Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Don Rua" <rua AT mindspring.com>]

On Oct 3, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:

>>Do you think our patriots would have joined the invading French army or
shot at them?

August 30, 1781: A French Naval Vessel Arrives Near Yorktown - 2,500 French
Troops arrive near Yorktown on a vessel that tangles with British naval
vessels off the shore of Virginia and finally lands near Yorktown, where the
French troops join forces with the gathering Continentals.

October 6 - October 19, 1781: The Siege of Yorktown - A total of 16,600
allied troops under the command of General George Washington arrive at
Yorktown, which is held by only 6,000 British troops. The French blockade
the port. Realizing that the French blockade could not be broken, the
British fleet sailed back to New York leaving Cornwallis' army with no
choice but to surrender, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

September 3, 1783: The Treaty of Paris is Signed - After nearly a year of
peace talks, the Treaty of Paris is finally signed, officially granting the
US its independence.

I'm not sure if they would have shot at the French or not, but I bet they
were quite happy to shake their hands in Paris after the victory.

On Oct 3, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:

>>>The UN asked Iraq to disarm and it did, so there wouldn't be a need to
invade.

I've never been under the opinion that we invaded because of the weapons
inspections, nor the UN sanctions; that's why waiting for UN permission
seems a minor point. [And I believe it was Clinton who first developed the
term Coalition of the Willing to get around UN mandates. It's not a new US
policy]
That's based on an assumption that the only need to invade is the overtly
stated explanation. Do you think a President or authority could signal a
raid on a terrorist biochem factory, without announcing his intentions,
because it is safer to go in by surprise? Take the same concept, and stretch
out the scenario by decades, making moves, feints, blocks, playing for
position on the board, so you can win at the critical turning point in the
game maybe 20 years hence. It took 30+ years for the cold war to be
resolved, and the current threat is at least as dangerous as the Nuclear
Missile threat. The 'mutual distruction' worked with two parties who wanted
to live. Now we must fight people who are happy, almost obligated, to die
and take us with them.

If you want to make the case that Kerry wouldn't have gone to war, I agree.
My point is that is that Bush had a plan, and that plan did not require 20%
participation from 100 countries. If the price was right, they were welcome.
If the price was steep, they (Russia, Germany, etc) were put on notice that
we would act without them. That might hurt us in the future, or it may help
us in the future. I've seen both scenarios.

>>>"The only reason "W" messed around with the UN was to put a cover story
on the invasion that it was to enforce a UN resolution because there wasn't
even minimal evidence of an impending threat to the US."

I agree with the first half, but there is plenty of evidence of "impending
threat to the U.S.". Maybe it is not from Iraq, but maybe a free Iraq is a
very good move in the greater game against that threat. Strategy doesn't
travel in a straight line. People talk about the global have and have-nots.
North vs South, East vs West. Then someone makes a move to put some 'have'
in the middle of 'have-not' land, and folks have a cow. Saddam was never
going to let his citizens become the 'haves'. I'm confident that if the
terrorists would take a nap, Americans would be happy to see Iraq
businessmen and women grow, earn, and participate in the world community in
a big way; become 'haves', that might just help more of their 'have-not'
neighbors. Teach a country to fish.

Don