Hussein said, in a by now famous statement that Iraq will fight with sticks and knives if necessary, and "if the enemy opens the battle on a wide scale, we will open wherever there was sky, land and water on the entire Earth".
Now, one way to look at the latter part of the statement is simply that it's just another form of saying "We are very determined and will not give up easily".
The international media has of course focused on the "wherever there was sky, land and water"-part, trying to enhance the paranoia-value of it and make us think Saddam perhaps will try to hurt everyone in some really, really crazy way, just to go out with a bang.
What are your thoughts? What are his known capabilities?
Does he actually threaten the entire world as of now or was that piece just a figure of speech and this will be "Desert Storm II", another quick operation lasting a few months and then we can go back to business as usual?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Basically his capeabilities, militarily speaking, are limited at best. Unless he deploys chemical weapons, which would increase Allied casualties but not change the course of the war. Most of what he has is old and bought off the USSR. It is not, therefore terribly modern or good. His only dependable troops are the Republican Guard. The most efficient way to deploy them would be around Baghdad and then to tie down Allied forces in street fighting, thereby pushing the casualty rate up- he knows that doing so would have an effect, possibly significant, on Western military and civilian morale. Really, given the superiority of technology and numbers the US/UK forces have the regime doesn't stand a chance. Much has been made of Saddam arming civilians who will fight to the death against the western infidel dogs, etc. I mean please. An effectively untrained civilian armed with an AK-47 and a couple of grenades? Against the US and British armies? I don't think so.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
He could do what he did in 1991, and employ terrorists to carry out his wishes outside his borders. He could possibly supply them with whatever nasty weapons he may possess.
Of course, that he could do this is a big part of what this has all been about in the first place, so if you believe it could happen today, you believe it could happen tomorrow, and you are in effect supporting the US's goals, which would be anathema to a lot of folks.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Just what are those goals agian?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Not that I disagree with your argument, but an effectively untrained civilian armed with an AK-47 and a couple of grenades can kill quite a few folks before being killed his or her self.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Just what are those goals agian?
To prevent that (or at least to make certain that this is his only chance):
quote:He could do what he did in 1991, and employ terrorists to carry out his wishes outside his borders. He could possibly supply them with whatever nasty weapons he may possess.
It's really a simple equation that people still don't seem to be getting:
A (A nation which supports and trains terrorists to act beyond its borders) + B (A nation which possesses and uses WMD) = C (a clear and present danger to just about anybody)
Iraq is known to be A. (Salman Pak, which even the UN knows is a terrorist training camp)
Iraq is well known to have been B, and has made no appreciable effort to show that it is no longer B, it is therefore reasonable to assume it is still B.
It is therefore C.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The United States is A and B for sure, I don't know if it is a clear and present danger to everybody, maybe just some "ne'er do well" countries.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: The United States is A and B for sure, I don't know if it is a clear and present danger to everybody, maybe just some "ne'er do well" countries.
I challenge you to provide clear, non tinfoil-hat citations to back up your assertion of the US as A, and show me a B more recent than 1945.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
For A: The US has supported terrorism in Central America. I don't think anyone can deny this. Remember Iran-Contra? For B: Sorry, I can't help you. We killed tens of thousands of innocent Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that is just as horrible as Saddam killing 5,000 Kurds in 1988.
I am not saying the US is worse that Iraq. For all the things its done, I still love my country. Saddam is a brutal dictator that is quite possibly one of the world's worst leaders. But the US has knowingly funded terror, nuked innocent cities, and done many horrible things.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While reasonable people can disagree on the necessity of using atomic bombs against Japan, the idea that it constituted some sort of unprovoked attack against an innocent bystander is, well, nutty.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"He could do what he did in 1991, and employ terrorists to carry out his wishes outside his borders. He could possibly supply them with whatever nasty weapons he may possess."
I think that's exactly what he meant. He won't limit the war to military clashes on battlefields.
"Of course, that he could do this is a big part of what this has all been about in the first place, so if you believe it could happen today, you believe it could happen tomorrow, and you are in effect supporting the US's goals, which would be anathema to a lot of folks."
Not so. I believe that Hussein most likely has the capability to do these things. I do not, however, think he would do it, w/o provocation, which is exactly what Bush is giving him. After all, he hasn't done anything for the past twelve years. Why would he have started now, if not for what the US is suddenly doing?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Um... didn't he try to assassinate a former President, or something? And did they ever decide whether he was really connected to the first WTC bombing? Oh, and all that material he was gathering to build nukes with, can't forget that. He was gonna do something with the things, no?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Of course, everyone who builds nukes plans on using them as offensive weapons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: While reasonable people can disagree on the necessity of using atomic bombs against Japan, the idea that it constituted some sort of unprovoked attack against an innocent bystander is, well, nutty.
Completely aside from the discussion about Iraq...
Provocation or not, thats rather besides the point. The fact of the matter is, we used a weapon of mass destruction, knowingly on a primarily civilian target, resulting in a non-trivial amount of slaughter.
Thats the kind of thing that gets you sent to war-crimes trials, whether you were "following orders" or not. But only if you lose of course
That aside, at the very least we shouldn't exactly treat it idly as some forgetable trivial incident of the past. 50 years isn't exactly a lot of time in terms of human history. It could very well happen again. No matter what "side" you're on.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Right-o. In essence, saying "It was the right thing to do" is too damn close to saying "We'll do it again at the drop of a hat"...
