Saddam Capture - End to resistance?

[Tuollaf43]

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.

[Yama]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
m...
> 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.

Very little. Saddam was not "leading" the resistance in any way, he was
continuously on the run and hide and likely kept his contacts minimal. (in
fact, pretty much nobody is leading Iraqi resistance, which is both curse
and blessing).

Some of the Fedayeen types might get demoralized (but some may get fired
up), but those insurgents who just hate Americans, and possible Al Qaeda
affiliates are not going to get affected in any way.

The real test for the resistance are following 5-6 months, when their
initial stockpiles are running dry, and original cadres are getting
depleted. If it still continues after that, then you could say that
Coalition is indeed in trouble. Of course by then USA is switching authority
to Iraqi and likely in process of bailing out. Good news for USA is that
capture of Saddam removes a symbolic obstacle for changeover.

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

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.

Very hard to predict. Saddam was caught, if I understood
the words of gen. Sanchez correctly, hiding in a hole wich
was dug in the basement of a house and camouflaged with
debris and dirt. As close to grave as you can get while
still alive; his role in the resistance was probably
insignificant. Judging from the look of him, his first
priorities would have been a square meal and a haircut.

His capture will be a demoralizing blow to the Baathist
resistance groups. But for other opposition movements,
for example hardline muslim groups, it may actually have
a positive influence on recruitment, because they can now
no longer be accused of fighting for Saddam.

Saddam's capture will convince many Iraqis that there will
be no return to the old regime and make them more willing
to cooperate with the CPA. On the other hand, it also
removes one of the major justifications for the continued
presence of coalition troops in Iraq.

I suspect that in the final balance, it will make little
difference one way or the other.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Tuollaf43) wrote:

> The capture of Saddam Hussein (assuming that he is saddam and not a
> double or a plant)

I'm fairly sure they actually captured Jack Elam:

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031214/ids_photos_wl/r262
7088136.jpg>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> m...
> > 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.
>
> Very little. Saddam was not "leading" the resistance in any way, he was
> continuously on the run and hide and likely kept his contacts minimal. (in
> fact, pretty much nobody is leading Iraqi resistance, which is both curse
> and blessing).

Back in 1869 my family went to South Carolina to enforce the thirteenth
amandment. Most of the major slave holders in the US lived there and
although the slaves had heard of the Emancipation Proclimation, the
Thirteenth Amenedment and Reconstruction, basicly nothing had changed in
their lives. It was not until Tarvers put the Master in a tree, that the
People knew that they were free. (and his sons with him, should he resist)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Tuollaf43) wrote:
>
> > The capture of Saddam Hussein (assuming that he is saddam and not a
> > double or a plant)
>
> I'm fairly sure they actually captured Jack Elam:

That would be consistent with the validity of your other posts, Chad.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm fairly sure they actually captured Jack Elam:
>

I believe Jack Elam died a few months ago, unless it was actually a Saddam
double.

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> That would be consistent with the validity of your other posts, Chad.

Well, I feel better.

If you can manage to get an insult from Tarver, you must be doing
something right.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > That would be consistent with the validity of your other posts, Chad.
>
> Well, I feel better.
>
> If you can manage to get an insult from Tarver, you must be doing
> something right.

There is nothing insulting in pointing out the disconnection from reality
your posts reveal, Chad. Stay as you are, 'cause you provide much
entertainment to those that know a little about the industry.

[Chad Irby]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm fairly sure they actually captured Jack Elam:
>
> I believe Jack Elam died a few months ago, unless it was actually a
> Saddam double.

(Watches joke sail completely over Steven's head...)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>
> (Watches joke sail completely over Steven's head...)
>

(Chad misses that Steven was playing along.)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > (Watches joke sail completely over Steven's head...)
> >
>
> (Chad misses that Steven was playing along.)

You can lead a dolt to water, but you can't make him drink, Steve. :)

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> There is nothing insulting in pointing out the disconnection from reality
> your posts reveal, Chad.

Well, since it's "Tarver Engineering" claiming it, it's a good bet that
I'm doing something right.

Let's see... splaps, "mud bees" in pitot tubes, pretty much everything
you've ever posted about the F-22... and then there's those other
newsgroups...

(For those of you who only know Tarver's lunacy from r.a.m, look up some
of his silliness on the political groups, or his "expert" opinions on
creationism...)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> (Chad misses that Steven was playing along.)

D'oh. Got too subtle for me on that one, dude...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> You can lead a dolt to water, but you can't make him drink, Steve. :)

I feel much better. An insult from Tarver is the next best thing to
money in the bank.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > There is nothing insulting in pointing out the disconnection from
reality
> > your posts reveal, Chad.
>
> Well, since it's "Tarver Engineering" claiming it, it's a good bet that
> I'm doing something right.

From the beginning, all I have ever had to do is be who I say I am, to make
you and your troll buddies fools, Chad. Nothing has changed since then.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > You can lead a dolt to water, but you can't make him drink, Steve. :)
>
> I feel much better.

Steve is just trying to throw you a line, dippy.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> From the beginning, all I have ever had to do is be who I say I am, to make
> you and your troll buddies fools, Chad.

"Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > From the beginning, all I have ever had to do is be who I say I am, to
make
> > you and your troll buddies fools, Chad.
>
> "Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.

Yep, a crew chief would assign one of his airman to sit near the airplane to
wait for the pitot tube to cool on his F-106, after flight. That way he
could put a little sock over the end of the pitot tube when cooled and
thereby prevent it from being plugged with mud. The F-106 used an actual
pitot tube, with it's double wall, so the thing could not be cleaned on the
airplane, without ruining it.

Have you ever worked an airplane program anywhere, Chad?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Very little. Saddam was not "leading" the resistance in any way, he was
> > continuously on the run and hide and likely kept his contacts minimal. (in
> > fact, pretty much nobody is leading Iraqi resistance, which is both curse
> > and blessing).
>
> Back in 1869 my family went to South Carolina to enforce the thirteenth
> amandment. Most of the major slave holders in the US lived there and
> although the slaves had heard of the Emancipation Proclimation, the
> Thirteenth Amenedment and Reconstruction, basicly nothing had changed in
> their lives. It was not until Tarvers put the Master in a tree, that the
> People knew that they were free. (and his sons with him, should he resist)
>
>

I knew it! Tarver comes from a long line of carpetbaggers!

[B2431]

>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

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 12/14/2003 1:27 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> From the beginning, all I have ever had to do is be who I say I am, to make
>> you and your troll buddies fools, Chad.
>
>"Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

No, that was a P1T0 tube or a pitot port.

Let's not change the subject of this thread to tarver.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Very little. Saddam was not "leading" the resistance in any way, he
was
> > > continuously on the run and hide and likely kept his contacts minimal.
(in
> > > fact, pretty much nobody is leading Iraqi resistance, which is both
curse
> > > and blessing).
> >
> > Back in 1869 my family went to South Carolina to enforce the thirteenth
> > amandment. Most of the major slave holders in the US lived there and
> > although the slaves had heard of the Emancipation Proclimation, the
> > Thirteenth Amenedment and Reconstruction, basicly nothing had changed in
> > their lives. It was not until Tarvers put the Master in a tree, that
the
> > People knew that they were free. (and his sons with him, should he
resist)

> I knew it! Tarver comes from a long line of carpetbaggers!

Tarver is a very old Southern name.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Chad Irby
> >Date: 12/14/2003 1:27 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >> From the beginning, all I have ever had to do is be who I say I am, to
make
> >> you and your troll buddies fools, Chad.
> >
> >"Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.

> No, that was a P1T0 tube or a pitot port.

No, F-106s use a real pitot tube.

> Let's not change the subject of this thread to tarver.

You already did, my idiot.

But then, between Dan and Chad, there is not enough knowlede to support an
airplane discussion. :)

[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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > "Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.
>
> Have you ever worked an airplane program anywhere, Chad?

Forgotten already, eh Tarvernaut?

It's part of your insane little "727s don't have pitot tubes, because
mud bees nest in them" stuff from a while back.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > "Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.
> >
> > Have you ever worked an airplane program anywhere, Chad?
>
> Forgotten already, eh Tarvernaut?

Not me, I have 30 years of aerospace systems experiance.

> It's part of your insane little "727s don't have pitot tubes, because
> mud bees nest in them" stuff from a while back.

Sure, 727s have screened over static ports and pitot ports. Pitot tubes are
not reliable enough to fly 5000 hours a year.

Get a clue, Irby.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> >
> > > > "Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.
> > >
> > > Have you ever worked an airplane program anywhere, Chad?
> >
> > Forgotten already, eh Tarvernaut?
>
> Not me, I have 30 years of aerospace systems experiance.

Senility, then.

> > It's part of your insane little "727s don't have pitot tubes, because
> > mud bees nest in them" stuff from a while back.
>
> Sure, 727s have screened over static ports and pitot ports. Pitot tubes are
> not reliable enough to fly 5000 hours a year.

Wow. Hundreds of posts, dozens of people showing him how wrong he is,
and he's *still* trying to justify that crap...

> Get a clue, Irby.

Got plenty. Having fun pointing out the ones Tarver keeps losing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "Mud bees in pitot tubes." Heh.
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever worked an airplane program anywhere, Chad?
> > >
> > > Forgotten already, eh Tarvernaut?
> >
> > Not me, I have 30 years of aerospace systems experiance.
>
> Senility, then.

I am at my peak at 46. Things are going very well indeed.

What is it you do, Irby? I mean, besides being clueless here in the
newsgroups?

[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/MR1753.ch9.pdf) That is a
significant contrast to the American experience in Iraq.

Scott

[Denyav]

> Good news for USA is that
>capture of Saddam removes a symbolic obstacle for changeover

I think US knew every step of SH since 1959 and would capture or kill him
anytime between 1959 and today .Lets say bluntly,he was an asshole but our
asshole.
Why we need his services again now?,well I think the administration is under
immense pressure to justify the occupation of Iraq (other than seizing arab
oil) and he is the only one to tell the world that he was the one who hired
OBL.
That means OBL will never be captured alive.
This show might work for domestic audiences,but intended audience is not
domestic and they are pretty aware of SH associations since 1959.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Not me, I have 30 years of aerospace systems experiance.
> >
> > Senility, then.
>
> I am at my peak at 46. Things are going very well indeed.

So you're adding "aerospace systems experience" at age 16, then. Before
the "NSA Secret clearance at age 17" stuff, of course.

Of course, since you've claimed to have worked on Air Force planes from
1974 to 1980, that would mean you enlisted at, what, seventeen? But
that also leaves no room for that "NSA Secret" claim of yours at 17.

You should keep notes, so you don't get caught in these little...
confusions of your.

> What is it you do, Irby?

Lots of things. Computers, video, graphics, photography... I'm waiting
to find out if I get to go work in Iraq (either computer installation or
building TV stations). I used to do electronic warfare in the Air
Force, and am an award-winning game author (about a million sold so far).

What do you do, besides claim to be an engineer?

> I mean, besides being clueless here in the newsgroups?

Don't worry, nobody could ever take your place for that. Your
position's safe.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> I think US knew every step of SH since 1959 and would capture or kill him
> anytime between 1959 and today .Lets say bluntly,he was an asshole but our
> asshole.

You misspelled "USSR."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not me, I have 30 years of aerospace systems experiance.
> > >
> > > Senility, then.
> >
> > I am at my peak at 46. Things are going very well indeed.
>
> So you're adding "aerospace systems experience" at age 16, then. Before
> the "NSA Secret clearance at age 17" stuff, of course.

I was in 5 days after I turned 17 and that was in March.

> Of course, since you've claimed to have worked on Air Force planes from
> 1974 to 1980, that would mean you enlisted at, what, seventeen? But
> that also leaves no room for that "NSA Secret" claim of yours at 17.

I enlisted at 16, but the papers were not signed until 5 days after my 17th
birthday.

> You should keep notes, so you don't get caught in these little...
> confusions of your.

I am not the least bit confused.

So basicly Chad, you have too much trouble following a simple thread to be
able to function in any aerospace technical position. Perhaps you would do
better to just work on reading and wait until you get that part before
posting.

> > What is it you do, Irby?
>
> Lots of things. Computers, video, graphics, photography... I'm waiting
> to find out if I get to go work in Iraq (either computer installation or
> building TV stations). I used to do electronic warfare in the Air
> Force, and am an award-winning game author (about a million sold so far).

That is what I figured, Chad, well then you need to understand that real
airplanes are different from your imaginary crap.

> What do you do, besides claim to be an engineer?

I collect fat royalties and shape regulatory direction, for real airplanes.

> > I mean, besides being clueless here in the newsgroups?
>
> Don't worry, nobody could ever take your place for that. Your
> position's safe.

Chad, you are one of the buggest idiots we have ever had on ram. Have you
ever considered that real airplanes are different from your imaginary crap?

[Denyav]

>You misspelled "USSR."
>

Do you think that the persons like Roger Morris and Jim Eichelberger were USSR
officials?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> (Denyav) wrote:
>
> > I think US knew every step of SH since 1959 and would capture or kill
him
> > anytime between 1959 and today .Lets say bluntly,he was an asshole but
our
> > asshole.
>
> You misspelled "USSR."

However, Denyav did peg Irby as an asshole.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >You misspelled "USSR."
> >
>
> Do you think that the persons like Roger Morris and Jim Eichelberger were USSR
> officials?

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

That's the USSR/Russia, not the USA, by any stretch.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> However, Denyav did peg Irby as an asshole.

Actually, Denyav has never said that. Just you, in recent days.

Let's see...

Dozens, if not hundreds of people think Tarver is an idiot/asshole.

Tarver thinks I'm one.

Hmm. Conclusion: I win.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[B2431]

>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

[B2431]

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>Date: 12/14/2003 2:45 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 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.
>
>Don't know where you collected that "information". The most
>impact the "Werewolves" ever had was *before* the surrender,
>and only because they influenced the movement of large numbers
>of US troops, which were diverted to mop-up non-existent but
>feared pockets of resistance in Southern Germany. As a bluff
>they succeeded, as an armed resistance they were a complete
>failure.
>
>In Germany, resistance to the Allied occupation was simply not
>a concern. There were a few isolated incidents, most significantly
>*before* the German surrender (but in occupied territory) and that
>was it. The general attitude to the American occupation was one
>of resignation and relief -- anything better than the Russians.
>
>--
>Emmanuel Gustin
>Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
>Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>
I used the term Werewolves as a generic term to cover all the groups from those
who simply demonstrated to those who threw bombs. I agree the Werewolf program
was supposed to be a bunch of "guerillas" behind Allied lines killing
collaboraters, committing acts of sabotage and killing Allied troops. However
there were any number of people after the surrender who also called themselves
Werewolves and behaved similarly.

I agree with your assesment of their success or lack thereof.

I only attempted a simplification.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>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/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

[Denyav]

>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.

[David Bromage]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Denyav]

>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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Scott MacEachern]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Denyav]

>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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Pete]

"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

[Yama]

"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...

[George Shirley]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Scott MacEachern]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...

> 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

[Yama]

"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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Jarg]

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.

[Denyav]

>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".

[John Keeney]

"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.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:36:28 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Denyav) wrote:
>
>> >You misspelled "USSR."
>> >
>>
>> Do you think that the persons like Roger Morris and Jim Eichelberger were USSR
>> officials?
>
>You were talking about someone having Saddam in his pocket for 30 years.
>
>That's the USSR/Russia, not the USA, by any stretch.

With significant help from France and Germany.

Al Minyard

[Yama]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ...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.

The fact is that he got credit from USA (plus some other support).
Obviously, not enough to cover vast Iraqi war expenses, but he did get some.

As for unpaid Iraqi war loans, interesting piece about it:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_baker_s_trip_18
---
"Germany and the United States, like France, are ready not only for debt
restructuring but also for substantial debt forgiveness toward Iraq (news -
web sites)," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's spokesman Bela Anda said
in a statement.
---

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> The fact is that he got credit from USA (plus some other support).
> Obviously, not enough to cover vast Iraqi war expenses, but he did get some.

