posted on February 13, 2003 04:24:04 PM new
If the weapons inspectors don't find anything in Iraq, and the U.S. still goes to war with them, what will they be striking in Iraq if the aim is to get rid of Saddam?
posted on February 13, 2003 04:52:01 PM new
Just read they won't hit bridges and phone systems so the people can see they have the interests of the masses at heart.
Wish they'd try to convince us of the same things with their actions here............
Guess that leaves kabob vendors and taxi stands...
posted on February 13, 2003 04:59:43 PM new
Whatever the targets, they will be striking innocent men, women and children.
Death and destruction in Iraq. The UN is preparing for half a million Iraqi casualties (see the leaked internal UN document at http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210scanned.pdf Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War -- winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 -- estimates a possible half million deaths (assuming no nuclear weapons are used; see "Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq - Report," http://www.medact.org/tbx/docs/Medact%20Iraq%20report_final3.pdfAnd despite claims that the attackers will be careful to avoid "collateral damage," the British Defense Ministry "admitted the electricity system that powers water and sanitation for the Iraqi people could be a military target, despite warnings that its destruction would cause a humanitarian tragedy." (Independent, Feb. 2, 2003)
posted on February 13, 2003 05:36:16 PM new
Targets, in addition to roads, bridges, weapons factories, health care facilities, warehouses, homes are, (according to one of the pdf links above are )
There will probably be a series of sustained and
devastating air attacks on all the main facilities that
enable the regime to maintain its survival, including
government ministries; air defences; air force and army
bases; command, control and communications
facilities; any manufacturing facility that has a defence
connection; the national electricity supply system;
transport; fuel storage; administrative centres; and all
other civil activities with a war-support element.The
targets will be located not only in Baghdad, but in
other cities where Saddam’s military assets and elite
forces have already been dispersed and disguised.
posted on February 13, 2003 06:51:00 PM new
Heard the other day that the first wave of bombs into Iraq would be these E-Bombs. They would cut off communication between command & field troops. I figured it would be a form of EMP (electro magnetic pulse), but thought an EMP could only be generated by a triggering of a nuclear device. So I looked up the E-Bomb & found it is possible to create a EMP
without a nuke.
posted on February 13, 2003 07:17:23 PM new
The war plan
Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, strike aircraft and B-
52 bombers would be used, the latter probably
operating from the UK.This will follow the pattern
developed in the Gulf War and also used against
Serbia and, to some extent, Afghanistan. Precisionguided
conventional weapons will be supplemented
by specialised weapons designed to destroy electricity
supply networks and computers. In addition, areaimpact
munitions, designed to damage and destroy
‘soft’ targets including people, will cause substantial
damage.
(2) The second element of the campaign will
probably be the landing of ground and amphibious
forces to seize the oil-producing region around Basra
and the south-east, cutting the regime off from its
most important oil supplies. Heavy bombardment
and fierce combat are likely.
(3) US and allied troops will attempt to acquire and
maintain control of the Kurdish region of North
Iraq. Preparations started early this year with US
military engineers repairing and upgrading at least
three airfields there to operate a range of attack and
transport helicopters and aircraft.The base at Zakho
is within 200 km of the major northern oil fields,
including the important ones around Kirkuk. There
are around 5000 troops in the region, including
Turkish army brigades as well as US special forces.
These operations may possibly be paralleled with
forces inserted into the western desert from Jordan.
Both actions, in south and north, are likely to be
opposed by the regime; massive and continual use of
air strikes to limit US casualties would cause many
civilian deaths and much damage.The US has made
agreements with Kurdish leaders to ensure the local
militias’ support, but civil war could erupt in these
anarchic conditions, as well as Turkish incursions.
(4) After the major part of the air war and after the
regime is cut off from its oil, rapid deployment forces
would move towards Baghdad, to force the regime to
commit its elite Special Republican Guard and other
units to the city’s defence. This would expose the
Iraqis to ferocious air attacks with precision-guided
munitions, carpet bombing and area-impact
munitions. Many of the 375,000-strong Iraqi army
are ill-equipped, ineffective and probably unwilling
to fight, and will largely be left alone, to form the
basis of a peacekeeping force under a new regime.
As in the 1991 war, many of the 80,000 reliable core
troops will be held back in Baghdad to fight for
‘regime survival’, Saddam Hussein’s primary goal.
They probably depend on regime survival for their
own long-term well-being. They may be dispersed
among the sprawling urban areas of the city, making
occupation extremely difficult without causing
numerous civilian casualties among its five million
people. Even ordinary Iraqi citizens who might
desire the end of the regime may be unwelcoming to
foreign invaders in the aftermath of air attacks that
have taken innocent lives and wrecked homes and
schools. Their non-cooperation with the invaders
could prolong the fighting.
The US hope is that within days Iraqi military
communications will be defunct, the regime will be
cut off from its oil supplies, and Saddam’s elite forces
will be disintegrating; and that the regime will be
finished within weeks and replaced by an acceptable
leadership. Even if this ‘best case’ occurs, damage to
health and the environment will be massive and the
effects will be felt by ordinary people for months and
years to come. Furthermore, although the regime
faces overwhelming military opposition, it has a
number of options available that could cause further
harm. It may seek to make the war as difficult and
protracted as possible, even allowing US troops into
Baghdad to maximise US casualties and increase
political pressure for a withdrawal. All the following
options are possible, and most will probably be used
if the regime survives the initial onslaught and is
cornered.
• Selective use of chemical and biological weapons,
which will force US troops to fight in cumbersome
protection suits.
• Destruction of oil fields, firing oil wells and possibly
using radiological or chemical missiles to pollute
the sites.
• Paramilitary attacks on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields,
pipelines and facilities and possibly transit routes
such as the Suez Canal.
• Paramilitary attacks on civilian centres in Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.
• Paramilitary attacks on targets in the US, UK and
other Coalition countries (some health professionals
in the UK and US are to be vaccinated against
smallpox in anticipation of such action).
• In extreme circumstances where the regime faces its
own termination, more substantial use of chemical
and biological weapons including targeting of US
bases in north Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait, and perhaps
Israel, in the latter case instigating nuclear counterstrikes.
collateral
counterstrikes.
Ariel Sharon has already expressed his
readiness to retaliate and the UK has not ruled it
out:‘In the right conditions we would be willing to
use our nuclear weapons,’ defence minister Geoff
Hoon said in March 2002.
Even if this scenario is not played out in full, it
suggests that a short, clinical campaign to effect
regime change is wishful thinking. ‘This will not be
another Vietnam or Korea, but casualties could be
significantly greater on all sides than in the 1991 Gulf
War,’ says Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign
policy studies at the Brookings Institution.‘To count
on an easy victory...is unsupported by the available
evidence and by the methodologies of combat
prediction’ (O’Hanlon 2002b). A war against Iraq
carries formidable risks: it could result in substantial
civilian casualties and lead to the use of weapons of
mass destruction. If the regime does not collapse
quickly, scenarios become increasingly risky and less
easy to predict or control. As Tony Blair notes in his
‘dossier’ Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (HMG,
2002), ‘In today’s interdependent world, a major
regional conflict does not stay confined to the region
in question.’
Many questions remain unanswered about the
aftermath and the likelihood of installing a stable new
regime.The current problems of Afghanistan provide
a reminder of the huge investment required to
rebuild a shattered country and lay new foundations
of democracy and justice, and the reluctance of the
global community to support such long-term
development. Scholars note the fractured nature of
Iraqi society; Jabar predicts that the demise of the
regime, however welcome, ‘will unleash latent,
uncontrollable institutional and social forces besides
which fantasy will pale. The very removal process
may well prove too costly, or degenerate into chaos’
(Jabar 2002). Civil war is a real possibility,
exacerbating the economic and social collapse
triggered by the war, displacing yet more people and
leading to famine and many deaths. The already
volatile Middle Eastern and Central Asian regions
could be further destabilised, stirred up by further
paramilitary action supported by many who will
resent ‘Western control’, and increasing the
likelihood of terrorist attacks on western targets.
The developed world may pay heavily for the war,
not only in the direct costs of war, aid and
reconstruction, but through the recession that the
war could precipitate. Soaring oil prices are likely to
have harmful effects on already fragile stock markets.
This in turn would have a calamitous impact on the
economies of developing countries.
posted on February 13, 2003 07:50:20 PM new
Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israeli's used nukes on Iraq and everyone assumed it was the US?
All sorts of possibilities.....
* Saddam really has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, then what a hideous mistake we will have made and we will all be damned to Hell for it.
* Saddam has moved Weapons of Mass Destruction completely out of the country and into the hands of terrorists and terrorist nations, we can expect retaliation on a giant scale for many years to come right here at home. What is served by attacking Iraq and Saddam then?
* Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction on hand, then our troops will certainly get decimated as Saddam uses Weapons of Mass Destruction on them to DEFEND Iraq from American imperalist agression! Will it be worth the body count?
* Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is holding onto them for his own defence. but once dead, terrorists can simply walk across the boarder and take whatever they need. Think of Osama bin-Laden and Al-Queda with bioweapons and nukes.
* Saddam has moved Weapons of Mass Destruction both out of the country and kept some to decimate US troops with (your sons and daughters, BTW). After Saddam is gone, other dangerous nations with REAL ties to Al-Queda and Hamas will have hold of those Weapons of Mass Destruction and will likely distribute them as they see fit.
* No matter how we handle this in an agressive fashion, the Islamic world will never forgive us. Remember that these countries are fighting and killing each other for grievances going back thousands of years. Don't expect a single one of them to forget anytime soon just Who the enemy of Islam really is.
posted on February 14, 2003 03:40:05 AM new
Borillar,
So your saying we should wait till some other country or group uses such weapons against us. Your saying we should cringe in fear at the unforgiving, unforgetting Islamic world? Your saying we shouldn't fight for a better world because we may take loses?
Many were against the second World War for some of the very same ideas.
We did what had to be done then and we'll do what has to be done today. It's not a good thing but may be necessary.
What are the targets? I'm not a military strategist but figure it will be a pin pointed attach on first line defense and areas known from reconnaissance to be storage or manufacturing sites.
posted on February 14, 2003 09:46:26 AM new
from the article.....well-stated,
Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
posted on February 14, 2003 11:56:36 AM new
>So your saying we should wait till some other country or group uses such weapons against us.
Colin, if we aren't a bunch of loudmouth jackasses trying to bully and push everyone around on the playground, no one would want to do that to us.
>Your saying we should cringe in fear at the unforgiving, unforgetting Islamic world?
Let's not comment on your lack of knowledge about Islam and the Islamic world. If we did not act like the world's Super-Bully and go TELLING other countries what to do, none of us would have to worry about anything at all from Islam. As it is, at least these folks have the balls to stand up to Bush and tell him where to stick it! Unfortunately, because of Bush's total inadequacy and his handler's very poor understanding of diplomacy and how the world really works, it is WE who he is putting into Harm's Way!
>Your saying we shouldn't fight for a better world because we may take loses?
I'm saying that we ought to go take out Saddam. I have been saying that. But I refuse to not acknowledge that it will cost us dearly in terms of pride, righteousness, and will make us all guilty of War Crimes against innocent people.
My point above is that we should drop the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction and simply go in there and get Saddam, his family and his cronies and kill them all. Either that, or face a Third World War because Bush keeps pushing us towards one.
We could become Oil Independent, but Bush and his Oil buddies would rather take over the Oil fields of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan's northern neighbors.
If you think that Islam hates us now, just wait until we go in to kill innocents in each of those countries. Don't think for an instant that Bush and Co. hasn't had this all planned out since BEFORE he stole office! We've shown on here before several times that he/they have. What does THAT tell you?
posted on February 14, 2003 01:36:48 PM new
Helen, as always, thanks for your great links! Very interesting stuff but it seems so scattered as to who the 'enemy' is. Like Borillar says, the original plan was to take out Saddam, not Iraq. I don't know of anyone who doesn't want him ousted, but now the expense to the Iraqi and U.S. citizens is gathering momentum while Saddam's sitting on his throne laughing. He doesn't care about the welfare of his people. If bombed, he'll probably be sitting on another throne in some elaborate underground palace until he can make his getaway. All that destruction for that?
posted on February 14, 2003 02:15:17 PM new
I'm just not REAL convinced they all love us and are just waiting to be liberated so they can wear blue jeans and drink Pepsi.
The guys that go in might have a real rude awakening that all the stratagists won't have to share.
