What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh..

Vance P. Frickey wrote:
> miguel wrote:
>
>>>> <snip>
>> Plenty of democrats are offering better options than
>> Bush's stay the
>> course option. You just don't get out enough to read about
>> them. Maybe
>> you should set your browser to something other than
>> GOPnews.com once
>> in awhile.

> Oh, I read about them. I'm trying to get the Denver /Post/
> to go over to a four-ply perforated roll edition so I can
> then process the cut-and-run proposals appropriately.

Give us some examples, please.

miguel
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

In article <1158016116.362147.273230 RemoveThis @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Akorps RemoveThis @aol.com <Akorps RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>The main mistake we made in Iraq was in not following the Powell
>Doctrine. We should have fixed the main forces of Saddam's army in
>place and destroyed them, in other words. That would have reduced the
>manpower available to the insurgency in the post-war phase.
>
>The best way to reduce the manpower available to the insurgency at this
>point would be a full employment program for Iraqi males. The best
>example would be to construct a system of blockhouse lines as described
>by Fuller in "Last of the Gentlemen's Wars" or some such title, where
>he discusses his experiences with the blockhouse lines built by the
>British in South Africa during the Boer War. That's basically roads
>fortified with blockhouses or fortified guardposts, which are strung
>out along the roads covering each other with fire, so they can shoot
>any terrorists trying to cross the roads or plant IEDs or attack the
>next blockhouse, and wire fences connecting the blockhouses.
>Constructing those blockhouse lines and manning the guardposts could
>soak up all the available Iraqi manpower and keep them too exhausted
>with hard physical labor to moonlight for the insurgency.
>


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

Akorps.TakeThisOut@aol.com wrote:
> The main mistake we made in Iraq was in not following the Powell
> Doctrine. We should have fixed the main forces of Saddam's army in
> place and destroyed them, in other words. That would have reduced the
> manpower available to the insurgency in the post-war phase.

Is there a strong correlation between Saddam's former forces, and the
current insurgents?

> The best way to reduce the manpower available to the insurgency at
> this point would be a full employment program for Iraqi males. The
> best example would be to construct a system of blockhouse lines as
> described by Fuller in "Last of the Gentlemen's Wars" or some such
> title, where he discusses his experiences with the blockhouse lines
> built by the British in South Africa during the Boer War. That's
> basically roads fortified with blockhouses or fortified guardposts,
> which are strung out along the roads covering each other with fire,
> so they can shoot any terrorists trying to cross the roads or plant
> IEDs or attack the next blockhouse, and wire fences connecting the
> blockhouses. Constructing those blockhouse lines and manning the
> guardposts could soak up all the available Iraqi manpower and keep
> them too exhausted with hard physical labor to moonlight for the
> insurgency.

Kind of like what was done in Europe, after WWII. One of the things we
noted in construction is that some of the post-war construction has some of
the best concrete work you will ever see, because labor was plentiful, and
the US used the reconstruction effort as a jobs program.
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

In alt.history.british Vance P. Frickey <vfrickey.RemoveThis@ricochet.com> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:

><snip>

>> What is your opinion on the Senate Intel Committee Report
>> issued last
>> week (By a senate committee headed by a Republican
>> chairman and with a
>> majority of Republican members ) that concluded that:
>>
>> Saddam had no links to OBL/AQ,

>How did they explain the meeting between Saddam's Mukhbarat
>and Al-Q in Malaysia before all the fun happened?

>> no WMDs,

>and the shells containing sarin gas used by the Iraqi
>terrorists after the war as improvised land mines?

>> No links to terrorism

>and the presence of Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan?

>> was actually trying to capture Zarqwari.

>but not ObL, KSM, et al?

>> Saddam was no threat to the US or any of our
>> allies other than Israel.

>Which, of course, is why he tried to shoot our patrol
>aircraft down at every opportunity....

>> http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

>That the words "Senate" and "intelligence" are almost always
>oxymoronic.

So your position is that the Republicans in the Senate
not only lie but are out to get Bush, right?

Let me just pick up on one of your errors. The folks
in Iraqi Kurdistan were not reachable by Saddam. The
Kurds were already quasi-independent, protected by
the US no-fly zone and armed by the US and trained by
on-site special forces groups.

Saddam would have loved to rein in the Kurds. The fact
that he couldn't is a testimony to how weak his military
was.

You can google for the rest. Most of them are quite
wrong -- including the sarin bit. That was NOT a
weapon of mass destruction. Indeed, it wasn't a
useful weapon at all.

--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

And The New York Times to do the same.

DSH

"Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey.DeleteThis@ricochet.com> wrote in message
news:s8qdnW5xSYUcdJjYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@forethought.net...

> Oh, I read about them. I'm trying to get the Denver /Post/ to go over to
> a four-ply perforated roll edition so I can then process the cut-and-run
> proposals appropriately.
>
> --
> Vance P. Frickey
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

Grey Satterfield wrote:

> On 9/11/06 2:04 PM, in article ee4c03$e4v$1@reader2.panix.com, "Paul J Gans"
> <gans.TakeThisOut@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.history.british Grey Satterfield <gsatterfield.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/11/06 11:07 AM, in article
>>>xRfNg.10105$bM.2348@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Leif Erikson"
>>><jackball.TakeThisOut@phs.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Even Hillary Clinton admits that it's true:
>>>>
>>>>We're not interested in your four-year-old, out-of-context quote of Hillary
>>>>Clinton. This isn't about your attempt to smear the objects of your
>>>>politcal hatred. This is about the legitimacy of the Bush administration's
>>>>actions, or the lack of legitimacy, to put it more accurately. There were
>>>>no terrorists in Iraq, and your ability to try to spin some four-year-old
>>>>quote by Hillary Clinton does not change the fact that there were no
>>>>terrorists in Iraq.
>>
>>>What is this "we" stuff, quemo sabe? I know the truth must hurt but there
>>>it is. Unlike the Angry Left, I deal in facts, such as the fact that
>>>Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Saddam's having given aid and comfort to
>>>al Qaeda members before 9/11 was undisputed. Live with it.
>>
>>That's correct. But where did that information come from?
>>It was coming from the Administration.
>>
>>Please don't ignore the Senate report. It concludes that
>>there was no such information. The Administration made it
>>up.
>>
>>You have got to face that.
>
>
> Indeed I can and do.

No, you don't. Stop lying.

The administration MADE IT UP. You do not face that
fact; you fatuously attempt to deny it, or cover it up.


> But what are we to make of Hillary and many other
> Democrats accepting the intelligence estimates that Saddam had harbored al
> Qaeda terrorists?

I make a few things of it, you shitbag.

First, I make of it that Hillary Clinton was lied to,
just as the rest of us were lied to, and she had no
better ability to see that Bush and company were LYING,
at the time the lies were told, than any of the rest of
us had.

Second, I make of it that when it comes to responses to
things like 9/11, politicians like Hillary Clinton can
be forced onto the defensive by cynical lying shitbags
like Bush and Cheney.

But third, and most relevant to the "debate" going on
here, I make of it that dishonest dissembling shitbags
like you, who defend Republican war-mongering no matter
what, are playing cynical games when you pose a
question like the one you did. You aren't really
interested in what to make of Hillary Clinton accepting
the administration's bullshit. What you're interested
in, and it's plain as day, is trying to force those who
oppose this lying incompetent shitbag Bush into a
flimsy box.

Here's the real question in this newsgroup: what are
we to make of a cynical partisan shitbag like you
attempting to reframe the issue in false terms?



> Are we to believe that they independently considered the
> intelligence, which was concurred in by the British, French and Germans,

Source, please.
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

fredfighter.DeleteThis@spamcop.net wrote:

> Who is the idiot who decided to crosspost to alt.fan.heinlein
> and soc.history.medieval ?

Al Dykes. Hext time, why don't you work your way back
up the thread and find out for yourself?


