Posted: 3/13/2003 4:26:42 PM EDT
|
Fox news just reported that Iraq is moving troops and artilary to within range of our troops present locations, and surface to surface launchers to the west. Can't locate a link to it yet, will keep looking. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html edited to add link. |
| mattja this is my opinion but I say screw the UN. Mr. Bush is responsible for our troops and he is the one that will answer to the American people for any mistakes made in Iraq. Fox news is reporting that Iraq is also moving scud missiles south. If Iraq does launch a first strike with WOMD while our troops are massed at the Iraq border it may well be devastating to US forces. But again it is not the UN or France's fault if we get caught with our pants down. Mr. Bush is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Mr. Bush should have told France, the UN and all of our supposed friends to go get fucked and then took care of business. If this diplomatic BS causes any American causalities the responsibility lies with Mr. Bush. I will take that one step further and say this applies to both Mr. Bush SR and JR. If SR Bush would have said screw the diplomatic BS of trying to appease everyone and finished what he started in 92 we would not be doing it again. If he would have finished it then there may have been fewer causalities than there is going to be this time around. |
|
tactically speaking, Iraq should have launched a pre-emptive strike in the first gulf war. It would have been effective. This time, however, Iraq will be fucked no matter what they do. I would imagine that almost all US soldiers and weapons are in place and ready to go. |
|
Ever consider the idea that the reason GW hasn't already invaded is that he is hoping Iraq launches a pre emptive strike using WMD, thereby proving he is right in leveling that country? I don't subscribe to that theory personally because I would have a hard time believing that a leader of the U.S. would willfully put that many troops in a position where they are vulnerable. |
|
Quoted: Have any steps been taken that anyone knows of to stop Hussein from flooding southern Iraq? The straight line from Kuwait to Baghdad takes us far to the south and west of the lowlands around Basra. It wouldn't stop us. Terroize the Shiites that live down there, but wouldn't impede us much. |
|
[img]http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapimages/middle_east/iraq/iraq.gif[/img] Hmm, I got my image of Iraq a little distorted. Bagdad is almost due north of Kuwait. The direct rout would require a river crossing. But we got pleanty of room to manuver to west, all the way to the Jordainian border if we have too. And if they doo too good a job of flooding the Basra area, and the lower reaches of the Euprhates, they allow our amphibious craft to float over any minefields and obsticals they might have. Millions of Iraqi civilians dying of thurst would be a bigger problem than a obstical to our troops. |
|
But, if Iraq did strike first, and there were no US casualties, I would consider it a good thing as it would get the ball rolling. Iraq doesn't even have to strike to get the ball rolling. If our forces are being put in peril by nearby Iraqi forces, [i][b]we[/b][/i] have every right to strike first. |
|
Reuters and AP still havent caught up with the fox news channel story. They have nothing about Iraqis moving toward the Kuwait border and Scuds in the western Iraqi desert. CNN has a story agreeing with FNC though: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/13/sprj.irq.pentagon.final.moves/index.html[/url] |
|
I do not want Iraq to attack first. Defeats the purpose of US starting things WITHOUT the damn UN, therby effectively destroying THAT evil! Much better Iraq deliver a SCUD with NBC to Israel. Can you spell glass? Pisses me off every time someone talks about rebuiding Iraq!! It should be enough for us to DESTROY the shithole. Pump it dry for war reparations too. I shall pray for our troops safety. We all should. |
|
That is very flawed logic. Think about it. There's nothing flawed about it – If the Iraqis are allowed to kill American boys in a pre-emptive strike, the President will have a LOT of explaining to do. You don't allow anyone within striking distance of an American aircraft carrier, and you don't allow anyone within arty/missile distance of an American land force. Anyone who crosses that line gets killed. It's that simple. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Iraq doesn't even have to strike to get the ball rolling. If our forces are being put in peril by nearby Iraqi forces, [i][b]we[/b][/i] have every right to strike first. That is very flawed logic. Think about it. The Administration may very well agree with you, Soylent... However, Ariel Sharon & Co most certainly don't... They have no qualms about pre-emptively bombing Iraq (as shown by the great IAF reactor raid) to protect Israel... If enough Scuds end up in Western Iraq (out of range of our troops), they will conclude 'Those things are aimed at us', and the IAF will go Iraqi hunting again... And as we all know, the Israeli Air Force is top notch... |
|
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030313_strike.html[/url] Specific threats Scud missiles in western Iraq where they can fire on Israel CW capable artillery batteries massing near Kuwait border in range of US and Allied Camps. Oil fields in Southern Iraq wired with explosves apparently ready to detonate on a moments notice. |
|
Quoted: I do not want Iraq to attack first. Defeats the purpose of US starting things WITHOUT the damn UN, therby effectively destroying THAT evil! Much better Iraq deliver a SCUD with NBC to Israel. Can you spell glass? Pisses me off every time someone talks about rebuiding Iraq!! It should be enough for us to DESTROY the shithole. Pump it dry for war reparations too. I shall pray for our troops safety. We all should. History repeats itself.... |
|
They used the flooding tactics quite well around Basra during the Iran-Iraq war. Channelled the human wave attacks into a mass slaughter. I hope they don't attack now. I would much rather have Bush just drop all U.N. resolutions and roll. This would get rid of two problems: Iraq and U.N. legitimacy. If they did flood the plains, thus limiting movement, burned the oil wells, and used those GPS jammers all at once, I am sure American casualties would be much migher. Combine that with a few NBC shells. (Which I don't think would happen until the late stages of the war, but I could easily be wrong.) I just hope everyone isn't over-confident due to the last war. Pre-emption is a HUGE part of Sadaam's strategy, as this was used in combination with flooding in the defense of Basra. However this was a selective pre-emption and was used primarily against troops massing or moving against him for the attack. More of an attrition strategy. He would probe, kil some off then retreat and maintain a line. This line was made of regular army troops, with highly mobile republican guard units in reserve moving on specially made roads. Take it for what it's worth. |