Christian - mon ami (is my French OK?) - you would be surprised - 10 years
before you I was stationed maybe 30 miles from you - after my Landstuhl
days. I was stationed in a place even the Germans didn't know of - a place
called Borfink. Used to play this game with the Germans asking them where
Borfink was - nobody knew ;-) (Hint - if Trier and Bernkastle on the Mosel
(er, Moselle) are on a line, the thriving metropolis of Borfink makes a
triangle. It was a NATO bunker, up in the hills between the 2. Willy Brandt
was the chancellor and with my last name of Brandt the German guard would
give me a mock salute and say "Hier kommt der Bundeskanzler!" (Here comes
the Chancellor). Later, when the East German  spy was discovered in his
govt, my stock regrettably went down, too.

I loved Trier and many people outside of Germany no nothing about it - but
it was one of the northernmost Roman outposts, complete with Roman baths and
amphitheater.

I will do some snipping and reply to your comments...


        This is true, but it is also true to say that Britain and France (mostly
        Britain. In fact, France's diplomacy in the 30s was de facto aligned with
        Britain's, and history has remembered the name of Neville Chamberlain much
        more than it has remembered Edouard Daladier's) wielded only a very small
        stick, in response to Hitler's violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

I will agree with you here in re: France's diplomatic position with
Britain....

        In that respect, it compares with, say, Gettysburg ?

While some battles of the Gettysburg campaign were bad, Antitum, in
Maryland, would probably rank as our bloodiest battle of our Civil War.
Today, if you ask the average American what was our costliest war, most will
say WW2 - and a few will even say Vietnam. The Civil War dwarfs them all...
The main reason is the weapons became more modern, while the tactics
remained in the 17th century.

        The Battle of the Somme is, btw, the place where my mom's dad was wounded
        and earned his Legion of Honor.

My Great Uncle Peter was killed a week before armistice - don't know where.
But he wrote of all the mud, rats, filth and death. There is supposed to be
a window dedicated to him in a chapel by the Yorkshire Cathedral, and he was
an American. He was well liked by his men (he was a LT)



        Douaumont is a vibrant testimony to the absurdity of war. The fort was
first
        taken by the Germans at the onset of WWI. It was taken back by the French
at
        some step of the Battle of Verdun (an 8-month long stretch of strikes and
        counterstrikes in 1916 for the city of Verdun, in the westernmost part of
        Lorraine), then by the Germans again, then by the French again, and so
        forth. After the battle, a General claimed the Fort had only a very minor
        strategic importance, and could have been abandoned completely in favor of
        more useful and relevant strategic initiatives. Tens of thousands of
        soldiers of both countries (probably a few of my forefathers) died for that
        absurdity.

Yes, I will certainly agree that war is absurd - who wouldn't? But I would
also say that at times it is necessary. War is a curse upon mankind. But if
the reason is defense of a free people and not land or wealth then I would
say the cause is just.

        And now Bush wants to coerce us into an equally absurd Middle East venture
        that will end up sowing the seeds for thousands of little bin Ladens ?

I will agree with part of what you say - there are many Muslims who still
haven't forgotten the Crusaders (certainly an adventure Jesus wouldn't
condone) - but the other side of this is Iraqis suddenly free of Saddam
Hussein. If we do go in I will predict a lot of flags - Union Jack and
American - waving in Baghdad, and a lot of reprisals against Saddams
henchmen. If this creates many more bin Ladens if they don't have the means
to harm us it doesn't matter.


        While I can't speak for every frenchman and -woman, I do not mistrust the
        British or the Americans or anyone else, or their motives. However, (still
        speaking for myself), I tend to mistrust all politicans, regardless of
        citizenship, partisanship, gender, creed, race, skin color, religion,
        whatever .... I am strongly biased against them all.

Christian - I have to laugh - you see politicians are the same here too. In
California they grossly mismanaged the decentralization of our electrical
power system, and of course expect us to pay for it - Our California state
legislature, aware of the crisis, allocated $226,000 for catered meals while
they are in session. And on their email server, while perhaps we are used to
some putting messages with any pornographic references into the "bit
bucket" - our esteemed politicos configured the software to discard any post
with any reference to tax - taxes - in other words, they don't even want to
hear of their "constituents" complaining about the issue.


.        For us, George W. Bush is little more than
        Chuck Norris' Walker Texas Ranger becoming President of the United States.

You all thought the same of Ronald Reagan. If you ever go to Waco, Texas,
visit the Texas Ranger Museum. I asked the guide if their Rangers knew how
to kick their way though Dallas, and he laughed. Actually I think to the
modern day Rangers Chuck Norris was a bit of an embarrassment.

But I will accept your definition of a cowboy, and tell you what the image
still means to many of us in the American West. It is of a person who has
his internal moral compass, and doesn't care what "others" think. Many times
he is a loner, and does what he thinks is right. Rent the classic western
"High Noon" with Gary Cooper.

Speaking of the Rangers, I'll tell you a quick story about 1 Texas Ranger
and the building of the Panama Canal. While you may be aware that it was the
mosquito - and malaria, that eventually drove the French from attempting the
project, there was another problem the American Companies discovered once
they got there. They eventually controlled malaria, by Walter Reade, who had
the natives break every rain-filled bottle they could find - killing the
breeding grounds - but there were bandits all though the isthmus (sp?) - who
would hold up - and kill - employees moving the payroll on donkeys.

So the companies all got together and hired a retired Texas Ranger to
control the problem. This guy came down, formed his "posse", and for the
next few months just gathered intelligence - who the bandits were, where
they stayed, etc.

One night the Ranger and his band struck, grabbing every bandit and hanging
them from light posts and trees.

Problem solved. In one night.



        This echoes an earlier post from Wirt about just anyone becoming President.

Well, we certainly have had some colorful characters, from both the left and
the right. BTW do you know where the terms "left" and "right" came from in
regards to political leanings? From the French Revolution. Thos more liberal
sat on the left side of the aisle, while the conservative on the right.



        Please .... Call it sensitivity to ther people's plight, call it carefully
        weighing all possible options, call it whatever ... but obstruction ? Why ?
        Because we are trying to avert a massacre, if that is still possible ?

Christian, now I am a bit cynical. There was an essay written by an Iraqi
scientist who fled - was head of their nuclear program. He suggests that the
French and Germans & Russians had some pretty lucrative deals with Saddam -
things "prohibited" by the UN but sold - for 3-10x the price. The Russians,
for example, sold him AK-47s for 3x the world market price. But then maybe I
am too cynical ;-)


        In other words, we sent you Lafayette, you sent us Eisenhower and G.I. Joe.
        We will never know what would have happened if the Americans had stayed on
        their isolasionist track, as they were before Pearl Harbor. Perhaps we
would
        be laboring and suffering under a Nazi boot. Or under a Soviet boot. Or
        under a dual boot (pun intended).

I tend to believe, during the 1770s - with Britain and France - the then
"superpowers" that without France on our side The American revolution would
not have succeeded. Many Americans don't remember but prior to Pearl Harbor
there was a huge isolationist sentiment. Half of all Americans wanted Europe
to fight their own war. Of course that leaves one to ponder what a Nazi
Europe and Russia would have meant for the rest of the world. Even after the
Japanese attack Americans were furious only at Japan. Why Hitler declared
war on us, relieving Roosevelt of the need to sell the idea to the public,
remains a mystery.

> Now I must say we certainly
> had as much reason to eliminate Hitler as you

        This can be disputed. At the time American involvement in liberating
        Nazi-occupied Wester Europe was decided, Hitler was not know to have any
        technology capable of directly menacing the USA. At most, he could sink a
        few cargo ships in the Atlantic (which is already an act of war, btw). And
        the Holocaust was not widely known and documented and publicized as it
would
        be a few years later. In fact, the Holocaust played a very small part in
        advocating for American action in Europe for that reason : though it was
        already in progress, it was stealthy - below radar, and mostly outside
        anyone's view. That changed later.

Here I must disagree a bit. V2 Rocket? It was a short "leap" in technology
to making it across the Atlantic. The B29 bomber started development with
the expectation that Britain would fall, and we would have to make bombing
runs across the Atlantic. As it turned out it helped defeat Japan, with 14
hour missions from Saipan and Tinian. The Holocaust? Roosevelt knew - and
historians are debating why he chose to do nothing - certainly bombing
Auschwitz would have at least disrupted their death machine. Not one of
Roosevelt's better decisions. I would consider it shameful.

BTW I head years ago that the Japanese and Germans had divided the USA into
"sphere's of influence" with their anticipated victory - the Germans were to
have everything  to the east of the Rocky Mountains; the Japanese west.
Don't know the truth of this, however.

