Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/23/2002 2:29:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 3:53:53 PM EDT by Gunner1X]
Commentary from Worldnetdaily.com July 23, 2002 [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28363[/url] "We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in the world, told stockholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. just 11 weeks ago. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty." What does Warren Buffett, whose major business is insurance, know that you don't know? He probably knows a great deal more than I know. But, because of my position, I'm blessed with intelligence sources. I'm also cursed with them. I don't like to be an alarmist, but withholding information is not in my nature as a newsman. People turn to me for my analysis and my insight into current events. Based on what I know, I believe the next 12 months will be life-changing for many of us. I believe we will see dramatic developments and experience horrors that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison. You've read and heard a great deal about a likely U.S. attack on Iraq. It is coming. I am not giving away any state secrets here. Saddam Hussein knows it is coming, and he is preparing for it. Shortly, some time in the next year, the U.S. will launch an all-out attack on Iraq designed to finish the war we should have finished a decade ago. The objective will be to hunt down Saddam Hussein and his inner circle and kill them all, while simultaneously locating and destroying his growing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has nuclear weapons and will be in a position to mass produce them within a year. Iraq has enormous stockpiles of biological weapons, most hidden beneath mosques and palaces. Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has delivery systems with a 650-kilometer range and, within two years, will be producing its own inter-continental ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000 kilometers. Iraq has terrorists prepared to bring weapons of mass destruction into major cities in the United States and throughout the West. According to my intelligence sources, Baghdad is waiting for the inevitable U.S. attack to launch its suicide bombers and missiles. When the U.S. attacks, a new fiendish, apocalyptic wave of mass destruction and terrorism will begin. The longer the U.S. waits, the more the threat and Iraq's capabilities increase. (edited to clarify source of Commentary)
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 2:30:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2002 5:36:10 PM EDT by Gunner1X]
The attack on Iraq, when it comes, will be severe. It will involve hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. It will make Afghanistan look like a tea party by comparison. It will make the Persian Gulf War look like a dress rehearsal. There will be heavy casualties. Iraq will be hit hard. Casualties will be heavy – including civilians. There's no way around it. This war will not just involve Iraq and the United States. Iran will be involved. Syria will be involved. Other Muslim states are likely to be involved. International terrorists will be unleashed from all corners of the earth. And this war will also come home, my intelligence sources say. Suicide bombers are already here – just waiting for their orders to deploy hand-carried weapons of mass destruction in the United States. Israel and Europe will also be hit hard. Yes, what I am describing sounds like World War III. That's what it will be. Sound like Armageddon? It may well be. As I said, I'm not giving away any state secrets here. The U.S. government is making the necessary plans to fight this war – with one exception. It is not preparing to protect Americans from the destructive wrath of the coming attacks. Therefore, it's up to Americans themselves to be as prepared as they can possibly be for the coming holocaust. We're on our own. The government is making plans for the continuity of government. It's up to us to ensure that there is a continuity of America, a continuity of our families, a continuity of life. There are obvious reasons the government is not telling you what I am telling you. It would be devastating to the economy. People might panic. And, as I said, the government can't protect you – or won't. Could I be wrong? Could my sources be wrong? I surely hope so. I sincerely and fervently pray they are wrong. But the threat is real. Things could get very ugly real fast. - Farah Edited for correct spelling.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 2:35:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:06:15 PM EDT
Lawyer or not, I'll join the army so that I can be the first boy on the block with a confirmed kill. (If my brother doesn't beat me to it - WP class of 2005.)
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:15:03 PM EDT
Show me a terrorist and I'll show you a dead terrorist.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:19:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By green18: Show me a terrorist and I'll show you a dead terrorist.
View Quote
Just point me in the right direction and watch the fur fly....
