Jim, I also had promised myself I would make no other posting on this subject. However, I must say WELL SAID. As for any killing spree in Bagdad, this is a joke, as you know. In point of fact, of course, great efforts were made to avoid the unfortunate civilian casualities that did occur. The true killing spree, if there was one, and one could characterize this as an unavoidable one on our part without objection from me, was against the ground units in southern Irag and in Kuwait. The brave men in these units were hung out to dry by their criminal government for political reasons. Saddam understood the inevitablitity of the destruction that would come to them and their suffering and death was of little consequence to him if political gain could be achieved. . They should be respected for maintaining their positions against such a formidable adversary while being, essentially, abandoned by the remaining forces and the government of their country. The withdrawal of the far better Iraqi units of the Republican Guard to as much safety as could be found hunkered down to the north shows plainly that the battle was fought against an abandoned, conscript army essentially disposable in the feckless mind of Saddam Hussein. Knowing as he did that he would be ejected from Kuwait, shielding his best assets from harms way when simple fairness would have them deployed and leaving in the field the poor souls of lesser units as sacrificial lambs, then who was responsible for this killing spree? The US? This is why I agree Roger's comments are entirely unjustified . The unbelievably low casualty list for western forces shows this and would have been far, far higher had the Iraqis committed their main units. Nevertheless, a sad waste of good, ordinary, brave men, patriotically committed to their country's fate occured, even if unavoidable. Some would perhaps have us responsible for this. The relentless nature and extent of the killing that occured is of the nature of war and , tactically, is a good object lesson in the absolute necessity of air cover - something the Germans learned on the Western front in WWII. Air superiority was thus was used to great advantage and greatly reduced western casualties so should we have not used and endured more to avoid the great "killing spree"? regards Robin Hufford JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote: > Roger I had promised myself I was not going to post any more on this subject > but some of the things you have said just are incorrect and not justifiable > at all...... > In a message dated 29/09/01 8:51:01 PM, baldyam@sk.sympatico.ca writes: > > <<"Make no mistake there while there is great support > Internationally for America over this horrendous disaster. There is also a > great deal of pressure to exercise temperance.">> > > Give one instance so far in which the U.S. has not "execised restraint" in > this current situation. Think rrrrreal hard now. Name one place we have > bombed, one person we have killed, one town we have attacked.....just what do > you call "restraint"??? > > <<"This is not AMERICA'S NEW WAR as you your press likes to brag and > glorify, > but a global problem. Travel out side your own country, and you will see an > entirely different perspective.">> > > Perhaps it is not "Americas New War" but if it is the rest of the worlds > 'Old War'....Why is it still going on? Or does the rest of the "world" feel > that it is beneath their dignity to sully their hands on the "terrorism" > thingee? > > <<"My home city in the UK is home to the Royal Marine Commando unit's. They > are > already in Afghanistan. Just like they were first to go in, in the gulf > war.">> > > This is just a crock and that is not meant to demean the efforts and gallant > duty performed by the SAS or the RMC's. While it is true that the only > gunfight to have been reported was between a SAS unit and the Afghan Army it > was because the SAS unit was almost caught by the Afghan Army and required > the gunfight to get away. The fact that a SAS unit has been reported in > Afghan does not mean they are the 'only' units there or that they were there > 'first'. As for the Gulf War They were absoulutely not 'there first'...a good > friend of mine was Commander of the first SW team in Kuwait they were > inserted on the second day of the Kuwati Occupation by Iraq. And who was/is > first doesn't make a hill of beans what does matter is that they are there. > > <<"The Royal Air Force was responsible for taking out most of the air fields > in > that war. They quite efficiently grounded the Iraqi Air force.">> > Wrong again. The airfield interdiction campaign was a joint assignment of > the British, French and Italian airforce units that flew the Tornado > aircraft. each flew aprox. the same number of interdiction missions and each > suffered unacceptable casualties. This caused a change of tactics in the use > of the Tornado and its weapon systems. To claim otherwise is not correct. > > As for <<"quite efficiently grounded the Iraqi Air force.">> Why were so > many aircraft of the Iraqi air force shot down if they were so "efficiently > grounded"? If they were so "efficiently grounded" how did aprox" 20% of their > first line fighter aircraft and attack aircraft get flown to Iran? How do you > mean "efficiently"? > > <<"Then the > killing spree started in Bagdad. We all know what that solved. There is > some mounting pressure in the UK that America does not conduct a repeat > performance. ">> > "Killing spree" Roger ? What "killing spree", "in Bagdhad", are you speaking > of? Are you talking of innocent civilians being bombed on purpose? Or are you > talking of innocent civilians killed when military targets were bombed and > the bombs either missed their targets and or who were killed in the > explosions which destroyed the military targets? > > <<"This not America's private war. And America is not going to be the > same.">> > > Since the terrorists did what they did to Americans in American terrortory > that makes it a "private" affair......that this country is trying to organize > a joint will to fight terrorism in all its forms and in all its locations > makes it a worldwide affair. > If members of the United Kingdom were so great at fighting terrorism and > keeping all peoples rights in sight then there would be no fighting, bombing > and killing in Ireland for lo these many years...would there? > As for "America never being the same"(sic) being your closest neighbor you > should perhaps hope that we come awful danged close to "being the same" with > our economies being so closely linked...and if we aren't ever going to be the > same..in what ways are we going to be different? > > <<"The > International community is hopefully going to force the US to be accountable > for their foreign policy. 90 day company balance sheets will no longer cut > it. ">> > Would that every country were as accountable for their foreign policy as the > U.S. is...as for the rest of the "International Community" "forcing" us to do > anything on what moral ground are they going to force us? The "International > Communities'" record on combating terrorism? or keeping their people fed? or > keeping genocide from going on? or even so simple a matter of not allowing a > flourishing slave trade? or as in the UK keeping people of one religion from > killing another for no other reason than that one is Catholic and one > Anglican??????? > > OH if we had just captured Montreal when we had the chance!!! :-) > Jim Bryant (FL)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC