From: "Paul Murphy" <Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:13:46 +0100


it is a more compicated situation than you imply.  The Allies are desperate
to avoid civilian casualties, Saddam knows this and has instructed his army
to use guerilla tactics and disperse, harrying the flanks and attempting an
envelopment. A classic military tactic, and the same used by Hannibal at
Cannae, where he refused his centre and enveloped the Roman flanks with his
cavalry.  What the Allies have to make sure is that their supply lines are
secure and that the troops guarding them are supported, but I don't think
this is happening hence the recent spate of casualties and captives.  The
whole thing reeks of over-confidence, and a total faith in a higher
technological capability.  A more sensible approach would have been to
infiltrate terrain with special forces, who might have softened up the
enemy, done lots more reconnaisance, finding out much more about the
composition of Saddam's army.  In essence, if the Allies aren't very
careful, they could find their 2 divisions cut from their supply lines and
having to be airlifted out.  In this case, a much larger and longer
committment would be required, and I think that is what is evolving.  The
moral of the story: it's never over 'til the fat lady sings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe


> Niether Paul.
>
> It is a simple way of avoiding capture and  being shot at.
> Why wear something that makes you into a sitting duck? Do
> not most animals use some form of camouflage or cryptic
> mimicry?
>
> Does not the US army wear desert camouflage?
>
> Why would the US kill people they think are faking
> civilians?
>
> jf
>
>
> Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe
>
>
> I think there is a confusion, since Iraqi troops have donned
> civilian gear.
> Is this:
> a) a cynical ploy to cover up the deaths of civilians, who
> would otherwise
> be designated as victims of genocide under the terms of the
> Geneva
> convention
> b)  a cynical ploy by the Iraqi troops
> c) a bit of both (I think this is the correct answer)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobAuler-AT-aol.com>
> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 03/24/03 2:16:10 PM,
> crifasi-AT-hotmail.com writes:
> >
> > << Did it ever occur to you that it was also against the
> Geneva
> > >Convention on War to Kill Civilians? >>
> >
> > to which part of which convention do you refer?  it is not
> against the
> > convention(s) to carry on war which results in
> unintentional deaths of
> > civilians.  genocide is against the war.
> >
> > now if you're going to accuse the u.s. of that, please
> document your
> charges
> > with more care than your casual scholarship has up to this
> point
> delivered.
> >
> > if you have evidence that is credible, i'd truly like to
> see it.  all i've
> > seen so far is troops tossing food to the civilians.
> >
> > bob
> >
> >
> >      --- from list
> heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---