HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:37:34 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>> Using our planes to kill
>>     any Iraqi armored forces that try to move during the drive,
>>     somewhat inspired by Rommel's tactics of decoying enemy tanks
>>     into range of his anti-tank guns, our planes being the modern
>>     equivalent, serving as mobile anti-tank artillery.

>    It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. We must realize that the war
>was not nearly as effective as we were led to believe in the weeks after the
>war. The idea that air power can destroy your enemies groud forces is a
>phantasm that many people continue to grasp for. It hasn't happened in history,
>and the Gulf War was not an example.

You're right and wrong. Granted air power cannot destroy the actual equipment.
It can however destroy the formations so that the ground forces can just mop
up the rest. History is full of examples of units being subject to heavy 
air attack and then just disintegrating. There's a book called _Strike from the
Sky_ by R Hallion that treats this very subject.
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:33:00 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:

>>Add a twist. Drop the 82nd on Baghdad. Send VII corps north to link up and
>>use air power to suppress any attempts to relieve Baghdad. You're almost sure
>>to get Saddam that way.

>Hey, I got friends in the 82, and I don't want to see them on a
>suicide mission!  How long do you expect them to hold out?  It took us
>5 months to deploy VII Corps (which has now deactivated) from Germany
>to Saudi.  

Yeah, I was really thinking about it from the Desert Shield perspective, with
VII corps at the Iraqi border. 

>The *LAST* thing we should do, tactically, is get involved in city
>fighting.  This causes significant U.S. casualties (and civilian
>casualties), and the media would have a field day with all of the
>gory pictures, etc.  

I think that the Iraqis would collapse rather quickly with the 82nd in Baghdad.
Otherwise you're completely right. City fighting is a gory form of suicide.

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:49:54 GMT

In article <14oq09INN91b@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>I'm not at all clear on what kind of attack on Iraq
>Bush is planning. Can we get in some quick speculation
>ahead of time to see who comes up with the best guess?
>
   I'm completely serious:  Fly in some F117's, drop some bombs, show
some videos, declare success, and six months's later admit that no damage 
was actually done.
   Except killing a few stray pieces of collateral.

>The most obvious scenario (to me :-) is a sneak attack
>on Saddam Hussein's hideout when we have him located
>and he thinks he's safe, perhaps using new earth-pentrating
>warheads.
>
   Nope. If you kill or wound him, or plunge the country into chaos, who
will give the order to allow the UN inspections?

>We might also see cruise missiles again (have the Iraqis
>any defense against these things yet?)
>
   Defence? Yes, a WWII vintage German Quad 20mm AA gun with LOS targeting.
Cruise missles are so sloooowwwwww.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:03:48 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

>Anyways, does anyone else have the uneasy feeling that our friend
>Saddam has his greedy eyes focused on Kuwait again? Rumor is his
>forces are massed in the south (to "supress the Shiites" :-)

>Let's see, what interesting topics are there for discussion here?

>1). What happens in case of an all out Iraqi armored blitz with
>    his remaining tanks?

I wonder if he really has fuel and supplies to support an offensive.
Armored divisions consume fuel at a prodigious rate. With the Iraqi
infra structure blown to smithereens, has the iraqis been able to restock
with ammo, spares and so on?

>2). Does he stop at Kuwait, or go for the throat this time?
>    (Saudi)

He should have kept on going. (I read somewhere that he couldn't. The Iraqi
forces were in such dis-array that they needed several days to re-organize.)

>3). What allies does he have who can help out militarily or
>    by making a distraction elsewhere?

None.

>5). How does his timing depend on domestic (USA) politics?

Well, he's shown a total lack of understanding of the West earlier, why should
he change now? Accordingly, he will make his move in the for him least 
opportune moment.

>6). When this all shakes down, do we get to try my pre-Desert Storm
>    plan? :-)

>    (which was: armored thrust on Baghdad aimed at driving Saddam
>     from power, killing him if possible. Using our planes to kill
>     any Iraqi armored forces that try to move during the drive,
>     somewhat inspired by Rommel's tactics of decoying enemy tanks
>     into range of his anti-tank guns, our planes being the modern
>     equivalent, serving as mobile anti-tank artillery. Splitting Iraq 
>     into 3 zones, Kurdistan in the north as our good ally, greater 
>     Kuwait in the south, US temporary occupation zone in the center, 
>     later converted to a democracy run by whatever Iraqi military we 
>     can find to serve as our surrogates during an interim period.)

Add a twist. Drop the 82nd on Baghdad. Send VII corps north to link up and
use air power to suppress any attempts to relieve Baghdad. You're almost sure
to get Saddam that way.

>(LOOK! NO CROSS-POSTING! :-)
Good boy!  :-)
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Book about the SEALs
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 19:18:09 GMT

I've just recieved my latest issue of _Proceedings_ (US Naval Institute) and
in it is a book review on the book "Rogue Warrior" the autobiography of
Richard Marcinko especially about his excapades as leader of SEAL Team 6.
For those who were asking about SEALs, it is published by Pocket Books, 1992,
336 pages with photos.

Here is just a short bit of the review:  

"As history, "Rogue Warrior" gives off more heat than light. Far from being a 
'controversial' or 'explosive' expose, it is simply Marcinko's use of a pen 
to excoriate fellow officers who did not agree with his roughshod methods."

"At its core, however, "Rogue Warrior" raises important questions about the
Navy's specwar program.  .....  the SEALs have been surrounded by controversy
and arguments about their applicability on the battlefield.  Marcinko 
encountered these problems firsthand, and one of the central themes in the
book is his constant battle with bureaucratic forces inside and outside the
specwar community."

Remember, the above are taken without permission from the Aug. 92 issue of
_Proceedings_ and are for your info only.

Enjoy,

Don Palmrose





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.131627.22136@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <5616@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>,
>mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>
>|>From article <1992Jul24.050033.18743@dscomsf.desy.de>, by
>|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker):
>|>> The US murdered more Vietnamese in the war than Ho Chi Minhs govt
>|>did after.
>|>
>|>Of course.  After the war, the North Vietnamese controlled everything,
>|>so 
>|>why murder anybody?  The question is, how many did *they* murder
>|>*during* 
>|>the war?
>
>In case you hadn't heard the traditional way to fight a war is to shoot
>at the opposition, not your own lot. Perhaps if the US had learnt this
>lesson the British casualties in the Gulf would have been halved.
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

The TRADIONAL way of fighting a way is get a bunch of scared-to-death
raw recruits, give them guns and bullets and send them out after 
3 weeks of training.

I mean give me a break, the Gulf war has the fewest friendly fire incident
so far in any large-scale wars.  Do you realize how many ally soldiers 
were bombed, shelled by their own planes, ships, and field guns in WWII?
The incidents were not reported, that's all.  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:46:05 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <92Jul27.122624edt.113@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu writes:

> In article <1992Jul27.124413.21265@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <1992Jul25.002623.19227@nuscc.nus.sg> ccchen@durian.iss.nus.sg writes:
> >
> >> I don't see why Japan has anything to do with this.
> >> Japan has neither the right nor the military power to occupy the
> >> Islands.
> >
> >  The latter may well be correct, but since when has "rights" had anything
> >to do with what a country might try if it wants something bad enough?
> >
> How about Japan is nowhere near the Spratly islands?  Japan is at East of
> China, while Spratly Islands is at SOUTH of China, close to Vietnam.  

  Obviously some misunderstanding here.  My point is that what a country DOES 
DO often has little to do with what is believed it has a RIGHT to do.

  i.e., if Japan wants the islands bad enough, it'll get involved regardless of
the legality of it.  "Involvement" and "rights" do not have to go together.

  I know little or nothing of the claims to the Spratlies, and this is not a 
commentary on who deserves to get them.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:03:33 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <159vp1INNdg1@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>
>Sounds like you belong to the "Douglas Haig School of Military Theory" :-)
>
>The Iraqi military is a puppet of Saddam Hussein, and killing
>Saddam would decapitate the beast at one stroke. Afterwards
>I'm certain that we could negotiate with the Iraqi commanders.

    Any proof of this assertion? It is very dangerous to make assumptions
about the behavior of enemy governments. The point of war should be to
leave the enemy country with no other option but to obey your will. To
do this you must defeat thier army. Decapitating the enemy government
will do nothing other than complicate your end-game.

>
>Blind
>adherence to the dogma of "destroying the main body of the
>enemy armed forces" is what led us into this mess.

    Funny, I was just lecturing my friends yestarday that the great mistake
of the war was that we didn't fight the enemies army, but rather attacked
geography. I don't think we destryed any main body. Certainly soon after the
war ended, Iraq was able to begin putting down the weak rebellions. It would
appear that not only was the army left intact, but the command and control
structure was also not destroyed.

> You and
>your friend Bush pounded the enemy's body in Desert Storm
>but left the head in place.
>
    This hurts. Really. I am the strongest opponent of the strategy in the
GUlf War that I know of. I do not believe that the enemy was pounded.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: ccchen@durian.iss.nus.sg (chen chung chih)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Reply-To: ccchen@iss.nus.sg (chen chung chih)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:26:23 GMT

In article <14op6lINN8vm@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>Evidently tensions are heating up over the oil fields under
>the Spratly islands. If it comes down to war (possibly
>involving China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and/or Japan),
>who do you think will win? What are the comparative strengths
>of the naval forces of the various countries? What about
>the role of air power? Might China threaten a land invasion
>of Vietnam in order to get their way in the Spratlys?
>

I don't see why Japan has anything to do with this.
Japan has neither the right nor the military power to occupy the
Islands.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: oaf@serverx.osf.org (Oded Feingold)
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Summary: don't give them stuff they want!
Keywords: chirigami-panikku desu neh!
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:56:06 GMT

Tedrick:	>>  Anyone have good scenarios in mind for attacking
		>>  Iraq?

Some bonehead:	>  A friend advocates a gigantic leaflet raid.  Send a
		>  load of B-52s stacked with leaflets saying "Next
		>  time... etc." and spray them all over Baghdad and
		>  environs.	(etc)

NO!  NEVER!  The embargo has created shortages throughout the Iraqi
civilian economy.  You are proposing we ease their toilet paper
shortage for free and call that a "warning?"

What kind of Commie are you anyway, Mr. Alec?
-- 
Oded Feingold  oaf@osf.org     Contractor at  Open Software Foundation
OSF:   11 Cambridge Center     Cambridge Ma. 02142      (617) 621-7265
Home:  21 Oxford Circle        Belmont   Ma. 02178      (617) 489-6918
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:44:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul25.002623.19227@nuscc.nus.sg> ccchen@durian.iss.nus.sg writes:

> In article <14op6lINN8vm@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
> >Evidently tensions are heating up over the oil fields under
> >the Spratly islands. If it comes down to war (possibly
> >involving China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and/or Japan),
> >who do you think will win? What are the comparative strengths
> >of the naval forces of the various countries? What about
> >the role of air power? Might China threaten a land invasion
> >of Vietnam in order to get their way in the Spratlys?
> >
> 
> I don't see why Japan has anything to do with this.
> Japan has neither the right nor the military power to occupy the
> Islands.

  The latter may well be correct, but since when has "rights" had anything
to do with what a country might try if it wants something bad enough?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Taranto //WasRe: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanesea
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:52:15 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <9PN0NB2w164w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com writes:

> > > That we can even mention war and morality in the same breath is 
> > > remarkable. 
> > 
> >   Which is to say that self defense (on a countries level) is not 
> > moral? Uh, boy. (waiting for Russ Nelson any minute here...)
> > 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
> 
> The Japanese thught they were defending themselves, or at least tyheir 
> interests, when they attacked us. Was that moral? Was Saddam Hussein
> fighting a moral war because a coalition of nations attacked and 
> partly invaded his? 
>  
> Wars may sometimes be justifiable on a practical level, but moral?
> I don't think so.
> Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.

  Morality, along with many other things, lies in the eye of the beholder.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis)
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: Satan's Utensil
Keywords: hellfire & damnation
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:24:19 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <1992Jul22.150125.20365@rice.edu> garrett@math.rice.edu (David Garrett) writes:
>
>BTW, SU _really_ stands for Skinner's Union, the English company that makes 
>them.

Stromberg Union.
^^^^^^^^^

How far is "not stick out as far" (for the Super G)?  I've got the stock 
Evo setup on my FXRS-CON, and _it_ sticks out too far for my likes.  I 
sat on somebody's with an Super E and I would find it un-rideable farther
than the grocery store.
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG           | "Good men must not obey the laws too well"
 ISC-Bunker Ramo / Spokane, WA   |    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
 Phone: +1 509 927-5439          |  
 Mail: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com    |  My employer accepts no responsibility...
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
From: mtrost@convex.com (Matthew Trost)
Subject: "Harley rider didn't wave"
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:40:39 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

20 minutes ago I was on my way back to work, from  lunch. (actually, I was
checking out a T-Bird)
I pulled up to a light next to a Kawasaki something or another. I looked
over and smiled and said "hey"!
The dude was cool, and said "nice day for riding"! I agreed and something
to the effect: unfortunatly, I have to go back to work, and can't be out
enjoying it...."you gotta pay for these things somehow" I said.
He: "nice looking Harley" (I was on the Sportster)
Me: "Thank-you"! I looked over and was about to compliment on his bike,
but couldn't think of what to say in time. It was in nice shape, and didn't
have any neon.
Anyway, the light was about to change, and I could sense his anticipation.
The light changed, and before I knew it he was a half a block away!!!

I smiled, pulled in the clutch, kicked it into gear, and cruised on my
way.....
A block up, the lady in the cage next to us at the light, looked over at
me with a big "approving type" smile.

I think she *knew* what I was about!

Different strokes, for different folks!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
From: lestat@wixer.cactus.org (Lyle J. Mackey)
Subject: Re: Why just HARLEY ? !!!
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.060305.6752@nuscc.nus.sg> ccesea@nuscc.nus.sg (See Eng Ann (Mr)) writes:
>
>Can't understand why there is only one group "alt.motorcycles.harley"
>for motorcycles.  

Try "rec.motorcycles".

I understand that some sites won't carry the alt.* groups, but no rec.* groups?
Hmm.
-- 
 .--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
/ Lyle J \ lestat@wixer.cactus.org /  Team Doofus  \ DoD / Nobody else WANTS \
\ Mackey /     Social Engineer     \ '89 Kaw EX500 / 587 \  my  opinions...  /
 `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: The Best
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:35:17 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: msus

Pooder, speaking in the wrong group says again:
> 
>Oh, and her beauty.  What can I say about her beauty?  Words are not enough 
>for me to do her beauty justice, as I am no poet, alas.

Pooder, isn't a K75 a BMW?  And isn't a CB500 a Honda?  Isn't this
alt.motorcycles.HARLEY?

That does it, Pooder.  You will be discovering small change and animal
parts in your crank oil for the rest of the year.  Don't piss me off
again.  Notice how your neighborhood Harley dealer moved?  _HE_ pissed
me off.  Nuf said?  Notice now how the Rochester BMW dealer has to
rent wrench time from his neighbor?  Notice how many Hondas there are
in the Rochester land fill?  You pathetic mutt.

TAKE IT TO REC.MOTORCYCLES, pooder.

>DoD# 0591  (I think)

Hah!  You had the chance to find out and wimped out.  DoD? HAH!
Why don't you quit sniveling and get into it.
From: sallyg@oregon.uoregon.edu (George, Sally)
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: The Best
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:29:33 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon

Just wanted to post to AGAIN say, "Harleys are the BEST."

Sal
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley