> Rent this movie no matter what your views - a factual & powerful
    > eye-opener & reminder of what can go wrong.

Rent the movie, but more importantly, read the book. During the
night when the gunships were hosing down the rooftops and other
crowds, from 10,000 to many multiples of 10,000 (depending on
the source) of locals were killed. That is what will happen in Iraq.
Lots of Iraqi soldiers, and unavoidably many civilians, will be killed.
American & British casualties will probably be relatively light due
to the massive amount of American firepower. The Iraqi civilians
will be caught between the two opposing forces. Say a prayer for
them.

Viktor

I am curious as to why , If there are troops fighting together
from different nations US should always have the top command.
Is it that you are just so big or (pig) headed or that you think
any other person other than a US person could possibly be a
better tactician or leader than an American.
I often wonder how any other commander such as Hanibal,
Wellington, Nelson, Montgomery, Rommel etc ever won anything
without the Americns leading them.

If I was in army , I wouldnt give as damn as to the nationality
of the leader of the combined forces BUT I sure would give a damn
about that persons abilities to do the job. An example of this
was that the "Titled Gentry" in English history were always the
commanders and some of them were totally USELESS BUT they ran the
armed forces and lots of people got killed, only due to their
inept ability...Crimean war, WW1, etc.
So stop being so damn colloquial and think a bit as to the
purpose of a commander of poor sods going out and getting killed,
for what in most times in history is the power hungry nature of
political leaders or Kings or Feudal Lords, who kept they bodies
well away from any action.
The average person has been used for cannon fodder too much in
history and the current situation isn't any different.
Also I wonder what would have happened in Vietnam if the Generals
(from the US.....shock , horror etc) had actually got out of
their luxurious accommodations in Saigon and instead got out
near the action. (reference on this statement is General Stormin
Norman Gulf War leader Swarzkopf (spelling may not be correct) so
US has leaders who arrant too hot also.
Jim


--
Please remove DONTSPAMME from my address to reply.
"Jerry Johnson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > Also when you have a President that views the military with
contempt and
    > > open disapproval like WJ Clinton did. This would not happen
under our
    > > current administration. We will no longer allow our troops to
be placed
    > > under a foreign commander nor would we refuse our fighting
men the means to
    > > defend themselves as was done under Clintons administration.
    > > Jim
    > > Oh, that's not an opinion either, rather a well documented
fact.
    > Very true. And described in the book much better than it was
alluded to in
    > the movie. At the time of that incident Les Aspin was
Secretary of Defense.
    > His only prior background was his known depise for the
military. Aspin
    > refused all requests for armor backup of the ground forces.
Specifically,
    > the Army had requested Bradleys and M1s. The lack of which
opened up the
    > troops transported by Hummers to lethal fire and killed more
soldiers.
    > Also denied were air assets, such as gun ships, which would
have helped
    > protect ground troops.
    > Aspin resigned after the fiasco, which kept him from being
grilled by a
    > congressional investigation.

"fishman" wrote in message news:...
    > "Robocop" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Also when you have a President that views the military with contempt and
    > > open disapproval like WJ Clinton did. This would not happen under our
    > > current administration. We will no longer allow our troops to be placed
    > > under a foreign commander nor would we refuse our fighting men the means
    > to
    > > defend themselves as was done under Clintons administration.
    >
    >
    > FWIW, the troops were PLACED there by the lame-duck president, not the
    > incoming president. What happened after the new administration took over
    > was a different story.
    >
    > Chris

I have never thought it was a coincidence that the elder Bush sent
those troops to Somalia at that time(AFTER losing the '92 election and
BEFORE leaving office).Clearly he did it to get back at Clinton for
winning the election.