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:24:45 PM EDT
Good post. We all know it's coming, to what extent, well, ???? Hey Gunner, check your IM.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:32:42 PM EDT
If it was just me I'm ready to rock. But I have a young family to watch over and I have to try and figure a way out of a major metropolitan area. I pray it does not come to a major melt down.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:38:00 PM EDT
I don't buy the argument that they already have WMD's in place in the US. They would have used them already. That said, the rest of it sounds pretty plausible, especially given the attitudes towards america I saw in the islamic foreign students when I was in college. A good number of those in every school, with a small percentage of each group being willing to do the deed, could make for some interesting times. Especially when you factor in that uncle sam doesn't completely want to stop them (since that would remove the motivation for a lot of these nifty new laws were seeing pushed right now).
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:38:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Diss_ipator: If it was just me I'm ready to rock. But I have a young family to watch over and I have to try and figure a way out of a major metropolitan area. I pray it does not come to a major melt down.
View Quote
Find a way out beforehand.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:41:02 PM EDT
Damn, and I was in such a good mood before reading that. I think I'll go load some mags or something.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:41:12 PM EDT
... Yes, actions are definitely being aggressively pursued in anticipation for and averting of the unthinkable. ... You cannot even imagine.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:44:37 PM EDT
A healthy stockpile is a good thing...
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:46:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheKill: Good post. We all know it's coming, to what extent, well, ???? Hey Gunner, check your IM.
View Quote
Check your IM as well.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:48:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 3:56:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunner1X: ...It will involve hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. It will make Afghanistan look like a tea party by comparison
View Quote
Gunner1X, if you are in the new biz, as you say, I'd get out because your "sources" are totally worthless. While military action against Iraq is very likely, it would in no way involve the magnitude of troops you suggest, nor will the fighting be any tougher than Afghanistan. You sources are wildly out of touch with reality, and appear to be very paranoid and alarmist to me. I suggest you refer them to the Star or other supermarket tabloids, and get ahold of someone in the know, instead.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:15:51 PM EDT
I think it will be larger scale than Op Desert Storm. But I don't believe it will become a global nuclear holocaust. Maybe a little "purging" will realign some people's priorities. Humanity will survive and continue.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:25:02 PM EDT
While CNN fearmongers to the left, Worldnetdaily fearmongers just as much to the right. Farah is an asshole--where did he get his information? It's just an alarmist, yellow press kind of story meant to grab your attention. It is meaningless.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:27:04 PM EDT
Only time will tell, all I can say is be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. I'm ready for anything except a nuclear holocaust.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:27:36 PM EDT
i thought this was going to be a thread about glocks. missiles would not reach us with a 3000 kilometer range. maybe he'll just hit france. heh...
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:38:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 4:45:38 PM EDT
I guess these SHTF scenario threads might have merit after all. [:)] I'm going to replace my tin foil hat with Kevlar.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 5:00:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: Ladies and Gents, This sounds legit to me...if you have been following Iraq over the years, they have been in tight with several countries over the years that have sold them all the weapons and technology they wanted
View Quote
Dave, no fundamental change from years before. They had weapons from all over, but no will/skill to use them. Since then, their economy has tanked, and nothing indicates they can do much more than they did before, which is foul their own cage. Keep in mind that hey haven't been able to do a darned thing about the no-fly zone that covers their Sovereign land. Remember they are world known for beating their chest and making a big noise, then running at the first sign of a fight. No reason to raise a panic as Gunner1x sources have done.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 5:06:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2002 5:09:53 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By AlphaBobRI: While military action against Iraq is very likely, it would in no way involve the magnitude of troops you suggest, nor will the fighting be any tougher than Afghanistan. You sources are wildly out of touch with reality,
View Quote
AlphaBobRI I disagree. There will be much more US troops than was used in Desertr Storm. You will not have as many coalition forces as were present in the Gulf War. Most Arab states will not fight along side us and even some of out NATO allies have already expressed their dissatisfaction with our plans on Iraq. The lac of coalition forces will necessitate additional US troops. The primary mission of the 1990 Gulf was to remove Sadam Hussein from Kuwait, not to remove Sadaam from power. When we go back to Iraq it will be with the express purpose of removing Sadaam from power. By definition that necessitates the conquering and subsequent occupation of Iraq, a country 10x the size of Kuwait. The amount of troops necessary to ccomplish this would be much greater than the amount needed for the 1990 Gulf War. Lets also remember that, unlike the 1990 Gulf War, we will be fighting Sadam's entire military forces (not all his forces were deployed in defense of Kuwait in 1990) and doing so on his home turf. We will need a lot more troops than was used in 1990....Now, as to the part about the fighting not being as bad or any worse than that in Afghanistan, you have got to be kidding me. It's going to be a hell of a lot worse than Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 5:12:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 5:28:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AlphaBobRI:
Originally Posted By Gunner1X: ...It will involve hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. It will make Afghanistan look like a tea party by comparison
View Quote
Gunner1X, if you are in the new biz, as you say, I'd get out because your "sources" are totally worthless. While military action against Iraq is very likely, it would in no way involve the magnitude of troops you suggest, nor will the fighting be any tougher than Afghanistan. You sources are wildly out of touch with reality, and appear to be very paranoid and alarmist to me. I suggest you refer them to the Star or other supermarket tabloids, and get ahold of someone in the know, instead.
View Quote
I'm not in the News Biz. This is a copy and paste from Worldnetdaily.com
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 5:57:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChrisLe: I disagree. There will be much more US troops than was used in Desertr Storm.
View Quote
You may be right. Remember that over 500,000 US troops were in the region at that time. But maybe a fifth of that number saw action. The US forces outnumbered the other allies by two to one. So a 50% increase might be necessary to make up for a loss of allied support. You go on to say "The primary mission of the 1990 Gulf was to remove Sadam Hussein from Kuwait, not to remove Sadaam from power." Well, that is partially correct. Another goal was the destruction of the Republican Guard - the best Iraq had to offer. The Guard were deep into Iraq. The US had little trouble defeating them then. Meanwhile Saddam hasn't got anywhere near the strength of arms he had in the past. This is also a war that will be fought on US terms again. Because there is no reason to commit ground troops in any sort of "panic" attack, I just don't see a blood bath as the doom-sayers are claiming here. So I really don't expect the outcome to be significantly different than Afghanistan. Perhaps longer. Saddam Hussein has played his WOMD card before and folded. No doubt he has some nasty stuff left. But don't think for a moment the US (or Israel) is going to let him develop longer range delivery systems. This, may, in fact, be the entire reason for getting into this mess anyway (to put an end to the crap). I suspect he will fold real quick this time and beg the world to let him off the hook again. Keep your cool and don't worry. We are far more likely to die on our way to work tomorrow than be directly impacted by Iraq. (Sadly, you more so than me, due to your line of work). Now Israel, on the other hand, is another story. But they appear to have grown really big stones now that they are willing to destroy apartment buildings to get Hamaas leaders. Bad time to be a Palestinian, I'd say.
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 6:14:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2002 6:15:47 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By AlphaBobRI: Saddam Hussein has played his WOMD card before and folded. No doubt he has some nasty stuff left. But don't think for a moment the US (or Israel) is going to let him develop longer range delivery systems.
View Quote
I would be more concerned with theater specific WOMD delivery systems which we all know he has. You are correct in that he did indeed fold in 1990, but this time may be different. As stated earlier, the UN mandate in 1990 was to free Kuwait, not to kill Sadam (not that we didn't try with bombs). To some extent, Sadam was not too worried about US troops entering Iraq and dethroning him. This time it will be different. He knows we want him and we'll get him. Faced with imminent destruction, I believe he would use WOMD. After all, that's really the only weapon he has that could possibly defeat us if we went into Iraq. He's a dead man either way, so why not go out with a bang.Will he use it? I don't know, but I most definitely would not unilaterally declare that he will fold again just because he did in 1990. The circumstances are very different. This time we're after him specifically and he knows it...
Keep your cool and don't worry. We are far more likely to die on our way to work tomorrow than be directly impacted by Iraq. (Sadly, you more so than me, due to your line of work).
View Quote
Trust me, I'm not worried. I fought in the opening battle of this war (09/11) and will probably be fighting in one of the future battles of this war. I too don't believe its all gloom and doom. I just disagreed with your assessment of the Iraq situation.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/23/2002 6:34:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChrisLe: I most definitely would not unilaterally declare that he will fold again just because he did in 1990. The circumstances are very different. This time we're after him specifically and he knows it...
View Quote
Well, I don't know that there was any reason for him to expect we would stop when we did last time, either. I suspect he was darned scared at the time. However, you are correct...this time is different. Only time will tell. We may both be wrong! Since there is little strategic reason to announce your intentions in advance, I suspect the US is huffing and puffing just as much as Saddam is. Calmer heads may prevail and he may submit to UN inspections again. FWIW, Saddam has made some pretty interesting speeches that seem to indicate he is willing to compromise. He no longer directly refers to the US, but rather third-party "evil forces". That and US diplospeak happen to be the reasons I give "fold" better odds than "blow".
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 10:21:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AlphaBobRI: FWIW, Saddam has made some pretty interesting speeches that seem to indicate he is willing to compromise. He no longer directly refers to the US, but rather third-party "evil forces". That and US diplospeak happen to be the reasons I give "fold" better odds than "blow".
View Quote
Speaking from the perspective of somebody who just might end up in the deserts of Iraq picking sand out of my ass, I prefer your scenario over mine anyday. Here's to Sadam folding! Take care, Chris
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 10:49:52 AM EDT
[size=1](got this from John Farnam's e-mail list)[/size=1] "If you will not fight when you can easily win, without bloodshed, and if you still will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly, you may well come to the moment when you will have no choice but to fight with the odds against you, and you have only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, simply because it is better to perish as warriors than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 11:00:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 11:08:10 AM EDT by Dave_A]
One major flaw in that argument... Saddam does that (uses WMDs), and we won't need to finish the invasion... As per 'Mutually Assured Destruction', just return the favor (hey, aren't we obligated to reduce our nuclear stockpile by 2/3rds? Yo Saddamy, CATCH!)... Using nuclear weapons against the only country that's used them before isn't that smart... I don't think he'll risk anhilating his entire country with a stunt like that... With regards to fighting 'on saddam's terms', we've been developing a host of new SAM and ATS missile/bomb technologies since '90, based on what happened in Desert Storm... Any ground operations would likely be just a longer version of the 'cleanup' operations in DS, and the only way it would get ugly is if we had to do house-to-house fighting, ala WWII. Saddam's airforce is still parked in Iran, and he's been trying to shoot down one of our planes for years (with no success)...
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 12:01:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 12:03:00 PM EDT by USNA91]
Regretably, I don't think we'll ever respond with our own WMD should such weapons be used on us. I just don't think the folks in power will want to deal with the political fallout (pardon the pun). The fact is that we will likely see the end of American life as we've always known it. We will become another Israel; reading about and seeing daily suicide bombings, routine random attacks, and occaissional major strikes. The enemy will strike where we are weakest and where they can hurt us the most. Hospitals, schools, sporting events, polling places, shopping malls, infrastructure. All will be targets. As the dead pile up, the Left will screach the usual inanities about gun control and racial profiling, or (as they seem to be doing now) seek to impeach the president because we busted their gutter-trash idol. If the terrorists pit one group against the other (i.e. - disguised as white supremacists, they machine-gun the yard of a black preschool), the idiots who follow Sharpton, Jackson, and Klan-with-a-tan leader Farahkan will have a field day. The LA riots will look like a picnic. The sad fact is that most of those people are probably looking forward to it. Why am I being so pessimistic? Because I don't see this country having the backbone to strike back and strike back HARD. Deport the Arabs and muslims who are NOT citizens. Review those who are (Don't talk to me about their civil rights until the war is over and WE'VE won! Then we can flail ourselves over our hypocrisy, but we must be ALIVE and FREE to do so!). Respond to violence by decimating THEM and those they care about. I believe that the only way to defeat terrorism is to become a better terrorist than they are. To strike so much sheer horror into their hearts that they will never again even think to challenge the U.S. Bomb one of our malls? We'll flatten one of your neighborhoods. Shoot up one of our schools? We'll obliterate every school in every Arab capital. Blow up a church? We'll scatter Mecca and Medina to the winds so you never have to worry about which way you're facing when you shove your ass up in the air and pretend to pray to a benevolent god. Launch a WMD? We'll vaporize every inhabited square inch of your precious desert. We are fighting fanatics who actually believe that to die while slaughtering innocents is the way to paradise. We're not going to change that. All we can do is to pound them so severly that they see it as a sign that God has foresaken them, and placed us on this earth to apply His wrath. Short of that, the nation (and world) we leave our children will be very different than the one we hoped to leave them, much to their disadvantage. Sorry. I'll stop ranting now..... Edited to add: Dave_A, you have no idea how much I hope that you are right and I am wrong...
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 1:52:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 2:00:06 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By Dave_A: One major flaw in that argument... Saddam does that (uses WMDs), and we won't need to finish the invasion... As per 'Mutually Assured Destruction', just return the favor (hey, aren't we obligated to reduce our nuclear stockpile by 2/3rds? Yo Saddamy, CATCH!)... Using nuclear weapons against the only country that's used them before isn't that smart...
View Quote
The use of nuclear weapons in retaliation is not a black and white issue. You risk bringing the entire arab world into the fight if you use nukes. And, before all you armchair warriors start spouting off "bring em on" stop and consider the consequences of the use of nukes and how the resulting radiation would decimate the Middle East (read: Oil that we desperately need) and Europe. The use of nukes has global consequences....Also, remember that Sadam is dead either way, so why shouldn't he use WOMD? He has shown time and time again that he cares nothing about his people.Hell, he's already gassed his own people, why not gas a few infidels before he dies.... USNA, I fear you are correct in your assessment. There is no way to eradicate them from our soil. The prospect of becoming another Israel sickens me. We do have one advantage that Israel does not, we have natural borders to the East and West and the ability to seal our borders to the North and South restricting the entry to certain nationalities. The question is, how many more terrorist acts must we endure before the liberals wake up and smell the coffee....
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 1:53:45 PM EDT
The oil is buried deep in the ground. I don't think it will hurt anything. Turn the farkin desert to a sheet of glass.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 2:01:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: The oil is buried deep in the ground. I don't think it will hurt anything. Turn the farkin desert to a sheet of glass.
View Quote
Hey, if tactical nukes will minimize fallout, I'm all for it......I just don't think our PC country has the balls to do it as we're more concerned about world opinion than the safety of our people.....
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 2:12:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 2:15:38 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
I was there for desert storm (24ID, 1/41 FA). The fight was a PIECE OF CAKE! The republican guard was easily took. Their equipment and old Russian tactics were what gave us such a huge advantage, and I'm willing to bet it will be about the same again. [b][i]The only problem is this[/b][/i]: If we go in, it could drag other nations into it. That didn't happen last time, but it could have been catastrophic. The guy who wrote this article may not have the details of how a global conflict would happen, but the possibility is there. [b]The next global conflict WILL spark from issues in the middle east.[/b] Just a matter of when.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 2:20:00 PM EDT
I think I'll go buy some more ammo.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:44:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 9:39:06 PM EDT
No, nuclear war isn't a black and white issue... However, our nuclear weapons are only an effective deterrant as long as our (potential) enemies believe we will use them. If we don't respond once, then we might as well forget about it. As for suicide bombers, et al, I agree that the only way to deterr them is to make the consequences to their people/supporters too severe to contemplate (MAD with conventional arms, basically). It seems that Israel is going in this direction too (moving from AH64s firing Hellfires to F-16s and Mavricks) Personally, I'm more worried about Al Queda going nuclear than Saddam, since OBL's thugs have pretty much abandoned their countries, and don't have a 'home' that we can destroy (they just find a new host). Saddam and his soldiers (probably more his soldiers than him) have some twinge of loyalty to (their part of) Iraq, and are less likely to do something that would destroy it. It's 'Dirty Harry' on an international scale, and I certainly hope no one feels lucky today (or tomorrow, for that matter).
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 2:43:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 3:50:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 3:50:59 PM EDT by Gunner1X]
Originally Posted By dragunov: What is the source for this commentary? I can't find it anywhere on worldnetdaily.com. Can you provide the link?
View Quote
Here ya go! [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28363[/url]
Top Top