From: John Beckett 

Ok - now we have a thoughtful, well-argued post.

I'm glad that I don't have to decide what course of action should be taken
in response to 9/11. I can see the arguments on both sides of the fence.

The "Where's OBL? Where's Saddam? Where's the WMD?" questions
should be excrutiatingly embarassing for the Bush team. Add "what do
you hope to achieve?", and you have a real puzzle.

On the other side, I find the naivety of the "What about the human
rights?" people breathtaking. Yes, in a fundamental way they are
right. But when a group of people train for a year to fly planes into
public buildings, there will be quite a few casualties.

Two Australians are being held at Guantanamo Bay, and it is distressing to
hear their relatives bemoan their fate. However I personally think the
rights of the detainees are just more casualties of the new world order
revealed by 9/11. We live in tough times.

I have no idea why the US is in Iraq, but presumably the Saudi rulers (and
others) are taking careful notes.

John

Adam Flinton  wrote in message
news::
> John Beckett wrote:
> > While I have your attention, I will mention:
> >
> > * Phil's stream of hyperbole (nazi nazi nazi...) would possibly convince a
> > parrot, but little else.
> >
>
> No argument from me on that. I always favour cockup & incompetance over
> conspiracy.
>
> > * I feel that the "US in Iraq = Evil" position could be
argued, but I
> > don't recall anything convincing here.
>
> I think if you're going to engage in colonialism/the white man's burden
> then at least do it intelligently. As to whether the US should be
> engaged in Colonialsm/white man's burden unilaterally.....then you get
> into your argument.
>
>
> > In general, it is true that you
> > don't have to offer a better plan before pointing out problems in someone
> > else's plan.
>
> 1st better plan:
>
> A) Assume that we live in a post colonial era where wandering into
> someone elses country in order to cvilize them ain't a good idea. Would
> you like the southern cross taken out of your flaq & the top left hand
> corner expanded to fill the whole area?
>
> B) Kill the Leaders if taking over from a dictatorship. Why kill the
> peasants when you say you want to help em?
>
> Alexander at Gaugamela: Go for Darius.
>
> C) If in charge then the locals are fully competant adults able to run
> their own lives. Set up local security forces (police) & pull back to
> desert bases way away from population centers & then rely on locals to
> call upon you if they need help & not the other way around.
>
>
> > However it seems to me that the "Evil" position will never be
> > convincing until due recognition is given to the practical difficulties of
> > combating the 9/11 fanatics.
>
> & they had what to do with the Baathists?
>
> > These fanatics are not going away (look at
> > the religious fruit cakes in the US to see what too much leisure time can
> > do to those with a certain frame of mind).
> >
>
> wrt islam there needs to be a reformation where hard & solid parts of
> the Koran which are being purposely overlooked for very earthly reasons
> (similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages till Luther et al)
> e.g. "There shall be no coercion in religion" are once more
center stage.
>
> WRT religious nutters .....nail em up to bits of wood I say.....
>
> > The US either has to be so nice to everyone that the fanatics learn to
> > love them, or the US has to be so nasty that the fanatics decide to go
> > elsewhere.
>
> The latter doesn't work. It really doesn't. Not even in a single country
> (i.e. US forces acting against US people in the US) let alone in foreign
> countries. OK it looks good to the home audience but in the long run
> it's counter productive.
>
> You have to dry up the sea in which the guerrilas/terrorists swim i.e.
> make the local environment hostile to them not because of M1'es parked
> at every intersection but because a school child sees something & tells
> a local cops who calls other local cops who then etc.etc.
>
> If blasting away with heavy weaponry is not something you'd like to see
> in downtown Sydney then why is it OK in downtown Baghdad or Samara or
> etc.etc.?
>
> The aim of the resistance is to turn the minority who support them &
> want to get the occupation forces out "by whatever means
necessary" into
> a majority. In reality the only people who can really achieve that are
> the occupation forces themselves.
>
> As such you need to make them as low key as possible & pull them out to
> desert bases a fair way from any population centers & in easily
> surveilled terrain. The force is there if the locals need it.
>
> What is the predominant thing about a state? It's monopoly on
> force/violence. If you want to establish a proper working state then the
> locals must have the monopoly on force with the occupation forces as a
> backup if needed.
>
> At the moment the locals don't have that & know they don't have that
> thus the occupation forces are called into all sorts of situations where
> their mere prescence inflames the situation more.
>
> Get em training the police & the internal security. Act to guarantee the
> state against external force (e.g. border patrol) & act as the big stick
> the local forces can call upon in dire need. Heck from what I can gather
> the Oz forces are doing exactly that (in the western Desert). Equally
> the UK forces are basically doing that i.e. as cops are trained &
> deployed the troops pull back to an "out of town" base.
>
>
> >I don't expect either of these outcomes anytime soon, so we're
> > in for a rough ride. The appeasing noises from our UK friends here will
> > only help prolong the mess.
> >
>
> I'm not appeasing anyone. I just dislike idiotic actions stemming
> largely from a lack of experience putting UK forces at risk. Ozzie & US
> forces can take their own risks but having UK forces killed because of
> some nutters annoying the locals is not in my national interest.
>
> If the US wants to carry on believing that "force is the
answer" then I
> think the UK should pull it's forces out of joint ops with the US forces
> in both Iraq & Afganistan.
>
> If however there is a mindset change in US mil command (& it's pol
> masters) then I think the temporary occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan can
> work to the benefit of all (pace the "bad guys").
>
> Also it ain't "appeasing noises" which will prolong the mess it's rank
> incompetance & a deep belief that force is the answer which is doing that.
>
> The US needs to get ready for the idea that the majority of actions it's
> troops are likely to be involved in are going to be "small wars" where
> getting on with the locals will be the key.
>
>
> Adam
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5