We could be in Syria well before 2007

[aka_tom_w]

Hello Abbott

Long time

As I recall you and I did (simulated) battle one time, A LONG time ago in CMBO. The first time I think I was the American's and you may have under estimated me and I pulled off a very decisive ambush or sneak attack on your flank.. (or something) and I think I won that one and you were surprised and grumbled our something .

Then another time we met in a tourement (or somthing) and I was on defence and you TOTALLY creamed me. ( I think I was defending with an American units) and your blitzkrieg attack completedly overwhelmed my defensive position.

or Something like that?

I quess we will have to give it another go when CM:SF comes out, its just hard for me to imagine a balanced scenario in that game and I am NOT one of those guys on this board who keeps saying "Oh hell, give me the Syrian's and I will show you all the glory of vicotory over those Yanky imperialist invaders".

It might be a while before I can play the game on my Mac though so you might have to wait for the Mac release for me.

-tom w

[Abbott]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Hello Abbott

Long time

As I recall (snip)

-tom w

Hi Tom ,

Yes it has been a long time since we spoke. I think you have me mixed up with somebody else. I only remember playing you once (CMBO) and it wasn’t a tournament. I played the Americans and you held a hard to get to village with some veteran infantry. I was able to pull a 105mm howitzer up near a road and shell your troops building by building. I was lucky and barely stopped your counter-attack by 3 or 4 squads on the guns position. We had no armor to speak of and I remember it was a very tough infantry battle and not much of a (points) victory. That was back when CMBO was first released, wow those were some fun days. A lot of the old gang is gone but the community seems as lively as ever with all the new folks. You seem to have been doing well over the years. Maybe we can PBEM again sometime?

Regards,

Nick

Edit: ugh, does CMBB or AK run on MAC?

[ November 01, 2005, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[aka_tom_w]

Oh yes

I have just set up and old Mac G4 for CMAK and I am enjoying that.

CMAK in the ETO is still FUN!

And yes I must have you and those battles confused with someone else.

I think I remember the 105 MM howitzer battle because that damn gun hurt me good.

The thing about PBEM is that the MAC needs to run in OS 9 (somewhat akin to Windows 95) and I would have to reboot into OS X (Operating System 10) to pick up e-mail, then reboot the computer into OS 9 to play for every e-mail on every turn. If the timing worked out TCP/IP would be better, but I can't host because I have a dynamic IP on the back side of an Apple Airport router

So mostly I still play against the AI which just like getting a quick and simple Combat Mission fix. (sort of like Chinese food, leaves you hungry later, but tastes good initially).

-tom w

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Abbott:

My next-door neighbor who Steve probably considers to be an idiot is a retired Native American Firefighter, a Vietnam veteran, an excellent Bass fisherman and a all around nice guy. In conversation the other day he mentioned his thoughts to me on the problems in the Middle East. He said (and I quote) “We should turn the Jews loose”.

What a guy, insightful stuff.

I know a few dozen people, mostly veterans with similar thoughts on the subject who think that people with the attitudes of some on this Forum are the idiots.

The military enlightens all I guess.

Personally as a proud American I don’t have a problem with the US exerting its influence over a country that contains the second largest oil supply in the world.

Fair enough, probably what a lot of law abiding Germans said on 22/6/41.

Your candid statements are refreshing, in a sinister sort of way.

If I may make an assumption, your obviously a man with an opinion formed,(I hesitate to say informed) by a fairly diverse and colourful life. I'd be a fool to dismiss your or your neighbour's opinion as one of an idiot or crackpot, maybe this is simply an echo of today's middle America.

However I am mildly suprised that only two people felt your comments were at best, wildly naive.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Londoner:

(snip)

However I am mildly suprised that only two people felt your comments were at best, wildly naive.

I stand by those comments and feel that some of the fine people on these Forums are (at best) the naïve ones. As you appear to be a reasonable man with only a smattering of... I think you would agree that it would be best to leave the subject be.

Your candid statements are refreshing, in a sinister sort of way.

I appreciate your honesty and your ability to see I was being honest with my opinions. I understand my point of view may seem menacing to you. I am just glad that some men are up to the task.

[ November 01, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Peter Cairns]

Abbot,

The point about the sonic booms is that as a tactic they are completely counter productive.

As Mao put it "To get the fish you drain the Pond" , you try to isolate these people from the population, not turn the population towards them.

It's all very well to talk about getting tough and hunting them down, but if you are heavy handed and are seen to be unfair, you simply create a bigger long term problem.

What makes short term military sense can be a political disaster that causes far more problems than it solves.

One school of though about Somalia was that it was things like flying "Littlebirds" at roof top level at high speed over the city that really started to turn people away from the US as people bringing security to an enemy, and in a city where almost everybody had their own AK-47 that turned out to be a very bad tactic.