>
> Vance P. Frickey wrote:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>What is your opinion on the Senate Intel Committee Report
>>>issued last
>>>week (By a senate committee headed by a Republican
>>>chairman and with a
>>>majority of Republican members ) that concluded that:
>>>
>>> Saddam had no links to OBL/AQ,
>>
>>How did they explain the meeting between Saddam's Mukhbarat
>>and Al-Q in Malaysia before all the fun happened?
>
>
> To be precise, no evidnence that Saddam Hussein was complicit
> in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or any other Al Queda
> operations has ever been published. There is no published
> evidence of any material support of Al Queda by Saddam
> Hussein. Given that Saddam Hussein is a secular Sunni
> and bin Laden a Wahhabi, one would not expect anything
> but enemity between them, right?
>
> There may have been contacts between Iraqi intelligence and
> Al Queda. But plainly Al Queda did not enjoy the same degree
> of support from Iraqis as it did and still does from Saudis, Lebanese,
> Jordinians, Pakistanis or almost any predominantly Muslim
> nation.
>
> Since the invasion, there is now a new branch of
> Al Queda, Al Queda in Iraq. If Al Quede flocked to Iraq from
> all over the world that would be great, But at most, only
> a token number of foreigners have joined the insurgents
> in Iraq.
>
>
>>> no WMDs,
>>
>>and the shells containing sarin gas used by the Iraqi
>>terrorists after the war as improvised land mines?
>
>
> The shell (note singular) to which you refer did not have a
> firing band. That implies that it had been previously fired.
> Iraq manufactured and used chemical weapons for the
> better part of a decasde prior to 1991. The dud rate for
> US shells is about 15%, it would be astonishing if the
> Iraqi shells were more reliable. Hence there should be
> THOUSANDS of unexploded sarin shells littering old
> battlefields and test ranges in Iraq.
>
> The one (1) note singular shell to which you refer was a
> prototype design.
>
> In addition to the unexploded munitions referred to above
> one also expects Iraq's landfills and junkpiles to be replete
> with empty chemical shells, bombs, and rockets that were
> discarded (for example as quality rejects) prior to the
> 1991 War and prior to the imposition of the disarmanent
> resolutions.
>
>
>>> No links to terrorism
>>
>>and the presence of Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan?
>
>
> The Kurds are our allies. They were the ones sheltering
> Ansar al-Islam, not Saddam Hussein.
>
>
>>> was actually trying to capture Zarqwari.
>>
>>but not ObL, KSM, et al?
>>
>>
>>> Saddam was no threat to the US or any of our
>>> allies other than Israel.
>>
>>Which, of course, is why he tried to shoot our patrol
>>aircraft down at every opportunity....
>
>
> He only had opportunity when our patrol aircraft were in
> Iraqi airspace. Do not forget that we violated the 1991
> cease-fire agreement by establishing those no-fly zones.
>
> I fully supported that violation. It was the right thing to do.
> But I won't lie and claim we did not break our word.
>
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

In article <1158043283.539065.159420.TakeThisOut@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<fredfighter.TakeThisOut@spamcop.net> wrote:

....

>>
>> and the shells containing sarin gas used by the Iraqi
>> terrorists after the war as improvised land mines?
>
>The shell (note singular) to which you refer did not have a
>firing band. That implies that it had been previously fired.
>Iraq manufactured and used chemical weapons for the
>better part of a decasde prior to 1991. The dud rate for
>US shells is about 15%, it would be astonishing if the
>Iraqi shells were more reliable. Hence there should be
>THOUSANDS of unexploded sarin shells littering old
>battlefields and test ranges in Iraq.
>
>The one (1) note singular shell to which you refer was a
>prototype design.
>
>In addition to the unexploded munitions referred to above
>one also expects Iraq's landfills and junkpiles to be replete
>with empty chemical shells, bombs, and rockets that were
>discarded (for example as quality rejects) prior to the
>1991 War and prior to the imposition of the disarmanent
>resolutions.

Do you have a citation for the observation about the dud shell
so I can add it to my clippings?

Thanks


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

In article <FQsNg.10871$xQ1.4719@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Leif Erikson <leif.TakeThisOut@norvege.no> wrote:
>fredfighter@spamcop.net wrote:
>
>> Who is the idiot who decided to crosspost to alt.fan.heinlein
>> and soc.history.medieval ?
>
>Al Dykes. Hext time, why don't you work your way back
>up the thread and find out for yourself?
>


