Saddam as The Grand Commander
____________________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration continuously suggests that the hostile acts against US forces
are the result of the command and control of Saddam.
In my opinion, there are numerous separate and independent organizations in Iraq.
All these different organizations have only one thing in common.
And we know what that is.
____________________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "William Boyd" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam as The Grand Commander |
23 Nov 2003 09:14:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Saddam as The Grand Commander
____________________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration continuously suggests that the hostile acts against US forces
are the result of the command and control of Saddam.
In my opinion, there are numerous separate and independent organizations in Iraq.
All these different organizations have only one thing in common.
And we know what that is.
____________________________________________________________________________
There is not a chance that Saddam is commanding any thing, he does
not have the ability to command. He might be the head of one of the
bands of rebels, but he will have one of his henchman thugs doing
the commanding. He will be doing the dictating. Looking at the
remainder of the card deck he might have one or two of those thugs
leading a couple of other groups. But for the most part I think they
are Mercenary groups with riches in mind. The best way out of this
Iraqi Quagmire is to get Saddam, who is probably considered to be
the Financier of all resistance forces, with him gone, goes the
wantabes.
--
Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,13 Campaigns Vietnam, Life
Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Karl_Sigerist_Sr=A9?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam as The Grand Commander |
25 Nov 2003 01:47:47 AM |
|
|
"William Boyd" wrote in message
wrote:
Saddam as The Grand Commander
____________________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration continuously suggests that the hostile acts
against US forces
are the result of the command and control of Saddam.
In my opinion, there are numerous separate and independent
organizations in Iraq.
All these different organizations have only one thing in common.
And we know what that is.
____________________________________________________________________________
There is not a chance that Saddam is commanding any thing, he does
not have the ability to command. He might be the head of one of the
bands of rebels, but he will have one of his henchman thugs doing
the commanding. He will be doing the dictating. Looking at the
remainder of the card deck he might have one or two of those thugs
leading a couple of other groups. But for the most part I think they
are Mercenary groups with riches in mind. The best way out of this
Iraqi Quagmire is to get Saddam, who is probably considered to be
the Financier of all resistance forces, with him gone, goes the
wantabes.
It is completely irrelevant if Saddam or someone else commanded the
hostile acts against the (USA / UK, coalition ) "they" are "invaders",
until the
invaders admit that they invaded illegally a country, things will only
get worse not better. While the invaders in the beginning had some
creditability they lost most of it by their action. To call the defenders
of their
country terrorist is like to call the defenders of Hawaii (US Navy) in 1941
terrorist,
this is simply laughable, or a sign of a nations who lost completely their
sense
of balance.
It is Vietnam all over again stupid
---
KarlSr©
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald L Ferrt" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam as The Grand Commander |
25 Nov 2003 08:17:06 AM |
|
|
Karl Sigerist Sr© <snrkarel@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<bpv1si$1s7hr3$1@ID-14103.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"William Boyd" wrote in message
wrote:
Saddam as The Grand Commander
____________________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration continuously suggests that the hostile acts
against US forces
are the result of the command and control of Saddam.
In my opinion, there are numerous separate and independent
organizations in Iraq.
All these different organizations have only one thing in common.
And we know what that is.
____________________________________________________________________________
There is not a chance that Saddam is commanding any thing, he does
not have the ability to command. He might be the head of one of the
bands of rebels, but he will have one of his henchman thugs doing
the commanding. He will be doing the dictating. Looking at the
remainder of the card deck he might have one or two of those thugs
leading a couple of other groups. But for the most part I think they
are Mercenary groups with riches in mind. The best way out of this
Iraqi Quagmire is to get Saddam, who is probably considered to be
the Financier of all resistance forces, with him gone, goes the
wantabes.
It is completely irrelevant if Saddam or someone else commanded the
hostile acts against the (USA / UK, coalition ) "they" are "invaders",
until the
invaders admit that they invaded illegally a country, things will only
get worse not better. While the invaders in the beginning had some
creditability they lost most of it by their action. To call the defenders
of their
country terrorist is like to call the defenders of Hawaii (US Navy) in 1941
terrorist,
this is simply laughable, or a sign of a nations who lost completely their
sense
of balance.
It is Vietnam all over again stupid
---
KarlSr©
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=3887722
Headline:
U.S. Seen Making Mistakes of Past Colonizers
Tue November 25, 2003 06:54 AM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Andrew Hammond
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. efforts to give Iraqi Sunni Muslims more
involvement in running the country in a bid to quell resistance in
Sunni areas may just deepen resentment toward the occupying powers,
analysts say.
"The main trick of any colonial power in the world is divide and rule.
We know it: they are trying to divide us," said Wamid Nazmy, a
politics professor at Baghdad University.
"Now the Americans and the British are speaking about Sunni grievances
because there is resistance in the Sunni area, so they want to bring
them into the cabinet or the ruling council just to satisfy them."
The U.S.-led administration set up Iraq's Governing Council in July as
a first step toward a sovereign government after U.S.-led forces
toppled Saddam Hussein in April. The Council contains a majority of
Shi'ites, Iraq's largest religious community which suffered decades of
repression under Saddam.
But a growing insurgency, which has claimed 185 U.S. lives since May
1, has been concentrated in the Sunni heartland of the country and the
coalition authorities have said the Council will now be "reaching out"
more to Sunni Arabs.
Political analyst Saad Jawad said history was repeating itself. "When
the British came to Iraq in the First World War they made the mistake
of giving power to the Sunni community," he said, noting the British
soon faced rebellion.
"The Americans are making the same mistake. The problem is not who is
Sunni or Shi'ite, the problem is Iraqis would like to see the best
qualified people and don't mind who they are."
As well as leaning on Shi'ites, Washington filled the interim Iraqi
authorities with exiles who opposed the Baath regime from abroad and
found favor with the United States.
"The majority of people in Iraq don't accept the leadership of people
coming from abroad, even if they are good people," Jawad said. "The
people who lived here suffered the wars and sanctions, unlike exiles
who were all the time outside and 99 percent of whom are seen as
American stooges."
IRAQIS SUSPECT CRONYISM
Apart from the perception among many Iraqis of ill-judged U.S.
attempts to adjust the balance of religious groups in the Council,
some observers see suspected cronyism among its own members as
potentially further undermining the body's authority. Continued ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam as The Grand Commander |
24 Nov 2003 02:38:43 AM |
|
|
Saddam is still the man issuing the orders,
that hasn't changed.
Tony
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up, who will turn
their attention to the prophecies, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
Sir Isaac Newton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam as The Grand Commander |
24 Nov 2003 04:54:27 PM |
|
|
William Boyd <Hoppy@Cowboy.net> wrote in message news:<bprt2k$1rpq85$1@ID-207120.news.uni-berlin.de>...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Saddam as The Grand Commander
____________________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration continuously suggests that the hostile acts against US forces
are the result of the command and control of Saddam.
In my opinion, there are numerous separate and independent organizations in Iraq.
All these different organizations have only one thing in common.
And we know what that is.
____________________________________________________________________________
There is not a chance that Saddam is commanding any thing, he does
not have the ability to command. He might be the head of one of the
bands of rebels, but he will have one of his henchman thugs doing
the commanding. He will be doing the dictating. Looking at the
remainder of the card deck he might have one or two of those thugs
leading a couple of other groups. But for the most part I think they
are Mercenary groups with riches in mind. The best way out of this
Iraqi Quagmire is to get Saddam, who is probably considered to be
the Financier of all resistance forces, with him gone, goes the
wantabes.
Would that it would be true, I think the rebel forces that have
arrived would probably pay for the chance, to advance their Jihadi
cause, this is more an anti West/invasion thing than just doing a
Saddam says campaign. It hasn't damaged Saddam's standing too much
either.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