"My enemies Enemy is my friend", or "Backing your allies regardless" even if they are doing something stupid, is very poor policy.

Regardless of the roots of the issue, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank for over 40 years, has been bad for America.

The west backed the Shah in the cold war, and ignored the fact he was a thug. So when he is overthrown, what do we end up with, a regional power that hates our guts, thirty years later.

Even in Vietnam, but intervening and backing a line of Governments in the South that were corrupt, unreliable and unpopular the war was bloodier and more prelonged than it need be.

If you want Real Politik, hows this,

As Israel doesn't evn have 10 million Jews and there are 1 billion moslems in the world, introduce and even handed policy and have sanctions against Israel to open up and dismantle it's nuclear programme to win over Arab and Moslem support.

Look at the odds, your backing the side that's out numbered 100 to 1 and surrounded. Sure it means turning on an ally, but if you want peace and security for your own country ask yourself this.

Just who has this alliance benefitted most, Israel or the US, and who's been footing the bill for all these years, Israeli tax payers or American ones.

For me it's been the tail waging the dog and the US is backing an ally that has done more harm than good to US interests for decades.

Peter.

[ng cavscout]

For being so outnumbered, and it definitely is, Israel seems to have done alright in the last few instances where the Muslims tried to take a bite out of them. Are we protecting the Israelis from the Arabs? or the Arabs from the Israelis? Is there an Arab nation that could stop the Israelis on the battlefield?

And I know you have to win the peace as well as the war, believe me, I know, but we are talking limited circumstances here.

As for gaining support in the Muslim world, we rescued Kuwait from Iraq, protected Saudi Arabia from Iraq, have built up the Kuwaiti and Saudi militaries, but where did most of the 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudi Arabia. I wonder what an honest public opinion poll in Kuwait would say about their attitudes towards the U.S.?

I think sometimes that, at least for the hardcore "islamo-fascists" and their supporters, the U.S. can do nothing right. I remember seeing a picture of an Indonesian man, right after that big tsunami they had, getting relief supplies from an American service member, while wearing an Osama Bin Laden t-shirt. Do you really think it is possible for the U.S. to gain any measure of popular support in most Muslim countries? How long did it take after 9/11 before western Muslim leaders came out with a Fatwa against terrorism?

but I begin to delve into the political realm, and that is a no-go. Administrators, I apologize.

And yes, we did back some very bad guys during the cold war. Could we of handled it better, definitely. We could of also handled it worse, the Soviets could of won.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

could of

PLEASE! Just because you're not expecting the Spelling Inquisition, doesn't mean that they are sleeping.

[ng cavscout]

I stand unashamed of my poor spelling and grammar, it is one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution isn't it?

[lucero1148]

It's easy to speculate about turning our backs on Israel to appease the Muslims but would it work? Would the rabid Islamists then be reasonable enough to deal with and would they then back down from their idealogy of hate towards the US or the Western style democracies? I doubt that very much. Islamists are politico's using their twisted vision of religion to sway the masses into doing their handiwork of chaos and destruction for a greater Islamic revival. The use of religion and blaming the ills of the Arab world onthe US and Israel are just part of the equation for the return of a pan islamic nation. That is the reality of islamic realpolitik.

Now for Syria its a secular country that manpulates the politics of the region the old fashioned way, assasination and corruption. They'll use the Islamic card when they get cornered or desperate tothe point of striking back at the West and then say, "huh...wasn't me!"

All best

Patrick

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by lucero1148:

It's easy to speculate about turning our backs on Israel to appease the Muslims but would it work?

How about just trying to be fair? That would be a good start.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

It's called "realpolitik" I believe. Welcome to the real world.

Indeed it is, and I would just like for people to recognise it for what it is instead of spouting off some ideological crap.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

If the basis is the suspected link to the assasination in Lebanon, then USA and most larger powers in the world should have been invaded many times over.

How do you link the US to the recent assasination in lebanon? </font>

[ng cavscout]

What ideological "crap" are you referring to?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

What ideological "crap" are you referring to?

Whatever rightous exuses that are being used at any one time by any part of most conflicts.

[Peter Cairns]

I don't think turning away from Israel would solve all the problem.

But if being seen as more even handed and fair, got a large number of those 1 Billion to give the US another chance, or look it it a fresh, then if you haven't grained the pond, you've certainly dropped the water level a fair bit,

That makes them easier to see or drives them down in to the mud where they will be less effective.

People talk about being prepared to do what it takes to win the war on terror, well here's a bold tactic that might just strike a real blow against them.

Try standing up and saying " WE WERE WRONG"...

to often people get themselves looked in to a sort of no backing down no surrender position where all they are actaully doing is digging in for trench warfare.