...While publicly flagellating over one's past misdeeds usually just makes everybody sick...
...And staying ashamedly mum about the past probably is the best indication that you won't do it ever again if you can help it.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Of course, everyone who builds nukes plans on using them as offensive weapons."
Well, the US did, so I guess they just might be able to blissfully ignorantly make that arguement.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Not that I disagree with your argument, but an effectively untrained civilian armed with an AK-47 and a couple of grenades can kill quite a few folks before being killed his or her self.
Not if they run away. Which it's very likely they will.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is a good example of nuclear superstition. Casuality figures for places like Dresden are kind of hard to come by, there being a touch of controversy over them. But, regardless, the tactics used to finish WWII did not greatly differ from those that had been used throughout it. One can argue that this way of fighting a war is nasty and wrong, and certainly that case has been made for more than a few bombing runs. But that's another issue.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Doesn't anyone remember Somalia? Why is everyone so convinced that the Iraqi army or even its civilians will lay down their arms and surrender to the Americans? The citizens in Somalia hated their leaders too, but did in fact fight the American troops.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The citizens in Somalia didn't have any leaders, which was the supposed point to the whole mess in the first place.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Um... didn't he try to assassinate a former President, or something?
Well there is the itsy-bisty thing like you were trying to kill him at the same time. and that was in 1991, he has been pretty quite up until the US started its sabre rattling again. CIA even said he is no threat unless provoked, so hey lets provoke him then we'll get the proof we need. Better tell your children to watch out cause starting tomorrow night, the US will be breeding a whole bunch of little future terrorists.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Only 12 hours, 50 minutes to go...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or more, if the dust storms on Kuwait keep the choppers down. Ah, the joys of war-via-CNN...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Or perhaps less, since CNN now reports that there are "troop movements"...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
They're just stirring and wriggling a bit, that sand gets in everywhere.
"Sir, I can't shoot, Sir! My cuticles are all dry and cracked!" "Medic! Get that man some moisturizer, damnit!"
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Military experts estimate that if the U.S. were to go to war, the number of soldiers injured could reach into the high single digits. If we were to invade another nation, there would definitely be some sprained ankles and pulled calf muscles. Soldiers must move carefully and take every step slowly, and be sure to stretch for at least 10 minutes before strenuous fighting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: Well there is the itsy-bisty thing like you were trying to kill him at the same time. and that was in 1991,
WRONG.
On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting an assassination attempt against former President Bush as he visited Kuwait that month.
Your historical knowledge matches your political knowledge.
quote:Better tell your children to watch out cause starting tomorrow night, the US will be breeding a whole bunch of little future terrorists.
Aw, shucks. We already did that when we invaded Afghanistan and the 'arab street' exploded, remember?
And of course, we're doing it again by having the AUDACITY to actually HUNT DOWN Al-Qaeda members.
"Hey! The Americans are stomping on terrorists and dictators! Where do I sign up? Plant a boot in my ass!"
Man, if that's not a rallying call...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Hunting down Al-Qaeda members in Iraq are we? Come now, even Mr. Bush syas we're going after Al-Qaeda type organizations.
Al-Queda type is a classic misdirection though. He says that so people can make a mental jump but Mr. Bush can deny that he ever said Al-Qaeda is really in Iraq.
Another thing about this war that has no basis in fact.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't say hunting down Al-Qaeda members in Iraq, although there's no doubt that they are there, only doubt as to whether Hussein is actively supporting them or not.
We (along with our allies) are still hunting them on a global basis. Three more were just arrested in the UK. We're still catching them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for those with short memories we got that #2 or 3 guy in Pakistan a few weeks ago?
So these people who tell you that we're 'ignoring' or 'forgetting about' Al-Qaeda, they're, well, there's no other way to put it, lying through their teeth. Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Now with under 3 hours to go it seems that war is likely tonight...however Bush could call it off until tomorrow due to weather. I guess we'll have to wait until the deadline passes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If It's 8 PM here, what time is it in Iraq? I suspect that no attack will begin before it's dark there.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I'm definately going to be watching the news in a few minutes. This is going to be a historical event. But not a good one... well Bush might think it is. The bombing campaign is supposed to me more intense than desert storm. what are they going to call this operation? They've taken desert storm, desert fox, and desert shield i believe. I'd like to know if i'm missing one...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
8 PM EST will be 4 AM in Iraq. About the time Gulf War 1 statrted. Bombing on Jan. 17, 1991 started on a Thursday morning, or a Wednesday night in the States.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The deadline passed more than 30 minutes ago...no bombing yet, but the sandstorms have died down, so I guess we'll have to stay tuned throughout the night.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It's started. At dawn, naturally.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Explosions heard in Baghdad...nothing on TV now but moments ago there was.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
News says US launched a surgical strike against Iraqi leaders. They said that it was now or ever basically, since the intel would be outdated in a few hours. So they struck.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It should probably be mentioned that the attack started well before the 48 hours expired. We started blowing up Iraqi artillery bases that were in range to attack the US soldiers in Kuwait. That was sometime before 7:30 EST or so, which is when I first read about it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ture, but there's something of a difference between destroying units that are moving into position to attack your forces, and actually executing the attack for which the deadline was in place.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Uh, no-fly zone?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Uh-oh. Iraq has airborne artillery? Duck and cover!
(Well, I guess it did get briefly airborne last night...)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)