New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 10:46 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:56:40 +0100, "Reg Edwards" > > <g4fgq.regp(a)ZZZbtinternet.com> Gave us: > > > > > destroy the police force and the army, the > > >power stations, > > > > They never had a police force. All they had was Saddam's army, and > > yes, that had to be dismantled, dumbass. > > It had to be purged. Dismantlng it wasn't necessary, and certainly > turns out to have been a very bad idea. There was some discussion of > this point here before the invasion had got well underway. I agree 100%. Failing to use a be-Baathified army was a very serious error. As was bringing in western sub-contractors instead of using local ppl for reconstruction. Not only did this mean that a large number of the population were no longer gainfully employed ( and free to cause trouble ) but it created much resentment. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 11:01 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:48:59 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:40:03 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > >> >> Providential for us, as well, that you were there since you helped > >> >> us in _our_ war with Germany. > >> > > >> >That's the most sane thing I think you've said so far in this thread. > >> > >> --- > >> So the rest of my stuff is insane because you don't agree with it? > >> ;) > > > >You're a great fan of turning words round inaccurately aren't you ? > > --- > Oh, so then you _agree_ with the "insane" things I've said? You're a great fan of turning words round inaccurately aren't you ? Graham
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 11:09 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:38:00 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:59:03 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I >>guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let >>Israel die than to help her. Why is that? >> > >Possibly because in the long view Israel is rather insignificant, >except as a regional US puppy. What have they contributed to world >wealth and wisdom? --- Israel, lately, http://www.newsoftheday.com/ Jews, in general... http://www.jinfo.org/ -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 11:06 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <1154865648.931183.173690(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > > >As was pointed out before you invaded Irak, the three-way division of > >Irak into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites makes it impossible to construct a > >stable government. > > The *government* was reasonably stable before Saddam, and, of course, > during his reign of oppression and genocide. Various sectors of the > population experienced bad things; such was the price of 'stability'. Overall it seems that the price under Saddam was less than the price under the coalition. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 11:14
John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:15:49 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US > >> >did not. > >> > >> --- > >> "When it mattered?" Don't be absurd. As far as you know we got > >> there just in time. > > > >I guess he might be referring to the Battle of Britain ? > > Maybe, but he'd be wrong since we _were_ there. Only a few of us, > but... These were Americans fighting on our side simply because they believed in the cause of course not on account of US policy. > From: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#United_States_contribution > > "The RAF recognises 7 aircrew personnel from the United States as > having taken part in the Battle of Britain.P/O WML ('Billy') Fiske > saw service with No. 601 Squadron, claiming one kill before dying of > wounds on the 17th August 1940. P/O AG 'Art' Donahue served with 64 > squadron, while 609 squadron had a trio of American pilots see > action through August and September (P/O's 'Andy' Mamedoff, VC > 'Shorty' Keogh and EQ 'Red' Tobin). P/O PH Leckrone was with 616 > Sqn, while P/O JD Haviland served in 151 Squadron. Only the latter > pilot survived the war. Ultimately three squadrons of RAF pilots > from the United States, known as Eagle squadrons fought with the > RAF, although the first ( No. 71 squadron) became operational in > February 1941, well after the main daylight battles." > --- I had thought it was around four Americans from memory alone but I'm happy to be corrected on this point. The full list is..... Polish 139 New Zealander 98 Canadian 86 Czechoslovakian 84 Belgian 29 Australian 21 South African 20 French 13 Irish 10 Unknown 8 American 7 Jamaican 1 Palestinian (Jewish) 1 Southern Rhodesian 1 > >Had Britain fallen there > >wouldn't even have been a party to come to, never mind arrive late. > > --- > But she didn't, so the point is moot. Indeed. But there was no American aid involved. Graham |