I think If Israel ( with some pushing) gave up the West Bank, in terms of terror things wouldn't get that much better for close to 10 years, but in 20 it would be down to little or nothing.

If we keep on like this I think we'll still be here or worse in another 50, and who wants that......

Probably a bad comparison but maybe it's a bit like Hitler ( and I am definitely not comparing the Israelis, or anyone on this forum with Hitler) refusing to allow a retreat from Stalingrad for political reasons when the military realities on the ground said the situation was hopeless.

Do we all really think that those who fled to Israel after the war had a vision of fifty or so years on of an armed state trapped behind barbed wire and barriers it's people living in constant fear for there lives?

Is that what any of us want it to be like for Israeli's fifty years from now.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

Viewed from even a medium-term historical perspective its hard to know what's the right, wrong, or even the prudent thing to do. We were arming Afghani Jihadists against Russia in the 80s. We were battling worldwide communism in Vietnam. Then we were supporting Cambodian reds, apparently out of sheer spite, after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in an effort to stop Pol Pot's 'killing fields' attrocities. So who knows who's side of what conflict we're going to be on 5 years from now?

I've got my own STRONG opinions on a laundry list of current topics, and have freely spouted them here. And I also don't have a clue if 10 years from now I will have found myself on the right side of history or not.

[ng cavscout]

I just don't think that appeasement is the right way to go. I think it was wrong in 1938, and I think it is wrong now.

I see some relevance to the Hitler analogy, but with the roles reversed I think.

[Vanir Ausf B]

We're "appeasing" North Korea. Have been for decades. Would it be smarter to invade?

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NG cavscout:

could of

PLEASE! Just because you're not expecting the Spelling Inquisition, doesn't mean that they are sleeping. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think If Israel ( with some pushing) gave up the West Bank, in terms of terror things wouldn't get that much better for close to 10 years, but in 20 it would be down to little or nothing.

Remember that the terrorists are not calling for the return of the West Bank but for the destruction of Israel as a nation. Simple solutions are never as simple as they seem.

[Peter Cairns]

sgtgoody (esq),

Many of the terrorsits do want to destroy Israel, but they do not represent the vast majority.

They do habe the support of the majority because they are fighting the enemy, but for the majority it is the West Bank that is the big issue.

Take away the big issue and you greatly reduce the support for the enemy. A lot of people in the arab world have some sympathy for Bin Laden, but nothing like the support they gave Arrafat.

Deal with the palastinian issue and you are half way to winning the war on terror. Thats not appaisement, thats common sense.

Bush Snr, made a series of high profile promises on the issue that helped to create the broad coalision that liberated Kuwait ( hell it even had the Syrians in it). The failure of Clinton and his boy to follow through, was the best recruiter Bin Laden ever had.

Like Stalingrad, digging in and reinforcing a hopeless position, isn't noble or brave, it's moronic.

Peter.

[mazex]

Is it only me that finds the call to arms "The war on terror" incredibly naive? It is even more mideval than the death penalty where the state tells people that killing somone is NOT acceptable but if you do it, the state kills you... Talk about not setting a good example...

Has ever terrorism been stopped by adding more of the ingredient that ignited the fire? Just look at other examples of modern terrorism, IRA, ETA etc. It just got worse the more military and police that was pured down to stop the terrorists... If the West is going to stop the middle east terrorism, it is by helping those countries solving their problems peacefully and by showing moral superiority. By doing that we can prove that democracy is the way to go, and that solving conflicts the ancient/schoolyard way with the fists is not the way to go... There was someone in the region that tried to explain this 2000 years ago but the enlighted leaders of the West that claim moral superiority still don't seem to get it!

Yes, now I'm the one that's going to be called naive but I'm sure that the violent IRA fractions would still be running rampage if the UK would have declared a "War on terror" on them instead of negotiations. It is MY firm belief that you don't stop terrorism by violence, just as you don't make people stop killing each other by killing them or stop kids on the school yard from fighting by going out there slapping them!

/Mazex

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The only reason the West has any interest in the Middle East is the oil. If they didn't have it they could cook and eat each other for dinner and we would print it on the back page of the paper under the "Oddities" section.

Yes, that would be nice. Very nice.

This is one of the driving forces behind our support of Israel as well. If we felt no need for an ally in the area, no matter how troublesome, we would have told them long ago, "you're a big boy now," and washed our hands of the whole situation.

I can't agree there. The US has military bases in at least half a dozen ME countries. Israel isn't one of them.

[SgtMuhammed]

Israel gives us a presense without even being there. Nearly all those other bases are in countries where we could suddenly be shut out. Israel might be a pain sometimes but we know we will be welcome if the baloon goes up.