From: Rüdiger (rkoch@rkoch.org)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 09:32:22 MST
--- BillK <bill@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Military intervention in the Middle East holds many dangers.
It does indeed. The US could lose the war, for instance. Saddam's
strategy in the last wars was stupid, to say something polite. Both
against Iran and the US he was copying the Verdun 1916 situation. It
wasn't successful against Iran and against the US, it was a pure
desaster because the US forces did not need to fight this way. Instead
they used their superior air force to smash them. Now what happens if:
1. Saddam distributes his army in the cities, basically hiding behind
children and women. The US forces would need to fight for each and
every house. Is the US prepared for another gorilla war after Vietnam?
2. The US forces get too lax and make a mistake. Iraqi ground forces
launch a fast attack on Saudi/Kuwait territory, forcing the surprised
US forces into a large scale ground battle?
After a first success there might be other Arabian leaders joining the
war on Saddam's side and suddenly we have the war here in Europe. I'd
hate to see Daimler, Volkswagen and BMW produce robots-of-war instead
of luxury cars.
> It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield,
> military
> action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the
> Middle East and for the world."
.... since awful oil prices like we have now are not good for the
economy. Bombing Iraq into the ground will lead to plenty of orders
after the war. Siemens can sell a pro West Iraq all the nuclear power
plants they don't need and Lockheed can rebuild the Iraqi air force.
All payed with cheap oil. Wonderful.
Who in his right state of mind believes that humanitarian issues are in
the Bush family's equation?
-Rudiger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST