I've been to Culloden. It's an eerie place. At least, it is when it's cold, foggy, and misty

It's always cold, foggy and misty in Culloden.

Actually, the one time I went there it was sunny and nice out...it was late May...

Actually, the one time I went there it was sunny and nice out...it was late May...

Yeah, sorry people, that was supposed to be a joke. Not a particularly good one, I admit. Sorry.

More commendations to Julie for that post.

I laughed, Fiona. Course, I have to laugh at Grim-up-North jokes, or they take my shandy-drinking license away.

Thanks for all the lovin' folks. (And erm.. the more distant, reserved, gentlemanly nods of approval.)

What I wrote came from my genuine surprise that people appear to want to be part of a community and yet show, with everything that they say and do, that they don't understand diddly squat (The Buffista friendly version of Jack Shit :) about what makes that community special.

Me? Everything I know about posting boards (and the communities they spawn) comes from the ME fandom (Putting the Iron in the Velvet Glove since 1997). It's the online equivalent of the school of hardknocks. And, like its shows, that comes with equal measures of pleasure and pain.

The wisest person I know once said that people get the posting board they deserve. I hope that's true for every one of you.

And here I thought I was the wisest person you know.

Slate's international papers roundup had this unAmerican viewpoint:

On Monday the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal led with a description of Baghdad's fall by Iraqi army officer Maj. Amer Ahmad. He described horrific casualty tolls but also a lack of central control over Iraq's military operations. This led him to believe a "bargain" had been struck "to save the head of Saddam Hussein." He pointed to a story circulating in the army that a Saddam aide, Gen. Sufyan Jgheib, "used an American Apache helicopter to visit units of the Republican Guard in Baghdad and ask them not to fight." The belief in a U.S.-Saddam deal is widely held in the Middle East, serving to explain why Baghdad fell almost without a fight but also bolstering a prevailing conspiracy theory that Saddam was an American agent.

I was wondering if I hadn't seen this "deal" theory because it's inconceivable, or just because it was inconceivable to American papers. If this rumor was about Osama bin Laden I wouldn't believe it at all, but the war went so smoothly I am open to theories that try to explain it.

Did it go that smoothly? I thought it wasn't up until the end.

There were just two hitches in the war the way it went in the papers. We met a little guerrilla resistance instead of a popular uprising, and we seemed not to have enough troops to guard the supply lines and take Baghdad. Both of those turned out all right and we didn't need to wait for the 4th Division.

The things that seem lucky: There was no urban combat, no chemical weapons or human waves, and an even lower casualty rate for us than Gulf War I. (Compared to casualties we inflicted, our casualty ratio was a factor of ten lower than the casualty ratio of other blowouts like the Israeli/Arab Six Day War and British Marines vs Argentine militia in the Falklands. I had a great source in PDF that I can't find, arguing that superior technology won't deliver those kind of ratios apart from big enemy errors.) Some other things went our way that we deserve credit for, like saving most of the oil wells. All in all, it seemed very smooth.

Not arguing for or against the theory yet, though I find it unlikely.

There was no urban combat,

At all? I should probably look that up, but I thought there were some street fights, particularly in N-city-that-I-can't-remember-after-2-drinks.

no chemical weapons or human waves

Perhaps because there were none in the first place. edit- I meant chem weapons. I'm unclear on what human waves are.

and an even lower casualty rate for us than Gulf War I.

Don't know about this.