posted
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?
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, everyone who builds nukes plans on using them as offensive weapons.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
