Saddam Capture - End to resistance?

From: Scott MacEachern


On 14 Dec 2003 19:40:29 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

Based on post WW2 Germany's experience we can expect another year or two of
armed resistance. The Nazi Werewolves attacked accupying troops as well as
Germans who were "collaborating" for at least two years.

With a remarkable lack of success, in that case. There were no
post-conflict combat-related American deaths during the occupation of
Germany and Japan after WW2.
(http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...MR1753.ch9.pdf) That is a
significant contrast to the American experience in Iraq.

Scott

Your link didn't work for me.

As for post "combat deaths" during the occupation of Germany the History
Channel gave a rather low number (38?). If you do reasearch looking for "combat
deaths" post surrender you may not find any since they woudn't be considered
"combat."

I have seen numbers in excess of 400.

Check out photgraphs and film footage of jeeps being driven around post
surrender with vertical bars mounted on the bumper. The bars were to prevent
decapitation by wires strung accross a road. I don't know how many
decapitations/injuries happened post surrender, but they did happen.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

You were talking about someone having Saddam in his pocket for 30 years.

Saddam was in pocket of US for almost a half century not only for 30 years.
Nobody is more informed in things going on in Middle East,incl.Iraq,than
Israelis,so it might be interesting to check what Israeli sources say or,more
importantly,do not say.(Specially considering special connections between
Israel-Jalal Talabani and Saddam Hussein-Jalal Talabani).

I think rapidly deteoriating standing of George W.,both inside and outside
US,forced him to "capture" SH alive now.

I also think that the fate of SH will probably be similar to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Tuollaf43 wrote:
The capture of Saddam Hussein (assuming that he is saddam and not a
double or a plant) is a great morale boost for the US and assorted
allies in Iraq. Wonder what effect, if any, it will have on continued
resistance in Iraq.

None at all. Not until al-Duri is caught.

Cheers
David

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

You were talking about someone having Saddam in his pocket for 30 years.

Saddam was in pocket of US for almost a half century not only for 30 years.

I'm sorry, but you're just typing words and hoping someone will believe
you. If Hussein was in the pocket, or even vaguely influenced by, the
US, they would have never bought those billions of dollars in Soviet
equipment, they never would have invaded Kuwait, and they never would
have attacked Israel.

On the other hand, if Hussein ws influenced by the Soviets, they would
have acted, well, just like they did.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

US, they would have never bought those billions of dollars in Soviet
equipment, they never would have invaded Kuwait, and they never would
have attacked Israel.

If Saddam were not in US pocket he would not kill Quasim and tens of thousands
of Iraqi communists and socialists in Qasr al Nehayat prison and Jim
Critchfield would not call his actions "a great victory"

If Saddam were not in US pocket he would not attack Iran upon orders from his
boss.

If Saddam were not in US pocket,US ECM assets would not blind Iranian radars
for three days in row during Saddams ferocious 1988 al Fao attack.

If Saddam were not in US pocket,DIA and CIA officials would not brief him
everyday during Iran-Iraq war.

If Saddam were not in US pocket ,he would not pay attention to US
encouragements and would not invade Kuwait.

Without SH's magnificent service in 1990,US would probably never be able to
persuade Gulf states to allow large scale American presence in their countries
and US would fall behind UK,France and even Chinese as major arms supporter to
those states and most importantly Kissinger Plan would never be implemented.

If Saddam were not in US pocket ,still secret deals between him and US would
not be made after 1991 war at the cost of Kurds and Schites.

Sure,he purchased lots of weapons from SU,this was the balancing act of every
dictators in Cold War era.


On the other hand, if Hussein ws influenced by the Soviets, they would
have acted, well, just like they did.

What the possible interest of SU
in seizure of Arab Oil by US might be?,As far as I know SU(Russia) itself is a
major oil producer.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

US, they would have never bought those billions of dollars in Soviet
equipment, they never would have invaded Kuwait, and they never would
have attacked Israel.

If Saddam were not in US pocket he would not kill Quasim and tens of thousands
of Iraqi communists and socialists in Qasr al Nehayat prison and Jim
Critchfield would not call his actions "a great victory"

Quoting Richard Sale, I see. Funny how this is all strongly denied by
the CIA. And it's really funny how someone who's "in our pocket" has
spent so much of his time the in last 40 years doing everything *except*
working in the interests of the US, and covered it all up by spending
billions on equipment from the USSR and Russia. And a US official
calling the deaths of thousands of Communists "a great victory" has
nothing to do with anything other than a bunch of dead enemies, no
matter who killed them.

Note that, with minor exceptions, everything you claim comes from two or
three unconfirmed articles from *one* writer... who's well known for
either writing about stuff everyone knows, or stuff nobody can confirm.

If Saddam were not in US pocket he would not attack Iran upon orders from his
boss.

Unless he was, of course, a murderous dictator armed by the Soviet
Union, who wanted some more land with oil in it.

If Saddam were not in US pocket,US ECM assets would not blind Iranian radars
for three days in row during Saddams ferocious 1988 al Fao attack.

Ah, more noise from Richard Sale. Never confirmed.

If Saddam were not in US pocket,DIA and CIA officials would not brief him
everyday during Iran-Iraq war.

