babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 February 2003 08:55 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before By Ben Macintyre

An attempt by a British force in 1915 to topple the regime in Baghdad ended in disaster. Our correspondent hopes there will be no parallels this time


An interesting aside, here, is an confirmation of the information that Winston Churchill advocated using gas against Iraqi tribes:

quote:
Then, the soldiers were clad in First World War uniforms; Baghdad was part of the Ottoman Empire and the enemy were Turks. The threat to use poison gas came not from President Saddam Hussein, but from Lawrence of Arabia and Winston Churchill. The most strident voice urging aerial bombardment to put down Iraqi insurgents was that of Arthur “Bomber” Harris, who would later use those methods to reduce Dresden to rubble.

[ 15 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3558

posted 17 February 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for Apples     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the 1914-15 campaign, you had Turkish troops fighting the British, who had only infantry (no tanks or airplanes) in Iraq, and were then concentrating on a much more powerful enemy - Austria-Hungary and Germany.

Today, America has overwhelming military forces who are concentrating solely on Iraq, and Iraq only (you'll notice a diplomatic solution is being pursued with North Korea). A better "parallel" would be the Gulf War, which, you might remember, went a little better than the British debacle during the First World War.


On a related note, the "historical parallel" card has already been played. Remember how Afghanistan was going to be America's second Vietnam? How Russia and Britain had previously fought over it but had failed to conquer it? How the Americans were going to get bogged down and suffer massive casualties and would "provoke" another terrorist attack?


From: no | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 17 February 2003 01:02 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing isn't it, the speed and efficiency with which America has defeated the terrorists and other warmongers in Afghanistan, no?


Oh, yeah...


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 February 2003 01:59 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Today, America has overwhelming military forces who are concentrating solely on Iraq, and Iraq only (you'll notice a diplomatic solution is being pursued with North Korea). A better "parallel" would be the Gulf War, which, you might remember, went a little better than the British debacle during the First World War.

That got you all excited, even the idea that it might be difficult, even. So proud.

Well, well, well, as to your point the relative superiority of the Soviet Union when fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan was similar to the superiority existant in all but one of the British invasions of Afgahnistan. The same was true of the US in Vietnam. This is an issue of relative superiority.

The British refused to give the T. E. Lawrence's Arab allies artillery and other more advances weaponry in order to maintain this imbalance, out of fear that it would one day be used against them.

The history of technically inferior armies besting superior armies is stark indeed. Agincourt comes to mind, wherein 30,000 horse mounted and well armoured French Knights were slaughtered by Henry the Fifth's 8000 (of which on 3000 were knights, if I remember correctly.)

Little Big Horn comes to mind as well. One thing any military historian will tell you is that anything can happen in war. The case of the Maginot Line is a classic. The Somalia case is yet another example of what a serious mistake it is to depend entirely on perceived 'technical superiority.'

If the US really wants to get Saddam they probably will not be able to do it with the aircraft, you are so fond of, as the Osama case examples. People are going to have to go in, and that is when it could get sticky -- unless they just flatten the country entirely.

Or is that what you are suggesting they do?

How quickly people forget that the first Gulf war was fought in the dessert around Kuwait and not in the interior of Iraq, where the British debacle happened.

Frankly I think all this 'regieme change' stuff is all smoke an mirrors, as well as this 'first day assault of Baghdad -- that is beging for it. I think the US will choose the beter part of valour, as always, and operate in the desert and bomb Baghdad from afar. Hoping that someone someone local 'offs' Saddam while they stay at arms length.

Besides the desert is where the oil is. Why go to Baghdad, once you've achieved the primary objective.

[ 17 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca