WW 1 pilots without a kill

paul you miss my point you have to distroy the enemies will to fight I think the russian frount and vietnam are perfect examples the germans and americans both enficted many times their own losses but endded up lossesing the germans by their in ablity to distroy russian morale and the US because of a loss of morale at home and in the soldiers them selves as tecknology advances wars are encreaseingly fought with propaganda by PR experts propaganda inpires your people at home and saps the strenght of your enemies and infulences the actions of other countries that may or may not join ether side. gone fore ever are the days were an army (Say the army of the Tennesse under W T Sherman) could march for hundreds of miles through enemy country side carrying only ammunition and medical suplies you need suport from home arm chair tactictions always miss propaganda and lojistics in their calculations. anything that can keep a country fighting is of vaule the individual hero wether real or manufatured is worth hundreds of soldiers in the field The ace of world war one was someone that could get the soldiers in the trenches and the civilians at home minds off the horrible canage for a while. the bloodyer a war the more it has to be "sold" to the people fighting and suporting it

[Barrett]

I'm reminded of a poster that used to be displayed at the Naval Strike Warfare Center. It said, "You 'negotiate' with the enemy by placing your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." It's the geopolitical equivalent of making him an offer he can't refuse--but we don't conduct geopolitics OR war in that fashion anymore.

[Darryl]

Barrett,
What, not even in Iraq?????

Darryl

one thing to remember is the US is just as in the Wrong As Iraq is. They were our allies before the gulf war. our enemies are the Iraqi government not the people who are for that part of the word very progessive. But national policy and world oppion do not allow us to use Regentside (the killing of a chief of state) It all works into the reasons for the great vaule of propaganda I mentioned earlyer

[Barrett]

Maybe ESPECIALLY not in Iraq. It's apparent now that saddam & klinton benefit from one another; a symbiotic relationship has grown up over the past several years in which each side safely uses the other as a foil to internal opposition. Hence, there's no genuine effort to solve the problem because there are only two workable options: total war (put a bayonet thru saddam and install somebody else) or total peace (undermine the regime economically and politically over the long term as we're doing in Vietnam). But neither will happen because both leaders perceive an advantage in the status quo.
I thank you...

[Darryl]

Hi again Barrett,
I think the question facing the world leaders after the last war in the gulf was something akin to "do we want heart disease or cancer?"
Personally I think the Coalition should have gone all the way, but I do acknowledge that a the power vacuum *that* could have created in the region would probably have led to a resurgence of Iran, not a palitable option for the Americans.

The fundamental problem with Western assessments of the Middle East seems to me to be a lack of understanding of their attitude to the ideals and demeanor of the West. I have yet to see Westerners burning Iraqi flags in the street (government organised or otherwise.)

We could very nearly have gone the way of America in Vietnam but for a brilliantly executed plan.

If however Saddam had got his "Rivers of Blood" then public opinion in the West could easily have crucified the war.

The Arab world has, I believe, a much greater capacity for acceptance of those sacrifices (look at the war between Iraq and Iran)and yet we still arogantly believed that if we went in and hurt them they would collapse. Not one major Coalition leader is still in power. Yet the man they beat so comprehensively doesn't even look like going.
He has played the West very well over the last few years.

I couldn't agree more with your point that he and Clinton have a kind of
"co-dependancy".

just my "colonial" mind's assessment

regards

Darryl

[Vigilant]

"He has played the West very well over the last few years."

Apart from going from a regional ally of the world's only superpower to its main enemy, having his huge armed forces almost destroyed, humiliating himself in an unwinable war, having sanctions imposed on his country with no prospect of them being lifted, having major foreign powers attempt to destabilise his regime and maybe try to kill him, and suffering repeated punitive air strikes -- yes, he's done pretty well!
Sorry Darryl

Seriously, I think the "Saddam's played us for fools" line can be overstated. He has the foreign policy skills of Daffy Duck. The only thing he has achieved is to stay in power - the minimum level of achievement for any dictator.

[Barrett]

From all evidence through history, when you're running the front office, staying in power is Job One. Both Saddam and Clinton are eminently successful at it.

[Darryl]

Vigilant,
OOOUUUCCCHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. **G**

Seriously, what has he really lost?? He burned a million men against Iran for no particular gain. He was never going to rule the region, the alliance with the US gained him nothing but the ability to burn a million against Iran.
Now I know the guy is a true humanitarian and it grieves him to see his people suffer (spot the sarcasm, but other than medical and food aid he is travelling pretty well.
Barrett, spot on No. 1 job. Both been ****** both still there.

Best regards and a merry christmas

Darryl