Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill
from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the
unit nor have control over the action of its troops."

Hint: Think 1965.

Pete




On 11 May 2004 01:48:43 GMT, ospam (Larry Cable)
wrote:

Excuse me, but the incident was covered by the American press, even had an
investigative piece in Newsweek on it. The only difference is that it was a lot
less judgemental of the US role in the tradegy than the video linked in the
article. No one disputes the basic facts, that Taliban prisoners of the
Northern Alliance were transported in closed trucks and many of them died. What
I do dispute is the role the US played in it. We provided advisors, in
particular fire control and forward air controllers, to the Northern Alliance.
The US did not command the unit nor have control over the action of its troops.

seldom_seen wrote:
Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill
from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the
unit nor have control over the action of its troops."

Hint: Think 1965.

Yep, I couldn't help but make the same connection.

I already wondered these past couple of days if we're going to see
similar pictures of helicopters being pushed off aircraft carrier decks
to make room for more helicopters flying in from the mainland as the US
and British troops along with their local henchmen retreat from Iraq.

What a mess.

--
Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

I already wondered these past couple of days if we're going to see
similar pictures of helicopters being pushed off aircraft carrier decks
to make room for more helicopters flying in from the mainland as the US
and British troops along with their local henchmen retreat from Iraq.

What a mess.

--
Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Yep, this is a rerun. Only this time, with a little different results. When
they get through kicking our sorry a$$es out of Iraq, They'll be in Saudi
settling a few old scores there. Guess who'll be riding the friggin donkeys
then.

Dennis

Wilko

Typed in Message-ID:

similar pictures of helicopters being pushed off aircraft carrier decks
to make room for more helicopters flying in from the mainland as the US
and British troops along with their local henchmen retreat from Iraq.


I doubt it. Even if there is a new President, he can't afford to allow this to
become a victory for the Islamist. Strategically, the Invasion of Iraq has
always been the right move, although the Bush administration has been very poor
to articulate why that is true. Tactically, they underestimated the force
needed to occupy the country and had poor intelligence on some of the so called
allies, especially among the shiite in the South. The prisoner abuse is just
another embarrassment.

My opinion is that Rumsfield is gone, then we are going to see a
reconfiguration of the Forces involved.
SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry Cable wrote:

Even if there is a new President, he can't afford to allow this to
become a victory for the Islamist. Strategically, the Invasion of Iraq
has always been the right move, although the Bush administration has been
very poor [articulating] why that is true.

Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

Tactically, they underestimated the force needed to occupy the country
and had poor intelligence on some of the so called allies, especially
among the Shiite in the South.

Letting go the Iraqi military without pay was a bad decision by Bremer.
I'm not sure of all his bad decisions, but he and others did a good job
(a bad job, really) of alienating the inhabitants. This I knew was true
before the prison scandal broke.

Bill Tuthill

Typed in Message-ID:


Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most
murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to
countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or
recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow
them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada
actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know
why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a tie
between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory in the
Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the response
was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct.

I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West. If we
in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against countries
that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose.
Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis
Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide
bombings and terrorist murders.
Even Iran is softening its hardline stance.
IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to operate
openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East.

Do you think that the Germans or Japanese loved us when we occupied their
countries?
SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry Cable wrote:

Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most
murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to
countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or
recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow
them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada
actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know
why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a
tie between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory
in the Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the
response was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct.

Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance
of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe
I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda.

It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers.
That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel.
Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest,
unlike the quest for cheaper oil. Is it worth killing (what is it now,
almost 800) American soldiers to protect Israel? Not to mention tax $$s.

I saw a webpage claiming Iraq was behind the first WTC (van) bombing, but
there was never any follow-up. Another conspiracy-oriented website said
Iraq was behind the Oklohoma City bombing although that's even less likely.
Bottom line: Iraq supported terror, but probably not against the USA.

I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West.
If we in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against
countries that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose.

However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam,
is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific
discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare.
It's almost like we're fighting old men. Islam is an imperialistic religion
however, so maybe what scares western elites is its strangely strong appeal
and rejection of modern global-trade values.

Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis
Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide
bombings and terrorist murders. Even Iran is softening its hardline stance.
IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to
operate openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East.

I recuse myself from further comment, being partly of Armenian heritage
and a Tashnak sympathizer.

Bill Tuthill

typed in Message-ID:

Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance
of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe
I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda.

I don't deny the importance of Oil. Saddam would have been of much less concern
if he wasn't in a strategic location and had the oil money to finance his army.

The killings in Rwanda were well under way before the West had any concept of
what was going on there. It would have been difficult for the US to support a
mission there logistically, we are not a big presence in Central Africa. The
French did intervene, just late and probably helped the wrong side.

It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers.
That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel.
Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest,

The PLO trained terrorist from everywhere during their heyday. Groups as
diverse as the IRA to the Shining Path. Do you really think that there isn't
still a connection between radical Islamist Groups? Al Quada has made several
attacks on Isreali interest outside of Isreal, so I don't know how to seperate
the two groups. The Islamist are the biggest impediment to the peace process
now. Why negotiate with the PLO when they are unable to provide you with the
basic security from bombers and attacks from these groups.


However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam,
is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific
discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare.

You are mistaking Islamist, as in the Radical fundamentalist groups such as Al
Queda and Hamas, with Islam. Even in the first case, Al Queda and Hamas seem
pretty good at using modern technology to further their cause.
SYOTR
Larry C.

seldom_seen

Typed in Message-ID:

Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill
from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the

unit nor have control over the action of its troops."

Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control
thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some
that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some
are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of
Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war
with Hitler?

The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting
groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical
support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of
situation.


SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry Cable wrote:

seldom_seen


Typed in Message-ID:

Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill

from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the


unit nor have control over the action of its troops."


Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control
thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some
that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some
are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of
Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war
with Hitler?

The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting
groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical
support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of
situation.

Of course you're right, Larry, but they don't want to hear it. You're
not going to convince these guys that what we're doing is justified or
even tactically correct. They just want to whine and complain, and
they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical
argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them.
Irrational statements, conspiracy theories and wildly fantastic
correlations to unrelated historical events are their stock in trade.
They'll go to any length to try to prove their point, even if it makes
them look ridiculous. They're just trying to forward their wrong-headed
agenda, nothing more, and it will go on ad-nauseum.

Oh well, at least we live in a country where everyone gets to speak
their piece.