So, if someone is upset about the dealings the US had with Iraq, they
should be *furious* at Germany, France, Russia, and China.

But, for some reason, the folks who are complaining about a fifteen year
old deal can't seem to get upset about anything more recent by anyone
else...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Keeney]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ...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.
>
> The fact is that he got credit from USA (plus some other support).
> Obviously, not enough to cover vast Iraqi war expenses, but he did get
some.

Got a URL showing any thing significant?

> As for unpaid Iraqi war loans, interesting piece about it:
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_baker_s_trip_18

Nothing there about the US sending Saddam money.

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...

>
> Got a URL showing any thing significant?
>
> > As for unpaid Iraqi war loans, interesting piece about it:
> >
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_baker_s_trip_18
>
> Nothing there about the US sending Saddam money.
>
>

The bulk of Iraq's foreign debts appear to be

other gulf states ($50 billion)
Russia ($8 billion)
France ($8 billion)
Germany ($5 billion)
Japan ($4 billion)

These figures do not include interest which apparently
already amounts to similar numbers and which is of
course compounding as we speak.

Its was in part Kuwait's suggestion that Iraq repay its
debts that led to the invasion of that nation.

The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines while
trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.

Chutzpah seems an inadequate term somehow.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
>are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
>spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
>that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines while
>trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
>they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.

Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> > writes
> >The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
> >are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
> >spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
> >that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines while
> >trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
> >they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.
>
> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?

Well, the continued enmity of the US can get to be quite expensive in the
long run, for one.

Brooks

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:09:29 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, Keith Willshaw
>> > writes
>> >The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
>> >are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
>> >spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
>> >that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines while
>> >trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
>> >they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.
>>
>> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?
>
>Well, the continued enmity of the US can get to be quite expensive in the
>long run, for one.

Because the US is being so friendly to Russia, France, and Germany at
the moment?

Seriously, what have they got to lose?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?

The concept of "odious debt," which means that a country that has been
under a despot (or external control) is not indebted to the countries
that loaned that despot money. Actually, the question is not whether
those countries even get the *chance* to "forgive" debts, it's a
question of whether the Iraqis decide to just not pay them.

"Odious debt" is a concept, humorously enough, invented by the French
and used in the past.

Who suddenly decided it was a bad idea, er, a few months ago.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:09:29 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> >> > writes
> >> >The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
> >> >are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
> >> >spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
> >> >that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines
while
> >> >trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
> >> >they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.
> >>
> >> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?
> >
> >Well, the continued enmity of the US can get to be quite expensive in the
> >long run, for one.
>
> Because the US is being so friendly to Russia, France, and Germany at
> the moment?

What you want to bet that those nations that get on the Iraqi-debt-reduction
bandwagon end up enjoying more largesse from the US than those who don't?

>
> Seriously, what have they got to lose?

Seriously, continuing to act as they have been of late can get expensive.

Brooks

[John Keeney]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:09:29 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> >> > writes
> >> >The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
> >> >are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
> >> >spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
> >> >that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines
while
> >> >trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
> >> >they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.
> >>
> >> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?
> >
> >Well, the continued enmity of the US can get to be quite expensive in the
> >long run, for one.
>
> Because the US is being so friendly to Russia, France, and Germany at
> the moment?
>
> Seriously, what have they got to lose?

The rebuilding contracts that the Iraqis themselves will be letting
and the next twenty years worth of business there.

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> > writes
>
>>The so called Paris club (I kid you not) of western debtors
>>are insisting that Iraq pay up. So while the US aand Britain are
>>spending lives and billions of dollars stabilising Iraq and rebuilding
>>that nation the Paris club are lecturing piously from the sidelines while
>>trying their dammdest to collect their pound of flesh and insisting
>>they get a share of the reconstruction contracts.
>
>
> Conversely, what incentive do they now have to forgive those debts?

Is that the way it works?

Let's put it another way. What makes them think they'll collect
*anything* if they aren't a little flexible on this issue?


SMH