posted on July 12, 2002 05:12:34 AM new
If the US starts massing a large force to invade Iraq this time Saddam knows they are coming all the way for him so there is no point in retraint. I predict there will be massive casualties because he will use his WOMD on the invasion force before it crosses the border.
That will also play into the hands of the US because it frees them from the retraint of using nuclear and other exotic weapons that they keep up for public appearance.
Indeed they may be hoping for such an attack to free their hands because winning withy all their weapons on the board will be easier than just using manpower.
Of course the forward force wiped out by gas or nuclear attack will not appreciate the advantage of it. I really doubt they will go to the extreme inconvenience of dispersing their forces in assembly to reduce the target for such a strike.
posted on July 12, 2002 09:56:28 AM new
gravid - I wondered why we would announce our plans too. Kind of like 'get ready, here we come'. But from what I've read this appears to be having some degree of success.
An article I read was saying that because of this threat being taken serious, some of those in high government positions [in Iraq] are starting to discuss removing Saddam from office. And not replacing him with his son. So.. point being that maybe this gives the people some time to decide if they want to support Saddam or if they want to have someone else in office that will work better with the UN/US requests. ????
posted on July 12, 2002 10:31:19 AM new
That sounds reasonable - but look at all they have been through before and it never motivated anyone to dispose him. But who knows maybe after enough cycles thay will say we can't stand being bombed to rubble and fighting another war again. Of course they don't view it as having lost the war before you know. They see it as they held the US back and retained power and the US had to go home without winning.
posted on July 12, 2002 10:47:06 AM new
Don't know if the links included in this article will work or not, but this is what I'd read. Sorry...sometimes webtv doesn't let one copy & paste the url.
The article:
The Battle Lines
Today's Times of London is full of stories about the impending war against Saddam Hussein's regime. The paper reports:
Jordan, one of the few nations to support Saddam in the 1990-91 Gulf War, has agreed to allow the U.S. to use bases on its soil, though only for "defensive and humanitarian operations."
Ninety exiled Iraqi generals are meeting in London this week to discuss how to remove Saddam.
Iraqi defectors say Saddam "has made important progress in developing weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of people," although he "poses no real nuclear threat for the moment."
Saddam's conventional forces, however, are "depleted." "The army, once the most powerful fighting force in the Arab world, barely functions. . . . The army's rank-and-file, which fought doggedly to defend Iraq during the war with Iran, is demoralised and unlikely to offer much resistance, according to well-placed sources in Iraq."
When do we invade? January, according to yesterday's Times.
[yesterday being 7-11]
Spies on the ground there now trying to destablize and a Jan. or Feb. invasion - and they drew the same conclusion I did that knowing the goal is to sweep him out there is no restraint and he might use everything with massive loss of life. That will require more preparation and slower going. They expect Turkey and Israel to be attacked also.
fixed link
[ edited by gravid on Jul 12, 2002 12:43 PM ]
