"The inspectors last time did a pretty good job, considering they were up against the blocking efforts of the Iraqi government in the one hand, and, on the other hand, the largely successful effort by the US government to use the inspection process as a spying operation."

Oh that's all right then - no need for them to go back in. Saddam says he's disarmed - lets take that at face face value and get on with our lives - GET REAL.

You either believe that or you don't - by the way what was wrong with the US using the exercise to "spy" on Iraq - sounds like making best use of an ideal opportunity to me - Talk of spying on the part of the Iraqi regime only holds up if they know themselves that they have something to hide. If they hadn't what the hell did it matter.

"No doubt Saddam is going to wriggle and twist, but there's good reason to think they'll be at least as effective this time, and probably more so. If they are allowed in by Washington in the first place."

The last time they were in Kevin they did not accomplish the job they were put in there to do - because Saddam wriggled and twisted to such an extent that he finally decided that "I don't have to play this game of silly buggers any more, get the hell out of it." - a fact that you completely ignore. Another fact that you completely ignore, even at the point of being asked point blank - the inspectors have been invited back in purely because of the action of the American Government - HARD FACT - now all you have to do is admit that - without the pressure that America has exerted over the past few months we would be in the same position as we were a year ago with respect to Iraq. Failure to admit that fact implies that there is no problem with Iraq and that your firm belief is that left alone and free of sanctions Iraq poses no threat to the region - all you have to do Kevin is go on record as saying so - you won't do that. Like Private Fraser in "Dad's Army", you know how to run things better than anyone else,but run a mile if ever offered the chance to actually be responsible for anything, for fear you might get it wrong.

Churchill was in no position to direct conduct of operations in Mesopotamia - Harris's biography covers the period very well. On the subject of policing using airpower it ran along the following lines according to Harris (who was there). Tribe causing trouble, leaflets were dropped on their village giving advance notice (Down to the time of attack) that their village would be bombed. People move out of the village and watch, people then return to village and rebuild village - while they were engaged in that they were to busy to cause trouble anywhere else.

"And Britain was a consistently expansionist imperial power when the opportunity was there. But by the summer of 1940 it was very much the weaker party in the fight with Germany."

Dominions, Kevin, Dominions - know of any other Empire that adopted that concept?? A "consistently expansionist imperial pwer" ? not really by the reign of George Vth the empire was actually starting to contract. I quoted the final part of a speech by Winston Churchill made in June 1940 - read the whole speech Kevin and then come back and tell me if Churchill thought that Britain was weaker than Germany in 1940. To give you a hint as to the meter and content - Churchill outlined his enemies weaknesses and British strengths in a manner that was downright prophetic.

That Saddam Hussein's expansionist ambitions have been unsuccessful are due largely to people keeping an eye on him. He, and he alone, instigated the war with Iran, because they decided to talk to him - he took that as a sign of weakness (that is documented by Saddams chief negotiator). Washington only stepped in when it looked like Iraq was going to lose. Saddam went after Kuwait in the hope that their oil revenue would boost Iraq's own to help pay for the war with Iran and further his ambitions in the area. His ambitions have not altered one jot. At the time lots of people were saying that Bush senoir doesn't give a damn about Kuwait, he's after their oil, if sovereignty was an issue they (the UN) would be up in arms about East Timor. As has been pointed out above, the coalition went in to liberate Kuwait - did they take over Kuwait's oil fields - NO THEY DID NOT. Within a few years the East Timor situation was resolved (they have just taken their place at the UN). One thing I did say in one of my earlier posts was that once the Iraqi question was settled, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be tackled - this I still believe.

This entire exercise has been explained away by some as a means by which the corporate "fat cats" will make a "killing" - where??? seen the stock market lately - there's no bastard making a killing anywhere at the moment - and if history repeats itself, any action against Iraq will be followed by a slump.

Little Hawk:


I would tend to agree with your perception of Churchill - I differ greatly on your opinion of Patton - the man was an idiot who if placed in command could easily have lost the allies the war - Roosevelt and Marshall both recognised it and placed him accordingly. Of the Generals who commanded armoured formations during the second world war Zhukov and Guderian were the most effective strategically and tactically, Bradley and Montgomery were next in their appreciation of what was required within the big picture, Rommel and Patton could only view the situation immediately in front of them, they were superb tacticians. The best of the lot, on the British side, oddly enough did not get the chance to show his full potential. That was O'Conner, he got captured in the first German counter offensive in the Western Desert - with 30,000 troops he had just successfully routed 250,000 Italians, unfortunately his style was to be up with the leading formations and he got cut off. Exactly the same trait did for both Rommel (seriously wounded in a strafing attack in the forward area in Normandy) and Patton (killed by a mine in the forward area).

I also notice that you are fairly selective with your list of empires,
you do not mention Aztec, Inca, Mayan, Zulu, Spanish, American or any North American Indian nation for that matter - they all had their empires too - the main difference between those you mention and those I have included and the British Empire was that the British, Dutch and to a certain extent the French Empires were based on trade, not conquest. Some indications of this:


1. Taking Victorian times as the height of the British Empire, Britains Army today is larger than Victoria's Army every was by some 20,000 men.

2. I mentioned America above. Take two sets of Islands in the South Pacific, Hawiahi and Tonga. The first an American colony, the second a British colony. In Tonga the indigenous culture still flourishes, in the other the native culture was almost completely eradicated and is only slowly being brought back.