        It remains that America does not like some dictators. It did not like
Hitler
        then, like it does not like Saddam now. Hmmm ... is it appropriate to bring
        back into perspective America's highly questionable involvement in favor of
        some Latin American dictators during the Cold War ? Fidel played in the
        other camp, of course. But what about Pinochet ?

Christian, in the 1940s Roosevelt made a famous comment about Somoza (the
father of the one deposed) in Nicaragua - he said, "He may be a son of a
bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". Now a bit crude, but illustrates the
point. Wars are not fought strictly to "liberate" people - We're not
threatening Iraq because Saddam is a "bad man" any more than France is
objecting to it because of the possible casualties. Now I'll be the first to
admit that some of the dictators we have backed - we shouldn't have. People
run foreign policy. People make mistakes.

While our backing of the Shah of Iran led to the first Islamic revolution in
1979, I wonder how many Iranians today would yearn for the Shah today. The
issues aren't always clear.

        But Saddam is the wrong target. He is not known for any sort of
        active role in the chain of causes that ended up in the tragic 9/11
attacks.
        He is not known to have had at the time any relationship whatsoever with Al
        Qaeda. That may have changed since then, of course. He's lately embarked on
        a born-again fundamentalist muslim ideological/religious path that sounds a
        bit frightening. The layman is turning zealously religious, and the
        "zealously" scares the hell out of me much more than the "religious".

I'll agree that the links with al Queda aren't that clear. But we know that
he harbored Abu Nidal - and has a 707 fuselage in Baghdad to practice
hijackings. BTW I don't believe Abu Nidal committed suicide with a machine
gun. Would love to know what Saddam wanted and he wouldn't give. I think the
driving issue is what we believe he is developing and what he can do with
the weapons.


        > I would suspect that Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild their
        > society.

        If that's the case, it would be a blessing for this long-opressed and
        long-starved population. I hope this pleasant outcome proves true. Howeve,
I
        fear that, with no democracy in sight, a possible oil wealth windfall would
        be concentrated into the hands of a "happy few". Not necessarily Western
oil
        companies, btw. See what has happend everywhere in the Middle East.

Christian - think of this possibility - if we can make Iraq democratic - as
we did Japan - what effect will that have for the neighboring countries?
Syria? Iran? There could be a good case for optimism.

        > Saddam has squandered their wealth. If you want my
        > opinion for our
        > rationale on Iraq today (which I suspect is different from
        > Wayne's ;-) ) -
        > it is a fear of Saddams WMD and free lancing terrorists - giving Iraq
        > plausible deniability.

        The conjunction of the two is quite frightening : Saddams WMDs and
        "free-lance" terrorists. I think the expression "free-lance" exactly
        describew the reality. Considering how Al-Qaeda works, a local cell of
        terrorists does not need much support, help, steering nor incentive from a
        centralized command. Much like a CIA special-ops commando (oh my, do these
        things REALLY exist ????) is largely autonomus once in the field, Al-Qaeda
        cells need no centralized command. Which means that Al-Qaeda related cells
        (several hundreds of them spread all over the world, no doubt about that)
        would probably try to use one of Saddam's WMDs if they could get their hand
        on it.

Now we agree here Christian - when you can have a contained liquid - all of
a liter - that - with the right delivery system, can kill 10's of 1000's of
people - easy to conceal - welcome to the 21st century. Not to mention the
20-30 suitcase nukes that can't be accounted for in the Ukraine. Add to that
every extreme splinter group with a grudge - from China to the Middle East -
and you see the world we have today. I would say by eliminating Saddam we
have cut at least a large part of the manufacturing side.


        Now who read The Fifth Horseman, a brilliant work of fiction by authors
        Dominique Larpierre and Larry Collins ? It describes an autonomus terrorist
        group planting a nuclear device in Lower Manhattan and being intercepted
        only at the last moment. What's frightening in the book is its precison in
        details, all the preparation, etc. A very, very brilliant work.
        Incidentally, it was written perhaps 25-30 years ago, at a time OBL should
        have been in junior high or so.

Heck, just look at last summer's movie - the one based on Tom Clancy - where
the terrorists plants a nuke inside a vending machine in Baltimore.



> Perhaps that day will yet come, as I believe this war - with a shadowy
> enemy, can easily last a decade.

        from what I've read, I understand that the strategist are betting on a
        short, intense war, with lost of air strikes, sorties, etc, and a ground
        invasion after that. They think in weeks, perhaps months, but certainly not
        a decade. The yeven tried to put a price tag on the war !!! See a recent
        Time Magazine issue about that.

That is just for Iraq - when you have North Korea willing to sell a nuke to
any group with the money, free lancing Russian and Pakistani scientists -
well, I think we are in for a long war on terrorism...


        Well, that almost happened. A plane hijack was terminated on the airport of
        Marseilles, south of France, around Christmas time, 1994. the plane was
        hijacked between Algiers and Marseilles by a fundamentalist terrorist
group.
        It needed to stop in Marseilles for refuelling, but the ultimate intention
        of the terrorists (this was publicized well after the hijack) was to fully
        load the plane with fuel and crash it into one of the Defense towers (a
        business district immediately west of Paris, with dozens of skyscrapers and
        tens of thousands of workers). Now, I can tell you, when 9/11 happened and
        we saw the Towers crumbling, these events had a crystal-clear resonance
into
        our collective psyche !!! It really beat the s*** out of our pants !

How about the al Queda group broken in Paris - they were planning on a
similar post 9/11 event. President Bush today in a speech inferred that the
bust in Britain - of the terrorists making ricin - came from a tip on our
side to MI6 (or is it 5 - I always get the 2 mixed up ;-) ) - Let's hope
that despite our 2 countries policy differences we are still sharing
intelligence data. The planning for 9/11 came from a cell in Hamburg - this
is an enemy without borders.


        I think Chirac's attitude against Saddam is that he advocates a carefully
        thought-out big-stick attitude, with a readiness to use the big stick as a
        very, very last resort, whereas George Bush is perceived as advocating a
        "gung-ho" big-stick attitude, with a willingness to use the big stick any
        time. This is more different in presentation than it is in principle.

Here again Christian all we can use is our own perceptions - and I believe -
from both sides - it is a misunderstanding of our motives - i.e., wrong
perceptions - that is causing the friction. While even others in my country
will disagree with me, I believe what is driving Bush is his perception of
when Iraq will have "the Bomb" - not a "gung ho" approach - IOW Bush feels
he is in a race against time - a subtle difference but very different.

        Perhaps North Korea owes Pakistan money, and they pay back their debt with
a
        nuke or two. Now, Musharraf won't do anything against American interests.
        But imagine if the nukes in question fall into the wrong hands, like
        Al-Qaeda's, which is widely known to have many dirty hands in Pakistans,
        including, possibly, OBL's ?

Christian, next to the former communist Albania there is no country in the
world as isolated - and repressive - as North Korea. I doubt if North Korea
and Pakistan did any trading - more likely big $$$ offered to one of the
scientists. And yes, we know that at least one of their scientists was
talking with al Queda - interviewed intensely by the CIA. But I still think
you need a host country to make a bomb - you can't do it living in caves.

And speaking of Pakistan, again , see how murky foreign policy can be? Here
is another country run by a benevolent dictator that we had sanctioned for
developing a nuke (causing the Indians to do the same and destabilize the
region).

Yet, without the help of Pakistan I don't see how we could have eliminated
the Taliban in Afghanistan. So now they are our newest "best friend".

        My point is that we may perceive North Korea as just as dangerous a foe as
        Irak, or more.

They are as dangerous - but one crisis at a time ;-)


        Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have all abandoned their nuclear programs.
        But it's far from certain that all materials have been properly documented
        and accounted for. So it may be yet another possible source of nuclear
        material, if not complete nukes, that could be used against Western
        interests. Whether a nuke has been captured by some rogue warlord and
        smuggled thru the Caucasus in Irak remains to be proved, but at least let's
        count the option as open.

Don't forget those suitcase nukes - made in the 1960s by the KGB - 20-30
missing - where are they? There is a semi secret group in the US that on a
moment's notice will board a Gulfstream jet and with radiation detecting
equipment - try to find a nuclear bomb. Or radioactive device.

        That's the difference between a rational state, like the Soviet Union was,
        and a rogue state, or a rogue leader not even accountable of any of his/her
        deeds to his/her local government. The risk nowadays is not of a rational
s       tate nuking us (we're no longer in the 50s), but of a rugue warlord
putting
        his hands on a nuke or other WMD.

You are, as they said in the 1960s - right on!

Bill

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *