent.

Again, Iran. We've let Iraq do the dirty work for us. At the time, it seemed a good choice. Why waste American blood in stopping Iran when you can use Iraqi blood? Short sighted perhaps but perfectly understandable.


Originally posted by Confed999
Then the "Axis of Weasels" could have looked like heros by pulling the "I'll just go live in France with Arifat's wife" string. They played their cards, they lost and I will forever put a portion of the blame on their sholders. Now don't get me wrong, that blame is spread over most of the governments of the world for one thing or another, I'm very critical of supporting bad guys. In my book, France was supporting Saddam even after the war started, and until the government and attitude changes I'll just wish them the best and try to keep track of what they're doing.

The Brits and the Americans kicked the French out of oil producing Middle East and Africa. They need a source of oil that they can control. They thought they could control Iraq as the Americans and Brits control Kuwait and Saudi. Control the oil and you control the world and the French does not want to be controlled.

I'm not agreeing with the French but after seeing the absolute American and British dominance of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, I can understand.

Praxus
25 Mar 04,, 03:46
By the end of the decade you could probley add Iran to the list of American "controled" oil contries;)

Confed999
25 Mar 04,, 05:19
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Have you forgotten about the Iran Hostage Crisis? Why are you surprised that we chosed to support Saddam?
No I haven't forgotten the Iran Hostage Crisis. I was about 10. It was the first time the concept of "better off dead" really took hold. The US blew it and let those people suffer for 444 days. Saddam is no better, just a different face on the same demon.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
The fact that Stalin and Hitler talked scared the shit out of me. The saving grace was that they didn't divide the world between them.
Because evil can't have evil for an ally. Both would have been constantly stabbing each other in the back. Evil is a controller, not the controlled. No matter how much it seems you're pulling the strings, evil is not a slave it just wants you to think it is.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Again, Iran. We've let Iraq do the dirty work for us. At the time, it seemed a good choice. Why waste American blood in stopping Iran when you can use Iraqi blood? Short sighted perhaps but perfectly understandable.
Never has been a good choice before, why would anyone think it will just start working? BTW, Iran survived and still must be dealt with.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
The Brits and the Americans kicked the French out of oil producing Middle East and Africa. They need a source of oil that they can control. They thought they could control Iraq as the Americans and Brits control Kuwait and Saudi. Control the oil and you control the world and the French does not want to be controlled.

I'm not agreeing with the French but after seeing the absolute American and British dominance of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, I can understand.
The Americans and British just think they control places, but that control could disappear in a moment. I understand the motivation but I will never agree with it. Evil is evil, and must be stopped not supported, or we will be doomed to allways fight creatures WE created. I hate that the US even talks to any of these people.

Officer of Engineers
28 Mar 04,, 21:05
Originally posted by Confed999
Never has been a good choice before, why would anyone think it will just start working? BTW, Iran survived and still must be dealt with.

You seemed to forget that Tito, Stalin, Chiang Kei Shek, Mao Tse Tung, and Ho Chi Minh were our WWII allies.

Confed999
28 Mar 04,, 22:53
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
You seemed to forget that Tito, Stalin, Chiang Kei Shek, Mao Tse Tung, and Ho Chi Minh were our WWII allies.
I didn't forget them. That really didn't turn out well, we didn't end up controling them. No alliance with evil is worth the price, that's the lesson I take from it.

Officer of Engineers
29 Mar 04,, 03:42
Originally posted by Confed999
I didn't forget them. That really didn't turn out well, we didn't end up controling them. No alliance with evil is worth the price, that's the lesson I take from it.

If the Soviets hadn't taken on the Nazis, the price we would have paid would have skyrocketted and in the end, we would be facing an untouched USSR in the East.

Confed999
29 Mar 04,, 05:11
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
If the Soviets hadn't taken on the Nazis, the price we would have paid would have skyrocketted and in the end, we would be facing an untouched USSR in the East. The Nazis and Commies were going to fight. They would have spent themselves on each other as they did. The Allied cost would have been higher, but they would have liberated eastern Europe and saved a s**t load of people from decades of slavery. The total costs of the cold war have yet to be tallied, with many of it's repercussions yet to be felt.

Blademaster
29 Mar 04,, 06:05
What if this , what if that. Confed, it is so easy to make sweeping generalizations or make judgements in hindsight.

Remember the conditions as it was back in that time and understand the environment and the factors that led to people making such decisions as it was.

For example, when I look at the history of my country, India, I would have made different choices. But the question is that how can I predict the alternate future that will turn out? You can't.

We just live with our past and apply the lessons we learned to the present and move on and embrace the future whatever it may bring us.

Confed999
29 Mar 04,, 06:13
Originally posted by Blademaster
What if this , what if that. Confed, it is so easy to make sweeping generalizations or make judgements in hindsight.
Except that my point is, learn from the past and quit doing the same things over and over, it doesn't work. Use hindsight to temper foresight or what was it worth going through all that in the first place? You're either with the bad guys or against them. I am not with the bad guys, period. No matter how convenient it is at the time, because it allways turns out bad.

Officer of Engineers
29 Mar 04,, 22:47
Originally posted by Confed999
The Nazis and Commies were going to fight. They would have spent themselves on each other as they did. The Allied cost would have been higher, but they would have liberated eastern Europe and saved a s**t load of people from decades of slavery. The total costs of the cold war have yet to be tallied, with many of it's repercussions yet to be felt.

Your logic isn't there. Had we left the ETO to the Soviets and the Nazis, they still would have devastated Eastern Europe and for which we still would not have any relief effort there - unless you're counting on Patton and Montgomery to defeat Kesselring in Italy and then drive northward. Highly dubious.

Confed999
29 Mar 04,, 23:49
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Your logic isn't there.
For me it's not about logic, it's about right and wrong. If you make a deal with the Devil, especially to fight the Devil, you're the only one who pays. We're still paying for those past deals.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Had we left the ETO to the Soviets and the Nazis, they still would have devastated Eastern Europe and for which we still would not have any relief effort there - unless you're counting on Patton and Montgomery to defeat Kesselring in Italy and then drive northward. Highly dubious.
I still don't think for a second the Nazis and Commies weren't going to fight it out. I don't remeber there being much/any Commie help in western Europe, no change there.

Officer of Engineers
30 Mar 04,, 00:09
Originally posted by Confed999
I still don't think for a second the Nazis and Commies weren't going to fight it out. I don't remeber there being much/any Commie help in western Europe, no change there.

This is your original assertion.


Originally posted by Confed999
The Nazis and Commies were going to fight. They would have spent themselves on each other as they did. The Allied cost would have been higher, but they would have liberated eastern Europe and saved a s**t load of people from decades of slavery. The total costs of the cold war have yet to be tallied, with many of it's repercussions yet to be felt.

I was merely pointing out to you that liberating eastern Europe and saving s**t load of people from decades of slavery was never in the cards with or without the Soviet alliance.

Confed999
30 Mar 04,, 00:50
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I was merely pointing out to you that liberating eastern Europe and saving s**t load of people from decades of slavery was never in the cards with or without the Soviet alliance.
Allied support wouldn't have made a difference in Soviet strength at all? If they were just a little weaker, then the Allies may very well have taken the ground. Who would the Germans have surrendered to, the Allies or the Soviets? Heck, if it had just ended the Cold war sooner...

Officer of Engineers
30 Mar 04,, 00:54
Would the Wehrmacht surrendered at all? Or would have they negotiated a peace, even a seperate peace? It would be either Nazi control of Eastern Europe or a Soviet control. It would not have been us.

Confed999
30 Mar 04,, 01:01
Then I guess we have to go further back. How long have we been making deals? Either way I won't stand on that side, no tolerance for the bad guys from me.

Officer of Engineers
30 Mar 04,, 01:10
Originally posted by Confed999
Then I guess we have to go further back. How long have we been making deals? Either way I won't stand on that side, no tolerance for the bad guys from me.

For me, the quinesential moment was the Sudetenland. We could have stopped Hitler back then. Hell, we could have just told Hitler, go adhead and try and conquer it. The Czechs would still have lost but would have bled the Wehrmacht dry and beyond repair.

As it is, we expected the Poles to be able to last longer. Hell, we expected the BEF and the French Maginot Line to sweep the Wehrmacht from the face of the earth.

This being said, luck played a large role. Had the BEF committed the two Canadian divisions they held in reserves in Great Britain, the Wehrmacht would have been chased out of France, having ran out of gas and ammo. Hitler's ordered delay gave a very much needed replenishement to attack Dunkirk.

As for what happenned with the Czechs, you have to understand the context in which Chamberlain made his peace with Hitler. He wanted at all costs to avoid the head long rush into war that was the cause of WWI where even the Monarchs were unable to stop the war from starting despite some very desperate attempts.

In hindsight, it would have been better to rush off to war against Hitler but would you pay 11 million military dead just to kill 1 guy?

Confed999
30 Mar 04,, 02:21
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
In hindsight, it would have been better to rush off to war against Hitler but would you pay 11 million military dead just to kill 1 guy?
Me? I would get us all killed, trying to save all the good guys and stop all the bad guys.

Blademaster
31 Mar 04,, 03:01
Then I would ask you, "Who the hell gave you that authority to make such a decision!?? You do not have the right to sacrifice my family for YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS." I would stand in your way.

This is the kind of moralistic attitude that makes me cringe and want to hit someone.

If you want to act out on your moralistic beliefs, sacrifice your life or ur family but LEAVE MY FAMILY ALONE!!!!!!!!

If I decide or my family decide, then we will do it because IT'S OUR CHOICE.

That is why we vote and why leaders consider the voters. Because it is the voters' lives at stake and leaders have to listen to the will of the voters. That's the best thing and the worst flaw of democracy.

That's why we did not go into Iraq before 9/11. Also that's why we helped Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War because it was the only action we could do without risking voters' lives without their consent. Vietnam taught that painful lesson.

Officer of Engineers
31 Mar 04,, 05:16
Except one thing.

No one voted for an Iraq War. That was not part of the election platform of either candidate.

Confed999
31 Mar 04,, 08:52
Originally posted by Blademaster
Then I would ask you, "Who the hell gave you that authority to make such a decision!??
Nobody gave me authority, nor do I ask for it.

Originally posted by Blademaster
I would stand in your way.
That's fine, I wasn't going that way anyhow. :smoke

Originally posted by Blademaster
This is the kind of moralistic attitude that makes me cringe and want to hit someone.
Life is mostly grey for some, it's black and white for others. I've never imposed my views on you, and won't unless I see you commit an evil act, so what do you care?

Originally posted by Blademaster
That is why we vote and why leaders consider the voters. Because it is the voters' lives at stake and leaders have to listen to the will of the voters. That's the best thing and the worst flaw of democracy.

That's why we did not go into Iraq before 9/11. Also that's why we helped Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War because it was the only action we could do without risking voters' lives without their consent. Vietnam taught that painful lesson.
As I previously stated, and your example shows, the bad guys have to be fought either way. The lesson I caught from Vietnam is, if you are going to fight a war, fight it like it's a war. Vote however you wish, I'm going to vote for the ones who stand up to the bad guys.

Officer of Engineers
31 Mar 04,, 16:22
The authority is implicit in your vote either for or against a candidate. Like I stated before, the Iraq War was not on any election agenda. When you're voting, you're not only voting on the issues but also on the man. And you have to trust that the chosen man would do well.

The issue is moral authority. We do not have a vote on whether or not to goto war and given the very nature of military operations, a vote is not a good idea.

We in uniform gave and recieve the moral authority to commit and suffer lethality because the safety and the honour of our countries are under threat. We only ask that our leaders think long and hard before committing to lethality. Once a life is lost, it can never be given back.

And when we make mistakes, damn well stand up and admit to them.

Confed999
01 Apr 04,, 01:27
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
The authority is implicit in your vote either for or against a candidate. Like I stated before, the Iraq War was not on any election agenda. When you're voting, you're not only voting on the issues but also on the man. And you have to trust that the chosen man would do well.

The issue is moral authority. We do not have a vote on whether or not to goto war and given the very nature of military operations, a vote is not a good idea.

We in uniform gave and recieve the moral authority to commit and suffer lethality because the safety and the honour of our countries are under threat. We only ask that our leaders think long and hard before committing to lethality. Once a life is lost, it can never be given back.

And when we make mistakes, damn well stand up and admit to them.
I agree, and if you're willing to toss in the reasonable safety of others, I've got an amen. The mistakes part is quite important, but it's also something most of us need to work on.

Praxus
01 Apr 04,, 03:02
For me it's not about logic, it's about right and wrong. If you make a deal with the Devil, especially to fight the Devil, you're the only one who pays. We're still paying for those past deals.

Last time I checked you derive right and wrong from logic and by extension reason. How can it not be about something that was derived from the very thing you claim it is not about?

It is contradicting so one of the premises is wrong. So it is either about logic or it's not about right and wrong.

;)


This is the kind of moralistic attitude that makes me cringe and want to hit someone.

A code of ethics, essentially morality is required for a civilized society to exsist.

Blademaster
01 Apr 04,, 05:21
Yes a code of ethics is required for a civilized society. But there s a fine line between practicising ethics and forcing your version of morality on others.

Leaders and people have made this mistake of crossing the line.

When they cross the line, they should take the blame.

Officer of Engineers
01 Apr 04,, 06:39
Originally posted by Blademaster
Yes a code of ethics is required for a civilized society. But there s a fine line between practicising ethics and forcing your version of morality on others.

Hitesh,

We're doing exactly that when we goto war. War is the ultimate expression of forcing your version of things onto the enemy and even onto you, especially if you have not voted for the candidate who decided for war. Case in point, did Bush not force the Iraq War down the throats of anti-war Democrats?

Confed999
01 Apr 04,, 23:28
Originally posted by Praxus
Last time I checked you derive right and wrong from logic and by extension reason. How can it not be about something that was derived from the very thing you claim it is not about?
What about compassion? Faith? Hope? Love? Learned morality?

If someone has something you want, the easiest logical way to get it, is to take it. Is that right or wrong?

If you see a bus bearing down on a person crossing the street, the logical thing to do is to not risk yourself for someone else's foolishness. Is that right or wrong?

From the example much of this thread came from, if Iraq hates Iran then logically we can get them to fight for us. Is that right or wrong?

With logic we're stuck with, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Is that right or wrong?

Two people debating any issue will use logic to further their side of an argument. What one is on the right side of the argument, and what one is on the wrong side?

For me the answer to all of those examples is WRONG. Alot more than logic is required for me to determine right or wrong, I have to use my heart.

Confed999
01 Apr 04,, 23:37
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
did Bush not force the Iraq War down the throats of anti-war Democrats?
I submit the only reason Dems are against the war is that they weren't in office when it started. If they were, we would be talking about anti-war Republicans. The partisan politics in this country are nothing but pettiness.

Ray
04 Apr 04,, 07:43
I am not too clued up on the US elections but I learnt froma friend of mine that Kerry was in an anti war demonstration and he chucked somebody else's medals outside the White House as if it were his own!

Note, I HEARD it. If that be true, I would chuck him into the Pacific or the Atlantic. Being a true believer in democracy, I would give him the choice. Sad if he was that slimy!

That way, Bush with all his infirmities, is at least steadfast in his aim!

As an 'international observer' of the scene, Bush scares me withis gung ho stuff, but if what Kerry did is true, he revolt my sense of morality and decency!

Do forgive me, if I am wrong. Just a gut feeling.

Notwithstanding, the issues on which Bush went to war, is flawed. Even Powell admitted today (as per our newspapers), that the intellegence was flawed.

What revolts me further is charrred bodies being dragged down the street and such bodies being beaten by slippers! Disgusting.

Ray
04 Apr 04,, 07:52
Colonel,

Bush shoved it down the throat of the actual international community. Taht too without the smoothening effect of castor oil or Mobil Oil! ;)

A little bit of patience and clever convincing, the UN would have supported the show. Then, there would be none of this acrimony and heart burning and washing dirty linen in public!

The Administration was too hasty. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Somalia. Imagine those pigs have no decency. Dragging a dead and charred body down the street and beating such bodies with slipper. I am inflamed at the lack of decency.

War maybe a dirty game, but decency cannot be lost sight of. One can be a self styled 'warrior' for his cause, even if it is dubious, but not a savage!

Gio
04 Apr 04,, 08:30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#The_medal-tossing_incident
Seems like what you heard is accruate.

Ray
04 Apr 04,, 16:12
Gio,

Thanks.

I will be honest enough to say that while I still don't like anyone throwing his or somepne else's medals like that since it is an insult to the country that gave the medals (one's own country normally gives the medals) and is not acceptable, yet I am glad he was man enough to admit that it was not his own medals that he threw.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 04,, 20:50
Originally posted by Ray
Colonel,

Bush shoved it down the throat of the actual international community. Taht too without the smoothening effect of castor oil or Mobil Oil! ;)

Sir,

I am going to do you an injustice by trying to explain cultural differences of which I may not totally understand your culture (both military and civilian) correctly.

The Iraq War was coming. If not now, at least within 10 years. The Air War has lasted 12 years. The pissing contest lasted long enough and with the advent of 11 Sept, the Americans wanted the pissing contest to end one way or another.

Unlike India, our thinking has always been decisive force, not attrition (for a lack of a better word). We don't want to continually be able to withstand and to repulse attacks. We want to finish the job once and for all. Thus, why you see us willing to risk assualt pioneers/engrs in breach ops instead of husbanding them as a reserve.


Originally posted by Ray
A little bit of patience and clever convincing, the UN would have supported the show. Then, there would be none of this acrimony and heart burning and washing dirty linen in public!

14 days would have added 3000 troops to the fight (Canada being caught with its own compromise). 30 days would have added 15,000 (the 4th Infantry Division would have repositioned from Turkey).

Even without the French, Russian, and Chinese approval (automatic UN vetoes), observing the compromise would have added flags and troops to the US cause.


Originally posted by Ray
The Administration was too hasty. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Somalia. Imagine those pigs have no decency. Dragging a dead and charred body down the street and beating such bodies with slipper. I am inflamed at the lack of decency.

Sir, you and I have both see Man's Inhumanity to Man. I'm not surprised by this. In fact, I expected it. Chinese students lynched Chinese police and troops at the mere RUMOUR of a crackdown at Tianamen Square. Croat ass wipes burned their rape victims alive. The Iraqis are just as low life scum as the rest of humanity.


Originally posted by Ray
War maybe a dirty game, but decency cannot be lost sight of. One can be a self styled 'warrior' for his cause, even if it is dubious, but not a savage!

Sir, I am sure you're well aware of Canadian snipers taking groin shots in counter-sniper activity in the FRY (Former Republic of Yugoslavia). I can tell you that I was decent only for so far. We found those young rape victims who were burned alive. Their bodies were still hot that they melted the body bags. Once we found who was responsible. We gave them one chance to surrender. They obliged us by not surrendering. We blew a hole in the wall and started tossing grenades and I didn't care how many were tossed.

My point, Sir, is that unlike India and the InA (we would have march to Islamabad after the attack on your Parliment), we would tolerate attrocities only so far before responding with over overwhelming force. That is our military culture. Decide the action in our favour. Unfortunately, we never quite look beyond to those consequences after the action.

Confed999
05 Apr 04,, 01:14
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Once we found who was responsible. We gave them one chance to surrender. They obliged us by not surrendering.
Thank you, a thousand times thank you, for all you had to see and do.

Ray
05 Apr 04,, 01:48
Colonel,

Possibly we too would have solved the Indo Pak problem long back. Why it was not done was economically we were not strong then and the US backed Pakistan, which was a part of the CENTO and SEATO. The western nations also forced India to stop the war within three weeks since Pakistan's economy could sustain a war for that period alone. It happened in 1965 and it happened in 1971.

We were also getting economic aid from the US.

The RAND analysis on Indo Pak geo poltical and strategic scenario is interesting on this subject as also the period Pakistan can sustain a war.

Notwithstanding the strong US backing of Pakistan India under Mrs Indira Gandhi, liberated East Pakistan which became Bangladesh in 1971, in spite of the 7th Fleet steaming up the Bay of Bengal under the orders of Nixon. Therefore, it is not that we cannot take things to its logical conclusion.

India would not be be in the interet of India to march onto Islamabad as suggested by you. Pakistan is not economically viable. India has enough woes and there would be chaos if India had to also look after the poor multitudes after marching on to Islamabad. We have our hands full already. A strong and stable Pakistan is India's best bet. A hungry stomach is a devil's workshop (forgive me for this tweaked metaphor).

At present, the nuclear threat is alive, During the Kargil War Pakistan used the nuke blackmail. I reckon the geo political situation has changed and so the US told Pakistan to back off and that it would be sorted out if they used the nuke. It is this political irresponsibility of the Pakistani leadership that put it during that time in the international doghouse and for the first time the Western countries supported India against Pakistan. This was also the turning point of the warming of Indo US relationship also.

In so far as Iraq is concerned, the US should have first taken on the Taliban and brought stability there and then taken on Iraq. Now it has bitten more than what it can chew. It is similar to the German's violating the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenence of Aim wherein the German veeered off to Kiev when the original intention was to march onto Moscow in WW II leading to their retreat thereafter having become a spent force by the time they reached Moscow.

You are entitled to your views and none can grudge that. However, Saddam did not have WMD nor was he connected with the Taliban. In fact the Los Angeles Times survey shows Iraq as the third most democratic state amongst the Moslem nations. Saudi Arabia the 18th. This I learnt from the Late Edition show compered by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on the CNN. The same show also showed a discussion of three former National Security advisors - Henry Kissinger, Sandy Berger and one Lt Gen whose name I forget on Iraq. 600 US soldiers I beleive have been killed, but then that is a small number actually.

Ray
05 Apr 04,, 02:07
Originally posted by Ray
War maybe a dirty game, but decency cannot be lost sight of. One can be a self styled 'warrior' for his cause, even if it is dubious, but not a savage!

***********************************

Colonel,

War or no war, I was horrfied to see the Iraqis drag the charred dead body of the US security contractor and then a young boy smashing the body with a slipper in the similar fashion as what they did to the statue of Saddam brought down. That to me is savage behaviour.

Officer of Engineers
05 Apr 04,, 02:19
Originally posted by Ray
Colonel,

Possibly we too would have solved the Indo Pak problem long back. Why it was not done was economically we were not strong then and the US backed Pakistan, which was a part of the CENTO and SEATO. We were also getting economic aid from the US.

Sir,

I'm getting a strong migrane trying to follow the geo-political-strategic USSR/Russia-US-China-India-Pakistan picture. If you have figure a way to follow it through without the aid of mind-altering drugs, I really, really would appreciate your insight.


Originally posted by Ray
The RAND analysis on Indo Pak geo poltical and strategic scenario is interesting on this subject.

Would you be so kind as to give me the title of that article. I've searched RAND with little success.


Originally posted by Ray
India would not be be in the interet of India to march onto Islamabad as suggested by you. Pakistan is not economically viable. India has enough woes and there would be chaos if India had to also look after the poor multitudes after marching on to Islamabad. We have our hands full already. A strong and stable Pakistan is India's best bet. A hungry stomach is a devil's workshop (forgive me for this tweaked metaphor).

Sir,

I now understand this point, thanks to your insight. I was not suggesting a course of action, merely trying to illustrate my poor example. Obviously, I failed.


Originally posted by Ray
At present, the nuclear threat is alive, During the Kargil War Pakistan used the nuke blackmail. I reckon the geo political situation has changed and so the US told Pakistan to back off and that it would be sorted out if they used the nuke. It is this political irresponsibility of the Pakistani leadership that put it during that time in the international doghouse and for the first time the Western countries supported India against Pakistan. This was also the turning point of the warming of Indo US relationship also.

That is so confusing to me that my migrane is throbing. Was the Pakistani leadership that stupid to actually think that the major nuclear powers are willing to tolerate Pakistani threats no matter what their nature?


Originally posted by Ray
In so far as Iraq is concerned, the US should have first taken on the Taliban and brought stability there and then taken on Iraq. Now it has bitten more than what it can chew. It is similar to the German's violating the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenence of Aim wherein the German veeered off to Kiev when the original intention was to march onto Moscow in WW II leading to their retreat thereafter having become a spent force by the time they reached Moscow.

You are entitled to your views and none can grudge that. However, Saddam did not have WMD nor was he connected with the Taliban. In fact the Los Angeles Times survey shows Iraq as the third most democratic state amongst the Moslem nations. Saudi Arabia the 18th. This I learnt from the Late Edition show compered by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on the CNN. The same show also showed a discussion of three former National Security advisors - Henry Kissinger, Sandy Berger and one Lt Gen whose name I forget on Iraq. 600 US soldiers I beleive have been killed, but then that is a small number actually.

Sir,

I believe I did not make my point. My point was that the US would found one excuse or another to turn on Saddam. It lasted long enough. Trooth has stated that we were jumping back and forth about the issues dealing about going to war with Saddam. It was at the very last minute that the US settled on the WMD issue. At play were other factors which included the Al Qeida link, freeing the Iraqi people, punishing Saddam for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. If none of these would have worked, the US would have found another excuse.

Ray
05 Apr 04,, 17:33
The RAND report is 'Stability in South Asia: Prospect of Indo Pak Nuclear Conflict' Ashley J Tellis.

yes during the Kargil Conflict, the Pak leadership did use the threat of nuclear weapons.