BS: The NEW Red Coats

Subject: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:02 AM

I have been thinking about the War on Terror and some manifest similarities between The US and England ca 1776. The gun, or more specifically the long gun and the rifle had been around for a long time before the American revolution but the art of warfare in Europe was saddly lagging behind the arms technologies. Europeans were still dressing up in their bright and distinguished uniforms, lining up in neat rows, affixing blades to their muskets and marching at each other as though hand to hand combat were the REAL goal after the perfunctory discharge of weapons. You know, up close and personal, in-your-face bloody warfare!! What fun! And when they came to the shores of American to quell those upstarts, THEY, the British, were the Super Power of the world. Their military power and economic might was everywhere. But something happened here that they were not expecting. The Americans didn't fight fair! It wasn't for a lack of trying. We just didn't have the materials, the men or even a strong central authority. Washington had been trained in the European mode but he was constantly having to improvise just to stay alive. He had to choose his battles carefully. He had to attack from concealment like, like those bloody savages on the frontier did. He had to fight and run away to fight again another day. Dash it all!! Those bloody Americans even targeted OFFICIERS! How barbaric!

Well today, its not King George's men in the Red Coats, its President George's men in the Red Coats. Here's what I mean. Today the US is the Super Power. We have troops all around the globe maintaining Pax Americana. We have economic might and political strength and prowess. Forget for a moment your views on whether you believe America's cause is just or not and continue in my comparison, if you will. Like the Europeans of 1776, we know how wars ought to be fought and like the men of King George we have learned the lessons of the new warfare. Our enemies have been force to adopt new tactics and strategies to deal with the technologies and political terrain. And like the British of old, WE find their tatics, etc. repugnent! Dashit all! THEY aren't fighting fair!

Here's what we don't get and here's why we are getting our butts kick even though we field the finest, most powerful army in the world. The enemy cannot hope to compete in OUR game so they changed the rules. Civilians, the weakest of society is now the new military target. Uncivilized! But it is what it is. No uniforms. Why paint a bull's eye on your body? No large groups that can be wiped out in one fell swoop. Not civilized but effective.

I didn't mention the political aspect. Divide and conquer, hearts and minds has been around for a long time but half of America doesn't get this. Half of us assume that the values we hold are sacrosanct, so basic that a quesiton doesn't even arise. To some, this seems arrogance or just plain stupidity. These Biblical truths have been suplanted by Hegelian, Darwinian and Marxist philosophies. Relativism has supplanted the deontological mandates of Christendom. And most Christians don't even know this (Shhhhh, don't wake them up and they'll never even know they're dead when it hits them!). Long live the dialectic! Well, the other half of this nation will go for just about anything, especially if it tweaks those know-it-all rightwingers. To be fair, there is a small but important minority group of people who really aren't paying much attention to either side and really hold no strong convictions one way or the other. This is the swing vote. Our enemies, not being stupid (for if they WERE stupid they would not have survived this long), play upon every divisive issue. They are glad to have the support of the Democratic Party, the RINOs and MugWumps. A thoroughly Liberal (read leftist) media also goes a long way to furthering their end. In OUR revolution, we stirred up opinion against the Crown in England, pled our cause to which many Brits agreed but our real coup was with France which was always looking for a way to tweak England's nose, as it were. Ben Franklin was our man! Hey, and today France is still a wild card! But she's not in the hand we're holding. Just some observations. If Bush had any military insight into this he might have done things differently ( I like to think!) but in all fairness 9/11 forced much onto him and a nation that was pretty clueless. It even caught the left of gaurd there for a few days and they were making sounds like solidarity and "My Nation" but thank Darwin, they soon saw the folly of that and began to line up against Bush. And I'll have to give you this, Bush isn't the brightest bulb that has ever been in the Lighthouse. But he has done a fair job with what he has and he has sought to defend this nation against its enemies.

As the English abhorred us for shooting from behind rocks and deliberately aiming at their officiers, it is abhorrent to me to target women and children, the innocent as to the terrorist but I'm beginning to believe that that is the only way we can "win" this war and to not win would be to invite the continuance of Islamic Terrorism until their goal, which is world wide dominance of Islam, is achieved. Just noodling through this mess. Please, like Jonathan Swift, I am NOT advocating the eating of children.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Bugsy
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:10 AM

And there's me thinking this was a thread about Butlins.


