Saddam Capture - End to resistance?

"Chad Irby" wrote

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...

Gen. Patton, for one.

Pete

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:
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,

....which he paid with US money...

B2431 wrote:
From: George Shirley


B2431 wrote:


From: (Tuollaf43)
Date: 12/14/2003 7:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


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.

There was a dislike of occupation and "de Nazification" programs as well as

the

war crimes trials. It was only after the Nazis accepted Hitler was dead and
accepted they could not retake power that they quit.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

It also helped that a number of the Werewolves were captured, with the
help of other Germans, and were then put before a firing squad.

Interesting note there Dan, one of the history channels on satellite
just had a program on this weekend about the Werewolves.

George


I saw that too. I was surprised they insisted the stuff they presented "was not
well known." Most people I know knew about it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Had a history prof way back when who had been an Army Combat historian
and Dr. Wooster taught a class about just that. First time I had heard
of it and that must have been about 1973 or 74 (I was a late bloomer,
mid-thirties when I went to college). He was there at the time and was
very familiar with the subject. Dr. Wooster was one of the reasons my
minor ended up being in history. BG

George

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

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,

...which he paid with US money...

Nope.

That's why there's still a question of Iraq completely repudiating the
billions it owes Russia under the "odious debt" theory.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...

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.

Well, you hear a whole lot of numbers in the Iraqi case: total deaths
is one such number, combat-related deaths is another. I see the latter
given as often as the former. The study I mentioned was looking at
nation-building experience, and the specific statistic was for
combat-related deaths.

Scott

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Yama" wrote:
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,

...which he paid with US money...

Nope.

Yes.

That's why there's still a question of Iraq completely repudiating the
billions it owes Russia under the "odious debt" theory.

Nobody said he paid *all* of it.

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Yama" wrote:
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,

...which he paid with US money...

Nope.

Yes.

Nope. The transactions we had in the 1980s were all *Iraq* paying the
US.

That's why there's still a question of Iraq completely repudiating the
billions it owes Russia under the "odious debt" theory.

Nobody said he paid *all* of it.

Or any of it, when you get right down to it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

The current Iranian regime also destroyed the communists in Iran, so by your
logic they were in the pocket of the US?

Not even the Iranians believe the war with Iraq was related to the US -
that is a truly bizarre theory that completely ignores Saddam's lust for
power.

Clearly the US worked (successfully) towards a stalemate between Iran and
Iraq. It was practically the official policy.

So we encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait so we could kick him out? Where do
you come up with this stuff?

If he were in league with the US, why didn't he buy his equipment from the
US?

And on, and on.

Jarg



"Denyav" wrote in message
...
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.

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.


I respect your opinion even though my own opinion is considerably different.
I think the real architect of everything we saw in Gulf Region since 70s is
Kissinger and let me use a quote from him:
"Covered operations have nothing to do with Evangelism".

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:
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,

...which he paid with US money...

The vast majority of which, I suspect, he did not get from the United
States.
Simply the chosen currency of the oil market.
And an absolutely meaningless statement.