No, they would have done that anyway, to do damage to Iran *and* Iraq,
who were both buying weapons from the USSR.

If Saddam were not in US pocket ,he would not pay attention to US
encouragements and would not invade Kuwait.

You mean, "if he weren't in Russia's pocket, he would not have ignored
the US discouragements and stayed home."

Without SH's magnificent service in 1990,US would probably never be able to
persuade Gulf states to allow large scale American presence in their countries
and US would fall behind UK,France and even Chinese as major arms supporter to
those states and most importantly Kissinger Plan would never be implemented.

"Probably." Funny. Except, of course, for the large presence in those
countries for a decade or two *before* 1990.

If Saddam were not in US pocket ,still secret deals between him and US would
not be made after 1991 war at the cost of Kurds and Schites.

So you can name some of those "secret deals," then, right?

Sure,he purchased lots of weapons from SU,this was the balancing act of every
dictators in Cold War era.

"Balancing act," eh? Interesting choice of words, there.

On the other hand, if Hussein ws influenced by the Soviets, they would
have acted, well, just like they did.

What the possible interest of SU in seizure of Arab Oil by US might
be?,As far as I know SU(Russia) itself is a major oil producer.

So you're claiming that our invasion of Iraq was a big plan on Hussein's
part to, er... your logic doesn't really work, here.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On 14 Dec 2003 23:11:41 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

Your link didn't work for me.

As for post "combat deaths" during the occupation of Germany the History
Channel gave a rather low number (38?). If you do reasearch looking for "combat
deaths" post surrender you may not find any since they woudn't be considered
"combat."

Possibly an issue with Acrobat? The home page for the publication is
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

The book considers American involvement in nation-building operations
in seven different cases -- Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Afghanistan. In all cases, the authors are looking at
experiences after conflict has ended, and post-surrender combat deaths
certainly seem to be what they're counting.

Scott

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 23:11:41 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

Your link didn't work for me.

As for post "combat deaths" during the occupation of Germany the
History Channel gave a rather low number (38?). If you do reasearch
looking for "combat deaths" post surrender you may not find any
since they woudn't be considered "combat."

Possibly an issue with Acrobat? The home page for the publication is
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

The book considers American involvement in nation-building operations
in seven different cases -- Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Afghanistan. In all cases, the authors are looking at
experiences after conflict has ended, and post-surrender combat deaths
certainly seem to be what they're counting.

The odd bit is that we keep hearing about *all* US deaths (accidents,
medical issues, and combat-related deaths) in Iraq, but only hear about
direct combat-related deaths after WWII.

And if you think we had a half-million GIs running around in Germany for
several months in 1945 and 1946 without so much as a traffic accident or
a heart attack...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Quoting Richard Sale, I see. Funny how this is all strongly denied by
the CIA. And it's really funny how someone who's "in our pocket" has
spent so much of his time the in last 40 years doing everything

Of course anything that has been denied by CIA did and could not happen,if so I
wonder why CIA did not deny CIA-OBL contacts just before 9/11 that reported in
European Press quoting Israeli,French and Arab intelligence sources?

billions on equipment from the USSR and Russia. And a US officialcalling the
deaths of thousands of Communists "a great victory" has
nothing to do with anything other than a bunch of dead enemies, no
matter who killed them.

I think Stalin style execution of thousands of political prisoners could only
be called a crime aganist humanity no matter the names of executioners are or
were.(Stalin,Hitler,Saddam,Polpot etc)

Unless he was, of course, a murderous dictator armed by the Soviet
Union, who wanted some more land with oil in it.

I think Saddams "Ayatollah scare" had much more to do with his Iran
undartakings,it was US that wanted oil rich Iran back.
So both sides had mutual but very different interests.

Ah, more noise from Richard Sale. Never confirmed.

So should be wrong?

No, they would have done that anyway, to do damage to Iran *and* Iraq,
who were both buying weapons from the USSR.

Thats probably true but for a different reason.

You mean, "if he weren't in Russia's pocket, he would not have ignored
the US discouragements and stayed home."

Do you think that US Ambassador to Iraq was also representing SU in 1990?

"Probably." Funny. Except, of course, for the large presence in those
countries for a decade or two *before* 1990.

In pre 1990 era only Oman offered pre position rights to US,After 1991,if I
quote Secretary Cohen "Our military presence in ME increased dramatically".

So you're claiming that our invasion of Iraq was a big plan on Hussein's
part to, er... your logic doesn't really work, here.
He was only a pond in the new chapter of the "Great Game" ,known as "Seizing
Arab Oil" and written by Kissinger in 70s.
He played his role pretty convincingly.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

cirbywrote:
Ah, more noise from Richard Sale. Never confirmed.

So should be wrong?

Yes, should be wrong. If there was anything to it, someone should be
able to find a bit of corroborating evidence.

When someone writes something controversial, you should look to see if
there's anything outside of the author's word to show if there's any
truth to it or not.

In the case of Richard Sale, he has a tendency to rely heavily on
unnamed sources, or isolated quotes from people that may or may not have
anything to do with the event. not many of his stories get that sort of
confirmation, although you see rehashes of his stories among other folks
with aligned agendas.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.