CHeers


Bugsy

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Shields Folk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:11 AM

Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Shields Folk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:15 AM

ps I do get your post, but I think this poem fits, especially for the British troops in Iran and Afganistan

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:42 AM

Its amazing how many Americans love(d) England's dear poet laureate and so many American do not realize he had no use for Americans!

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:30 AM

Excuse me! Kiplin realised that Britain was in decline and he thought that the future lay with America. (Mind you, that was the time when the Anglo-Saxon elite still ran America.) That is why he called the American invasion of the Phillipines, "The white man's burden." He approved of the act and thought this is the direction that America's future lay, to take over the role of Britain. Prophetic, really.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:08 AM

I give it five years, at the most, before India and China are very, very serious rivals for the US's current status. Both are producing far more engineers (in all areas) than the US -- the sole question is whether they work together or fight.

I'm betting on cooperation.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:49 AM

Th reason conventional military tactics aren't working in Iraq is because what's happening there is not a "war" in the conventional sense of the word. People call it "war" because the US and its allies have deployed their armed services and they are doing pretty much what they would do in a conventional war fought between opposing states.

That's the mistake. The only definable "enemy" in Iraq was Saddam's regime and it was soundly defeated. Everything that has occurred since the fall of Saddam has been violent civil unrest, not war. The methods used in a war are seldom the best methods to deal with civil unrest.

The "enemy" in cases of civil unrest is, simply put, anger. Anger is an emotion and, as such, is impervious to the tools used to pursue warfare. It's a Hydra-headed monster and strategies which only seek to cut off one of its heads guarantee that two will grow back in its place.

I don't claim to know how to solve the problem, but I know the solution rests within the realm of the sociologist, the educator, the psychologist, and the philosopher, not the soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:21 PM

I turned to my dearest the day Dubbya landed on the aircraft carrier and said "Well, we won the war we couldn't lose. Now we are going to lose the war we cannot win." That's a fact. I really held out hope when the Iraqis voted for their own leadership, but leadership has not materialized, only division, violence, strife, fractionalization and foreign intrigue from every quarter. In the US we can take a draftee and in 6 to 8 weeks we can turn out a caombat ready troop. We have been "training" the Iraqis for a period longer than our entire involvment in WWII. We won the war we could not lose. Only the Iraqis can win this other war. My opinion has changed. Its time for the people of Iraq to stand up instead of being propped up by the American military. As we depart we need to let them know that whatever happens now it is their responsibility.

As to my comparison of America to the Red Coats of old, let me draw a few lines of contrast. Many of the colonials fled England and other countries to avoid religious persecution. The Islamic radicals ARE the persecutors. The American Revolutionaries had sought to live in peace with John Bull and cogently laid out their grievences of "intolerable conditions" in the Declaration of Independence. Radical Islam is not about the rights of individuals but about conformity and world dominance. The protection of the weak and defenceless has always been the first consideration of Americans of either party and everything inbetween. The terrorist feel no such compunction. In fact they think of their enemies as less than human and thus they banish any guilt that might arise. I feel that we can deal with global terrorism but not in the ways we have used to date. There are better ways.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:43 AM

Very good posts from Bee-dubya-ell - 08 Dec 06 - 11:49 AM and Slag - 08 Dec 06 - 05:21 PM.

However I do not agree with Slag's statement that a draftee (anywhere) can be transformed in 6 to 8 weeks to a combat ready soldier. The business of being a professional soldier has moved on considerably. National Service in the UK (Period of service was 2 years) ended in 1957, purely because it was a waste of time and resources. In the UK Forces it is considered to take four years service and training before a recruit actually contributes and enhances the fighting effectiveness of his unit.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:37 PM

Th reason conventional military tactics aren't working in Iraq is because what's happening there is not a "war"

but the consequences of an illegal and ill considered invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:10 PM

Four years, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 03:25 AM

Well, maybe I am a little dated. A motivated troop in certain branches of the US military CAN be ready in that time (6 to 8 weeks) upon completion of basic training. In time of war ( I did specify "draftee" didn't I?) this has been a historical norm. Yes, a professional never does cease to learn and improve in most any field of endeavor. After basic training, depending upon the needs of the military, many troops go on to learn a specialty that can require anywhere from a few more weeks of training to several years. Commissioned officiers either go to one of our military 4 year schools or OCS (Officers Candidate School) where they turn out the proverbial 90 wonders (TIC). I believe, if you all ready have a college degree, you can obtain your commission and then receive specific training.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:50 AM

It's the mental training that takes the time. Most come with "let's bomb the bastards" pre-installed but to achieve the conditioning Teribus has takes years of brain washing.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:11 AM

Basic training for a Royal Marines Commando is 32 weeks. Prior to selection for training every potential Marine has to prove that he is fit enough for the training he is about to undergo. The standard of fitness required prior to the start of training the instructors used to enjoy telling potential recruits was the equivalent of what the USMC expected their recruits to have achieved at the end of their training.

When HRH Prince Edward stated that he wanted to join the Royal Marines as an Officer he failed his basic training, due to lack of upper body strength. The Commanding Officer of the Royal Marines Training Centre Lympstone was put under considerable pressure from outside the Royal Navy to allow Prince Edward to pass out and receive his commission on the understanding that he would then resign. Lympstone and the Royal Marines are unique among UK armed forces training establishments in that Officers and men are trained alongside one another. The CO stuck firm, Prince Edward had not met the standard required by the Royal Marines of a recruit in training and he would not pass out, as it would set a bad example and create a very undesirable precedent. Standards are not compromised.

In the past when up against enemies that have earned the respect of the British Forces fighting them, the Brits are not above stealing ideas from their erstwhile enemies. In the case of the Royal Marines when raiding forces were created for hit and run operations during the second world war two things were "borrowed" from the Boers - their term for a fighting unit - Commando. And one of their folk songs "Sarie Marais" as their March, "A Life on the Ocean Wave" being the March of the Royal Marines, "Sarie Marais" is the March of the Royal Marines Commando.

On completion of basic training you are drafted/appointed to one of the Commando Units (40, 42 or 45) or 1st Assault Group Royal Marines or Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines. At this point within whichever unit you have been sent to you are not regarded as being fully trained or combat ready, you have after all only completed basic training and have absolutely no experience of soldiering or of life within an operational unit.

The new arrivals are taken under the wings of experienced Marines and shown the ropes, their training continues. By the time that those new recruits will be able to do the same for other new arrivals they will have been "in" for about four years, by this time they will have a specialist qualification and possibly two or more sub-specialist qualifications, they will have acquired a great deal of experience in "Unit life" and of soldiering in general. At that point they are an asset and can actively enhance and contribute to the fighting effectiveness of the unit in which they are serving.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:17 AM

Fair enough Teribus...thanks for your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:27 AM

If you walk through Chicago using a map of New Orleans, you are likely to get lost. If you declare a wear against no enemy, merely a condition, and make military causes out of civil crimes, and seek a victory when there is no-one to surrender to you, or fear a defeat when there is no-one for you to surrender to, then you are embarked on a course of madness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM

Yes Amos, that's what our enemies would like to do: drive us mad with reasoning (sic) like yours. When an identifiable group of theocrats commandeers an "airforce" and attacks the World Trade Towers in New York, The Pentagon and the US Capitol in Washington DC, THAT IS AN ACT OF WAR. Its not merely a crime. Re-read the opening piece. It may be the tactics of necessity but it is a war nonetheless. Osama BinLaden "DECLARED WAR" and this nation under Clinton bought into your way of thinking and chose to ignore him, even though he had the ways and means to prosecute his war. That's how we got 9/11 in the first place. Instead of puking up that liberal swill for rumination take a look at the facts and see if you can't come to a more logical conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM

War on terror, my arse. Slag you are in more trouble now than you ever have been. Your war for oil has cost you dearly. I wonder whether Bin Ladin was smart enought to realise how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:41 PM

"....how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with."

Well put, Guest!

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 06:28 PM

Illiteracy and illogicality seem to go hand in hand along with the inability to spell correctly. However, ignoring THAT, I must say that GUEST certainly does have an opinion. Oh, and if you see any of MY oil that Mr. Bush has tapped into please send it along. I could use it.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:28 PM

Rubbish Slag. The "logic" you believe in is one that turned the US from having great worldwide support after 9//11 to being despised just about everywhere. Bush blew a great oppertunity for oil.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:34 PM

Well you certainly backed that opinion up with, ummm, with??? What? Rubbish! There! Yup, that seems irrefutable!

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:07 PM

Slag, you have more enemies now that you ever had.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:46 PM

That was a pretty complex initial post, Slag...some interesting points you raise. I've only time for a couple of thoughts on it right now.

I think the British lost in the American revolution for many reasons...

1. Their king was deeply incompetent
2. Their committments in Europe and elsewhere in the Empire were spreading them a bit too thin
3. The assistance of the French navy at Yorktown was vital to achieving the final American victory
4. Their officers were overconfident in many cases
5. They did not properly address the political grievances of the colonials and the tax issues...which they could have
6. Washington was a very gifted commander
7. The colonials were using, in many case, more accurate firearms (long rifles as opposed to short range, smooth-bore muskets), and they were making better use of cover in the wilderness fighting...as you indicated...but more of the decisive battles were fought in fact with large formations of men, fighting very much in the European style.
8. The colonials outlasted the British, and the British lost heart for the whole thing. Kind of like the French or the Americans in Vietnam. Matter of fact, Dienbienphu was very much like the Battle of Yorktown in that sense...the final straw that broke the colonial power's will to continue the fight.

Other than that, I'd just like to comment on your statement:

"I turned to my dearest the day Dubbya landed on the aircraft carrier and said "Well, we won the war we couldn't lose. Now we are going to lose the war we cannot win."

Right on the mark, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM

Oh, and I agree 100% that Americans are the NEW Red Coats. Or they're the NEW Romans. Either way works.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:54 PM

They are the next fallen empire.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:06 PM

Yeah, that too.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM

GUEST, of, 10 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM

"War on terror, my arse. Slag you are in more trouble now than you ever have been. Your war for oil has cost you dearly. I wonder whether Bin Ladin was smart enought to realise how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with."

And:

Paul from Hull - 10 Dec 06 - 04:41 PM

"....how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with."

Well put, Guest!"

Sorry chaps!! But when are either of you going to get a grip on reality. Now, by the language both of you are using and by the fact that at least one of you has got the guts to identify themselves - you are Brits.

OK specific question for anonimous Guest - And by Christ am I getting tired of knocking this old left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair chesnut down - "Your war for oil has cost you dearly" - OK, anonimous Guest, according to your terms of reference Iraq has been completely in American hands for the best part of four years. How much oil has bad, evil, wicked America grabbed - your statement, presented as fact. If you really believe it to be true quantify it, tell us how much oil the US has "grabbed" compared to it's monthly imports. Rather than just spout your left-wing defeatist rhetorical crap, which is certainly not based on fact. Just damn well think for a change - take a look at America's foreign oil import figures - you will (assuming that you are a rational human being with a modicum of common sense) see immediately that the US does not rely on oil or gas from the Middle East, and certainly not from Iraq. Now tell me again in some manner that may convince me " What fuckin' war for oil - facts show that they haven't taken any, or at least the merest amount that might be construed as a charity buy!! - Approximately 400,000 barrels out of a monthly total of over 12 million"

I've got some news for both you - Slag is perfectly correct - you mightn't like it but what he says is perfectly true.

ACT OF WAR - response - would have been pretty much the same irrespective of whoever was in the White House in 2000, Gore or Bush - We actually had a thread on this forum on this very subject - general concensus of opinion was that the response would have been very much the same.

OK, GUEST, of, 10 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM and Paul from Hull, consider the following, these are conditions that prevailed in the immediate wake of the attack on the 11th September 2001.

- The incumbent President and his Administration have been in power just over 9 months.
- The personnel who man the country's intelligence services (internal and external) are exactly the same people who served the previous President and his administration.
- They're advice and recommendations are the same irrespective of incumbent to the White House.
- When asked to evaluate potential threats against the United States of America. They're advice, plus that of the House of Representatives and Senate would have been the same - greatest external threat to the United States of America is an a-symetric attack by an international terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Chemical or Biological), such weapons being supplied by either Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Iraq was placed top of the list because Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who actually came out and applauded the efforts of the 911 hijackers - fact

OK pals, what do you think the person responsible for protecting and ensuring the safety of the United States of America, it's interests and it's allies, is going to do. THIS WAS NOT, AND NEVER WAS, A PERSONAL DECISION. What actually went down was a decision made on best available advice at the time, and that advice was taken and courses of action taken for the best of possible motives.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:40 PM

Teribus, like I said you have been brainwashed. You believe the bullshit you spout out.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:17 PM

See Terbius? You CAN'T argue with logic like that!! That's why I pretty much choose to not respond to airheads like these two. They wouldn't know a fact or a fallacy if they met one. In order to have an intelligent discussion BOTH parties MUST be intelligent. Obviously only half the panel showed up.

