[ExI] israelis defeat physics

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 15/03/2009 13.41, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:23 AM, spike<spike66 at att.net>  wrote:
>> Saddam didn't comply with UN 1441.  He didn't want to look weak in a
>> dangerous neighborhood.  In retrospect, we now understand that sentiment a
>> lot better than we did then.
>
> It is my impression that basically Saddam has always been manipulated.

Oh. Poor sod.


> - To invade Iran, with little or no advantage for Iraq and on behalf
> of the powers-that-be.

Iraq had a clash with Iran the year before the Sha was outed.
They had (and have) many reasons to go in war. Good reasons? I don't 
think so. But we know this after the fact. Had he won the war, he would 
be considered a successful head of state, great conqueror, etc.

The conflict over the Shat-el-Arab is a conflict over OIL and over 
control on the arab population inside Iran and Iraq and on the shiite 
population inside and outside Iraq.

He miscalculate (not so much) the state of disarray of Iran and of its 
armed forces and overvalued the power of his armed forces.

Not the first or the last of his mistakes.


> - To invade Kuwait in the attempt to pay back the debt foolishly
> underwritted in order to invade Iran ("go ahead, we shall look in the
> other direction").

The US ambassador tell Saddam that, for the US, the border disputes with 
Kuwait were not US matter. He understood that he could invade the Kuwait 
and annext it without anyone doing nothing apart talking.

> - To take foreign citizens hostages, thus alienating 100% of the
> international community and making for the first non-vetoed, unanimous
> significant UN decisions ever, and to... release them after (!), in
> exchange for nothing, when the damage was done and the need to do so,
> if it ever existed, had if anything increased.

This is a standard arab / muslim procedure. To take hostages to force 
people to do things they don't like. Obviusly is a stupid thing to do 
with the wrong people.

> - To resist any reasonable international settlement ("they will never
> attack") and to evacuate Kuwait - "if you do so, I promise the
> Americans will not actually attack", signed Gorbaciov -, surrendering
> a strategic position and allowing the Desert Storm forces an almost
> ideal flank attack to an army in disordered retreat, which had to be
> disposed of having been inflated by the US to the fourth terrestrial
> army in the world;

Reasonable for who?
The psycology of a thugs in a thug's environment is very different from 
the psycology of a lawyer in a lawyer's environment.



> - To accept whatever conditions the western forces imposed on him that
> could weaken his actual ability to resist an attack, only always a
> hair too late, and a hair too imprecisely, thus allowing them to raise
> constantly their demands;

Sometimes people is forced to do things they don't like.
Or do things good in the short term and bad in the long term.



> It is difficult to believe that Saddam Hussein could have done better
> if he had been the CIA chief operative officer in Bagdad... :-)

We know tyrants do stupid things.

Hitler used his army to take Stalingrad, when he could have used them to 
conquer the Urals and the oilfield.
Mussolini went in a war without enough war supplies and weapons to 
actually combat anything. "A few hundred of deads to seat to the table 
of the peace".
Stalin signed a Pact with Hitler (Molotov-Ribbentrop) to divide Poland 
and supposed this would appease Hitler and make him a friend.
Stalin also marched his army in Finland in the 1939 in December and they 
"conquered enough land to bury their fallen soldiers".
FDR let his fleet to sit unguarded in Pearl Harbour and be sunk by the 
Japanese.

The Argentina Generals thinked the Falkland were an easy target and GB 
would not go in war for them.

The USSR thinked Afghanistan would be a piece of cake.
And the Arabs leaders thinked the new state of Israel would be destroyed 
fast and easy. And they continue to think they are able to destroy it.

Mirco