Huh? I didn't add it.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

"Andrew Venor" <alvenor DeleteThis @ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:82iNg.6297$v%4.4546@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/11/06 11:07 AM, in article
> >> xRfNg.10105$bM.2348@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Leif Erikson"
> >> <jackball DeleteThis @phs.con> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/11/06 9:03 AM, in article
> >>>> 1157983382.901603.206980 DeleteThis @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
> >>>> "jacklinthicum@earthlink.net" <jacklinthicum DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Akorps DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We can't win a complete victory, but we can drive the terrorists
> >>>>>>> out of
> >>>>>>> the cities and towns and into the jungle.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There were no terrorists in Iraq before we foolishly
> >>>>>> and under false pretenses invaded the country.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would appear to be so, even the military admits it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> Even Hillary Clinton admits that it's true:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We're not interested in your four-year-old, out-of-context quote of
> >>> Hillary
> >>> Clinton. This isn't about your attempt to smear the objects of your
> >>> politcal
> >>> hatred. This is about the legitimacy of the Bush administration's
> >>> actions, or
> >>> the lack of legitimacy, to put it more accurately. There were no
> >>> terrorists
> >>> in Iraq, and your ability to try to spin some four-year-old quote by
> >>> Hillary
> >>> Clinton does not change the fact that there were no terrorists in
Iraq.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What is this "we" stuff, quemo sabe? I know the truth
> >
> >
> > But you lie anyway.
> >
> > Why are you lying? There were no terrorists in Iraq, and we - including
> > you - know that. The Bush administration knew it prior to the invasion.
>
> Well here is a short list of some of the terrorists who were found in
> Iraq during 2003 invasion.
>
> Sabri Khalil al-Banna (aka Abu Abbas) - Leader of the Palestinian
> Liberation Front. He was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the
> cruise ship Achilli Laro.
>
> Sabri al-Banna (aka Abu Nidal) - The leader of the Abu Nidal
> Organization, otherwise know as Black Spetember.
>
> In addition we should also include Saddam's paying $25,000 to the
> families of Palestinian suicide bombers and the Iraqi Intelligence
> Services assassination attempt on the former president George H. W. Bush
> in Kuwait in 1993.
>

Ahem .........
I suspect there are many more terrorists with much more money involved being
bred in the UK right now.
Not that Blair approves of them!
But Iraqi involvement, even indirectly, in Islamic terrorism was peanuts.

Surreyman
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

"Al Dykes" <adykes DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote in message
news:ee4dgu$156$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <AliNg.127$1f1.1765@eagle.america.net>,
> D. Spencer Hines <poguemidden DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Bingo!
> >
> >DSH
>
>
>
> What is your opinion on the Senate Intel Committee Report issued last
> week (By a senate committee headed by a Republican chairman and with a
> majority of Republican members ) that concluded that:
>
> Saddam had no links to OBL/AQ,
> no WMDs,
> No links to terrorism
> was actually trying to capture Zarqwari.
> Saddam was no threat to the US or any of our
> allies other than Israel.
>
> http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
>
>
You well know that any Bush/Invasion supporter is currently needing to
frantically backpedal in the wake of so many Republican, even Presidential
climbdowns.
Except the totally non-thinking ones like Hines, of course.
He just remains the Twit he always has been.

Surreyman
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

In article <1158043283.539065.159420.TakeThisOut@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<fredfighter.TakeThisOut@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Who is the idiot who decided to crosspost to alt.fan.heinlein
>and soc.history.medieval ?
>
>Vance P. Frickey wrote:
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > What is your opinion on the Senate Intel Committee Report
>> > issued last
>> > week (By a senate committee headed by a Republican
>> > chairman and with a
>> > majority of Republican members ) that concluded that:
>> >
>> > Saddam had no links to OBL/AQ,
>>
>> How did they explain the meeting between Saddam's Mukhbarat
>> and Al-Q in Malaysia before all the fun happened?
>
>To be precise, no evidnence that Saddam Hussein was complicit
>in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or any other Al Queda
>operations has ever been published. There is no published
>evidence of any material support of Al Queda by Saddam
>Hussein. Given that Saddam Hussein is a secular Sunni
>and bin Laden a Wahhabi, one would not expect anything
>but enemity between them, right?
>
>There may have been contacts between Iraqi intelligence and
>Al Queda. But plainly Al Queda did not enjoy the same degree
>of support from Iraqis as it did and still does from Saudis, Lebanese,
>Jordinians, Pakistanis or almost any predominantly Muslim
>nation.
>
>Since the invasion, there is now a new branch of
>Al Queda, Al Queda in Iraq. If Al Quede flocked to Iraq from
>all over the world that would be great, But at most, only
>a token number of foreigners have joined the insurgents
>in Iraq.
>
>>
>> > no WMDs,
>>
>> and the shells containing sarin gas used by the Iraqi
>> terrorists after the war as improvised land mines?
>
>The shell (note singular) to which you refer did not have a
>firing band. That implies that it had been previously fired.
>Iraq manufactured and used chemical weapons for the
>better part of a decasde prior to 1991. The dud rate for
>US shells is about 15%, it would be astonishing if the
>Iraqi shells were more reliable. Hence there should be
>THOUSANDS of unexploded sarin shells littering old
>battlefields and test ranges in Iraq.
>
>The one (1) note singular shell to which you refer was a
>prototype design.
>
>In addition to the unexploded munitions referred to above
>one also expects Iraq's landfills and junkpiles to be replete
>with empty chemical shells, bombs, and rockets that were
>discarded (for example as quality rejects) prior to the
>1991 War and prior to the imposition of the disarmanent
>resolutions.
>
>>
>> > No links to terrorism
>>
>> and the presence of Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan?
>
>The Kurds are our allies. They were the ones sheltering
>Ansar al-Islam, not Saddam Hussein.
>
>>
>> > was actually trying to capture Zarqwari.
>>
>> but not ObL, KSM, et al?
>>
>> > Saddam was no threat to the US or any of our
>> > allies other than Israel.
>>
>> Which, of course, is why he tried to shoot our patrol
>> aircraft down at every opportunity....
>
>He only had opportunity when our patrol aircraft were in
>Iraqi airspace. Do not forget that we violated the 1991
>cease-fire agreement by establishing those no-fly zones.
>
>I fully supported that violation. It was the right thing to do.
>But I won't lie and claim we did not break our word.
>
>--

And that part of the containment cost us about $2 Billion a year and
cost us no American/Allied lives. I've always felt that the
conntainment cost offset training we would have done, anyway, and
provided priceless live-fire experience to a generation of military
operations folks and pilots.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh.. 

"Grey Satterfield" <gsatterfield DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:C12B3A2F.31E8A%gsatterfield@cox.net...
> On 9/11/06 3:40 PM, in article
> -62dnTZCcro5VJjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d DeleteThis @forethought.net, "Vance P. Frickey"
> <vfrickey DeleteThis @ricochet.com> wrote:
> > Al Dykes wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> What is your opinion on the Senate Intel Committee Report
> >> issued last
> >> week (By a senate committee headed by a Republican
> >> chairman and with a
> >> majority of Republican members ) that concluded that:
> >>
> >> Saddam had no links to OBL/AQ,
> >
> > How did they explain the meeting between Saddam's Mukhbarat
> > and Al-Q in Malaysia before all the fun happened?
> >
> >> no WMDs,
> >
> > and the shells containing sarin gas used by the Iraqi
> > terrorists after the war as improvised land mines?
> >
> >> No links to terrorism
> >
> > and the presence of Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan?
> >
> >> was actually trying to capture Zarqwari.
> >
> > but not ObL, KSM, et al?
> >
> >> Saddam was no threat to the US or any of our
> >> allies other than Israel.
> >
> > Which, of course, is why he tried to shoot our patrol
> > aircraft down at every opportunity....
> >
> >> http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
> >
> > That the words "Senate" and "intelligence" are almost always
> > oxymoronic.
>
> These are all good points but the Angry Left won't give up on its "Bush
> Lied!" mantra and simply will not address what they would do to fight The
> Global War on Terror -- except to cut and run from Iraq now. Maybe that's
a
> good thing for Republicans, though, because that argument failed to let
the
> Democrats win back the presidency in 2004, so maybe it will keep them from
> winning back the congress in 2006.
>

OK, given the two most probable choices, which is yours?

Stay in Iraq, probably for many years, spending lives and billions, until
the Iraqi military/police are rather better at maintaining internal order
than are the current Coalition troops, and until there is genuine unity
within the country supporting a genuinely wished governmental form, whether
or not that is democracy.

or

Leave. In which case the resulting chaos might as well be now than, with no
further effect, later.

Both are logical choices, with no axes to grind. Each is defendable.
But they are the choices, whether it's nice or not.

Surreyman
 >> Stay informed about: What Went Wrong In Iraq -- And How To Make It Right -- Joh..