Gray Eagle, opps, er, I mean, Little Hawk, Your points are well taken and many of them fit the current situation. You could even argue that King George and George Dubya have some points in common too. But like King George III, his own personal stamp has only a little to do with it. The leadership of a nation is not a one-man show. Your eyes are only as good as the intelligence appartus you employ. Your advisers military, political and international do much to shape policy. Then there is Congressional advise and consent and a host of other forces at play. We all try to do the best we can with what we have (if we are good people, that is) and we are constantly evaluating and making adjustments. Meanwhile the Peanut Gallery is , well, throwing peanuts and everybody is a critic, including me. We live in tricky and perilous times and NO ONE has a crystal ball. We do, however, have history and yes, nations rise and fall. Its been stated that people eventually get the government they deserve. God help us.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:25 PM

LOL Slag. It's not me who believes the US propoganda.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:38 AM

Slagger:

Who do you believe this war is against? Do you think the war against the Taliban is the same war as the war against Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime?

And for that matter, what organization, nation or state do you believe perpetrated the catastrophic and aggressive attack of 9-11? Saudi Arabia? The Taliban? Al Qeda? Saddam Hussein?

As for "oil wars". anyone know what happened to Elf Aquitaine's pre-invasion contracts with the Hussein government for oil delivery? Possibly canceled?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:53 AM

In answer to one of your questions Amos:

"As for "oil wars". anyone know what happened to Elf Aquitaine's pre-invasion contracts with the Hussein government for oil delivery? Possibly canceled?"

All contracts previously negotiated with the Hussein/Ba'athist Government were honoured and remain in place. The horse trading that was done to effect this was that Russia and the others who sold Saddam Hussein & Co weapons in exchange for oil had to swallow the outstanding debt so that the newly elected government of Iraq was not overburdened with repayments.

The following details the companies and nationalities of those involved in operating oilfields in Iraq:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian); Majnoon (Total - French); Nahr Umar (Total - French); Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian); Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish); Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian); Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands); Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI); Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian); Gharaf (TPAO - Turkey, Japex - Japan); Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese); Amara (PetroVietnam); Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian); Tawke 1 (DNO ASA - Norwegian).

To anyone reading that list, and to Amos in particular, you will note that Elf Aquitaine's name does not appear. This is due to the fact that TotalFina acquired Elf Aquitaine in a take-over in 2000, the name of the new company becoming TotalFinaElf, this name however was dropped in 2003 and the Company reverted to being known simply as Total.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:57 AM

Slag--

People who voted for Bush may have deserved his regime--and the Iraq war disaster that came with it. The rest of us sure did not.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Little Hawk, in his post of 10 Dec 06 - 08:46 PM, gave an eight point list of why the British Lost the American Revoultionary War. I could have given it to him in one sentence - Complete and utter lack of interest, the American colonies just did not matter to them, particular once the "War" went international, Britain had far more important concerns elsewhere.

With regard to the points put forward by Little Hawk:

LH - 1. Their king was deeply incompetent:
Most monarchs are, that is why Britain since 1688 has maintained a "constitutional monarchy" in which the Monarch has no power. With regard to the American War of Independence, Little Hawks point is irrelevant, the King had absolutely no say whatsoever in the prosecution of the war so his incompetence was immaterial.

LH - 2. Their committments in Europe and elsewhere in the Empire were spreading them a bit too thin:
What commitments in Europe Little Hawk? Having recently concluded one war in Europe against France, Britain was not eager to provoke another, her Navy at this time consisted of ships that were old and generally in poor condition. The protagonists were all "British" up until the Spring of 1778 when France signed a Treaty with the United States. They couldn't give a damn about American Rebels, their main aim was to recover possessions previously lost to Britain elsewhere (Carribean and in India). Spain entered the war as an ally of France in June 1779, unlike France, however, Spain refused to recognize the independence of the United States. Spain entered the war to regain Gibraltar and Minorca, she failed to regain either. Finally, the Netherlands also became a combatant in 1780, a move she was to regret bitterly four years later on conclusion of hostilities.

LH - 3. The assistance of the French navy at Yorktown was vital to achieving the final American victory:
Correct, the French Fleet managed to keep the smaller British Fleet off the coast and the landing of French troops and supplies went on unopposed. Had Hood commanded the British Fleet instead of Graves the result would have been far different.

LH - 4. Their officers were overconfident in many cases:
Where did you get this from? - Hollywood? or Mel Gibson?

LH - 5. They did not properly address the political grievances of the colonials and the tax issues...which they could have:
Myth, far from being overburdened by Tax, the colonists were being subsidised. Niall Ferguson* covers the subject very well in his book, "The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power". All but one of the so-called taxes objected to by the Colonists had been removed by 1773. A person living in the American Colonies was taxed one twenty-seventh of his counterpart in Britain. As later in 1812, what the Colonists really wanted was land, Britain on conclusion of the Seven Years War had signed a Peace Treaty with the French and had given their undertaking to the Indian Nations that colonial expansion westward into the Wabash and Ohio Basins would be forbidden. While "shackled" to Britain those obligations remained inforce (The Brits generally honoured their promises to indigenous peoples - The Americans acquired a habit of reneging on them). Unfortunately having accepted France as an ally, on conclusion of the American War of Independence expansion west could not take place as that would put the newly fledged United States of America in conflict with here new found ally.

*Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

LH - 6. Washington was a very gifted commander:
If that refers to him being a gifted strategist, I would agree. If it in anyway implies that he was a gifted battlefield commander then I would disagree.

Washington's contribution to victory in the American Revolution was not that of a great battlefield tactician. In fact, he lost more battles than he won. His operational planning was often far too complicated for his amateur soldiers to execute.

As a strategist however, he was remarkably successful, and in many respects the Duke of Wellington adopted many of the same principles:
- keep control of the mass of the population at all times, keep them on "your" side, do not alienate them at any cost, do not unnecessarily burden them;
- keep the army intact at all costs, avoid decisive battles except to exploit enemy mistakes (Saratoga and Yorktown).

Washington was a military conservative, he preferred building a regular army on the European model and fighting a conventional war. The indiscipline of most of his militia troops more often that not completely exasperated him, often putting his plans and his precious army at risk unnecessarliy.

One of his most significant contributions was the innoculation of his troops against smallpox - There was an epidemic raging through the colonies at the time of the revolution, 130,000 people died because of it. Fewer American troops died of the disease than their opponents. Odd statistic however was that overall far more Americans died than the British, due mainly to the quirk that British Troops were more successful in combat, they won more engagements, their casualties were lighter, but they still managed to lose the decisive actions and the war.

LH - 7. The colonials were using, in many case, more accurate firearms (long rifles as opposed to short range, smooth-bore muskets), and they were making better use of cover in the wilderness fighting...as you indicated...but more of the decisive battles were fought in fact with large formations of men, fighting very much in the European style:
The first part regarding arms, is irrelevant, they only came into effect in skirmishes, skirmishes do not win wars. As pointed out by LH himself the decisive battles were conventional in which tactics of the day favoured the smooth bore musket as it was capable of delivering a greater weight of fire on the enemy - The British Army of the Napoleonic era found a combination of both rifle and musket to be the most effective - had the British Army of Napoleonic times been armed solely with rifles the French Columns would have won over the British Line. During Napoleonic times Britain only had two Rifle Regiments, 95th Rifles and 60th Royal American Rifles, neither fought as Regiments in the Line of Battle, they were normally split up to provide the other Line Regiments of Foot with skirmishers.

8. The colonials outlasted the British, and the British lost heart for the whole thing. Kind of like the French or the Americans in Vietnam. Matter of fact, Dienbienphu was very much like the Battle of Yorktown in that sense...the final straw that broke the colonial power's will to continue the fight:
Hardly outlasted the British Little Hawk. While the Treaty of Paris was Signed in 1783, hostilities arising from the American War of Independence continued until 1784, by which time the French influence in India and in the West Indies had been weakened to the point of insignificance, The Spanish had failed in their war aims and the Dutch faced economic ruin from which they did not recover, many of their possessions in the Far East were lost. Of all the theatres of operations encompassed by this War - Britain's American Colonies were the least significant to the British Exchequor - You tend to put your best effort into securing that which is most important to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 02:38 PM

Teribus, et al, re point 1. How true. Consider Emperor Hirohito's roll in WWII, and yet he was considered a god. What is the function of a king then and now? read Fraizer's THE GOLDEN BOUGH. Its seems a little tedious at first but it will change the way you view royalty, mythology and Man's quest for meaning.

On point 2, The European powers were interested in, well of all things, Europe! That England was not engaged in armed conflict anywhere else at the time didn't mean that he military was not deployed elsewhere and engaged in the business of the crown. They were. And England knew that an armed conflict might entice her enemies to seek an advatage against her. England wanted to portray the situation in the Americas as a little dust-up.

England and France both understood that colonial America was a pawn or maybe a better metaphor would be a wild card in their (Europe's) international game of imperialism. Just about everybody got this except for John Q. Adams who was struggling to understand everything. Adams was certainly frustrated with Franklin. Franklin was content to portray the affable, laughable fronteirsman and rouge scholar but when the time was right America became France's trump card and Franklin was our Ace in the Hole, so to speak.

Point 4, LH was right I do believe their was a certain amount smugness and arrogance on the part of Brittan's aristocratic officers but this did not lead to any real decisive advatage for the colonists. All in all, weather, terrean, and bulldog determination all played a much more important role in America's independence.

Point 5. True Teribus. I wish we only had to deal with the tax burden of colonial New England today! England did roll back almost all the taxes we disputed. It really wasn't about taxes. By the time of the Tea Party, agitation was reaching a critical mass and taxation was just a figurehead issue.

point 6. Washington was considered by many as a man of destiny. He may have also held opinion of himself but he also understood that he HAD TO DO THE WORK! He was the only one to wear a uniform to congress. He knew his role. And he knew how to cajole and wheedle the necessities from congress. He understood image and how to portray the Great Struggle. He was the finest man for the job we could have ever hoped to have had.

And in regards to the Red Coats and European style warfare: Uniformity of tactics, of dress, deployemnt, etc. all had to do with communication and intel. No radio in that day, no eye in the sky. The commander had to know how his troops would perform when out of his direct line of sight. He had to be able to see at a distance and discern his troops from the enemy's. He had to be able to spot his lieutenants (an interesting word !) and various sub-officers. I wouldn't down-play the importance of American guerilla tactics in the Revolution. This type of harassment took its toll numerically and psychologically. Yes, Washington looked for an advantageous opprotunity to meet in classical confrontation and best his adversaries. He chose his battles wisely. He new the strength of his troops at most any given time and what his resources were and this, as much as what the enemy was doing dictated or rather severly limited his choices.

There was sympathy for America in England as there was royal linage and common family ties here. I don't think there was ever a clear picture of America as separate from the English other than by physical distance and of course politics.

On your last point Teribus, Our Revolutionary War, in reality WAS a world war. That's why I wanted to use the word "pawn" earlier. We sort of re-adjusted the game. Global imbalances came about which you have summarizered very succinctly, thank you. Brittan did the math and weighed her post-war mass and calculated her position. It would be easier and cheaper to do business with an independant colonial state than to continue this war. Many felt that the US would eventually come back into the fold. They knew the French were only for France and when it was no longer convenient for them, they'd turn on the new upstarts. We were on square one and a multitude of directions lay before us and most if not all of them were fraught with danger. Well, the rest is history and no point of going on about that.

Every age sees itself abreast of the latest, up-to-datest in weapons, tactics, strategies, etc. It's a deception as we look back in time through history that we say "how quaint. "If only they knew what we know today!" What we have and know today is a direct reslut of their then current conditions and like today, nothing was CERTAIN.

Human perception is this: Stimulus, response, memory and anticipation. Period! Our being is the sum total of our memory and history is our cultural memory. A pox on all those who seek to distort, misrepresent or rewrite history. A damnable lot they are as they seek to interfer with our ability to anticipate and direct our future.

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM

Lots of good points there, Slag and Teribus. I could probably pick and carp over some minor details, but why should I? I'm essentially in agreement with about 98% of what you said. Hell, maybe even 99% of it.

Cool, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Slag
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:08 PM

Do I hear 99 and 3/4?

Subject: RE: BS: The NEW Red Coats
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM

I particularly like the final points you both made about the larger global war that was occurring between Great Britain and its various European opponents at the time.