From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:43:17 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:


>	You know, I really do wish you'd stop believing the propaganda put
>out by your government Brian.  Iraq was _not_ by any stretch of the 
>imagination the "4th largest army in the world".  It was in fact about 6th.
>The world's ranking (by pure numbers in uniform)in 1990 went:

>	1)	China
>	2)	USSR
>	3)	USA
>	4)	India
>	5)	Iran
>	6)	Iraq

>(Source: The World's Military Balance, 1990, SPRI, Stockholm).

Hmm, I seriously doubt this. The US Army has a standing strength of about 
700 000 (slightly less, really) and this number is decreasing. At the time
(1990) it was somewhere around 800 000-. It will propably be correct if 
you looked at total armed forces. From The Military Balance 90-91

	1, China
	2, USSR
	3, India/Vietnam
	5, Iraq
	6, North Korea
	7, USA

Please note that this is standing ARMY strength, i.e. no Air Force, Navy or
Marines. Looking at this list one can easily reach the conclusion that size
doesn't matter.

>	By the time Desert Storm began, the Iraqi forces were in fact out
>numbered by Coalition (some 350,000 Iraqis compared to 450,000 Coalition
>ground forces).

This might very well be true. However, you should keep in mind that it's 
(relatively) easy to count formations (divisions and such) while it's hard
to count people. Saddam sent home some of his soldiers but kept the formations
in the field under strength. So, at full strength the Iraqies had just about
as much as the  Coalition said they had. 

>	Funny, it appeared to me going by reading of what was going on it
>was in fact the USSR which was attempting to avoid a confrontation with the
>US "that would destroy the planet."  If you want to go back and examine each
>of the major "brushfire wars" between 1945 and 1980 (Reagan's assumption to
>power), and look at how they ended, it was usually the USSR which forced the
>beligerents to the negotiating table, not the US.

This is true in a way. It was a political strategy to influence the voters in
the West to accede to USSR demands by giving an image of impending WW III.
It's far easier to understand the Soviets actions if you view them as a kind
of Burkina-Faso with nuclear weapons and paranoia. They most likely knew that
their equipment was (is) crap and had to use other means to reach their goals.

>>					Do you think we went to the Moon
>>because of some desire to better mankind?  No, it was to prove to the USSR
>>our missles were so accurate we could hit any spot we wanted.  And guess
>>what, it worked.  Were still here able to hold this conversation, and the USSR
>>is gone.  It wasn't pretty, but war, be it hot or cold is never pretty.
>>And morality just doesn't have much place in war.  (It's humanity that
>>does, but that's a different issue.)

It was propaganda pure and simple. There's no problem in getting a missile in
orbit around the moon. The problem is getting a man there and home again.
The conflict (the cold war) was an ideological conflict with propaganda (such
as lunar travel) as one weapon.

>	Not really.  Both used Iraq for similar purposes.  The difference was
>that Iraq had to pay in hard, cold cash, to the USSR.  The US gave them 
>things instead.

What do you mean with things?
The US never delivered any arms to Iraq, mainly because most of the Iraqi 
equipment is of French or Soviet origin and can't use US equipment.

>--
>Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
>	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
>will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
>suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

&& This .sig is protected by SIGinfectant(tm). Look for the &&, a sure sign of
quality .sig protection. &&
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm