Keith and Brad This is a fun interchange. I went to bed last night while you were walking the dog in Bath.
However, back to business. Don't give up too quickly on the Saudi thought. There are still those bunches of soldiers surrounding SA - quite apart from the internal US installations. Meantime, to get SH to allow real and complete inspections, it is imperative that he believes the Texas Cowboys are raring to come in shooting. However, as I said several weeks ago, this assumes an American policy of misdirection - for which they are not noted. (One recalls the Marines coming up off the beaches of Somalia to find - more reporters and photographers than there were Marines.) One doesn't give an enemy 6 months notice you are going to attack him - unless supreme arrogance holds sway (which might also be true). Of course air power is supposed to be the determining factor, but wars are won on the ground by occupation of the enemy's homeland. One remembers Monte Cassino, center of one of the most momentous battles of WW2 as the allies advanced through Italy. The monastery itself was left alone but its surroundings were subjected to the most horrendous bombing and shelling one can imagine over a period of 4 months. Thousands of planes and guns pounded Monte Cassino. Yet the German parachutists not only held the position, but they were undefeated. They left when they were ordered back because of the crumbling front. In case anyone might think this was a little backwater operation, it was the battle that opened up the path to Rome and relieved the Anzio Beachhead - probably as ill-conceived a venture as one can imagine. Though that's for heated debate over many beers. Some 118,000 allied soldiers lost their lives (107,000 of them American). It was the Battle for Italy. Of course we would never get into a situation like that again. Would we? Naaaah! Of course, I hope no-one notices the mixture of hope and fear in my words. Harry Keith wrote: >Brad, > >At 04:46 21/09/02 -0400, you wrote: > >Morning, ye across the pond (it's 04:30 AM here in the colonies)! > >Cor! Much enjoyed your piece. And I even understood you this time! Not one >mention of Kant, Habermas or Nietzsche! (Glad that you're reading one of my >gurus, though -- Freeman Dyson.) > >Please continue to get up at 4.30am. I didn't realise my postings were so >eagerly awaited. > >Keith > ><<<< >Keith Hudson wrote: > > >[snip] > > But any serious attempt at regime change in Iraq -- which Bush now seems > > intent on despite what the UN may say -- will only produce a satrap of > > America -- in effect a colony in the old-fashioned imperialist tradition. > > Surely this would only screw up tensions within the other Islamic countries > > to breaking point? And then what happens if there are further > > demonstrations by the Western-seeking, frustrated young in Iran, Saudi > > Arabia and the Arab Emirates? If the imams crack down hard, then America > > would have to invade those countries, too, in order to ensure that further > > Al Qaeda-type terrorist network don't develop. > >Empire building doesn't come without blood sweat and tears, but >isn't it worth it? > > > > > So far, America seems to be buying off Russia and China with diplomatic > > sops, but how will they react if America enroaches even further into the > > Middle East in order to protect its oil supplies? My guess is that America > > has calculated that Russia will be no problem however strongly it protests. > > After all, its armed forces are so demoralised that it's highly likely that > > Russia's missile sites are so badly maintained that missiles would never > > get off the ground. > >I'm not so sure they couldn't jerry-rig a couple. I believe it was >the submarine K-19 where the crew did an absolutely amazing job of >designing and implementing a RYO reactor coolant plumbing kludge which >kept the vessel from blowing up, at the cost of ~only~ about 16 or >was it 36 crewmen dying horrible deaths from radiation >poisoning. I think the Ruskies could get a few ICBMs into the >air to come down and detonate somewhere or other. It's that >Zek spirit of enterprise! > > > > > On the whole, though, China has not been objecting strongly. True, it seems > > to have internal succession problems just at present which are distracting > > its leadership but, given America's considerable help in getting China into > > the WTO, one wonders whether or not there's some secret deal going on here. > > America knows that China's armed forces and missile potential (increasingly > > sophisticated) are certainly not demoralised, and China is going to need > > increasing imports of Middle East oil in the coming years. > >Let's face it: There's still lebensraum between Mongolia and the >line between [how did Churchill put it?] Trieste in the Adriatic and >Stetin in the Baltic? China, today, just wants to secure its western >frontiers. > > > > > Meanwhile, Japan is flat on its back economically and unlikely to recover > > for many years, if at all. > >I wonder about this. Are the Japanese young people getting high? >Are the Japanese young people listening to MP3? If yes, then >all's more or less well there. We live in a >postindustrial world, don't we? > > > Western Europe (particularly Germany and Italy) > > seems to be heading the same way pretty fast. In any case, neither have any > > military clout. As to England . . . well, we've been a colony of America > > ever since WWII and Blair will continue our sycophantic role with his usual > > enthusiasm. > >Keith, we all trust that, if push comes to shove, once again, >never before will so few have done so much for so many -- and >at Bomber Command they will once again run the numbers and if >not enough bombs fall in the target radius they'll enlarge the >radius, and >if they once again find that British airmen are dying at a >higher rate than U.S. airmen due to British planes having >smaller escape hatches, they will once again suppress >this information to avoid possibly negatively affecting >the morale of the British airmen >(ref. Freeman Dyson, _Disturbing the Universe_). > >God save the Queen! (And wear your seat belt when you go >to the store to buy that margarine with Princess Diana's >picture on it if they still are making it!) > >\brad mccormick > > > > > Keith Hudson > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- > >Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England >Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >________________________________________________________________________ ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
