use of chemical weapons by Iraq is "100% guaranteed".
10 March 2003, 03:16 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 March 2003, 04:18 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what really is worrying is that if he pulled a stunt like that Bush would use a tactical nuke strike in reprisal.
It could suddenly get more messy than a messy thing from messytown in messyshire
Personally, I think I prefer the 'they will all run away' scenario
It could suddenly get more messy than a messy thing from messytown in messyshire
Personally, I think I prefer the 'they will all run away' scenario
10 March 2003, 04:19 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so by implication, he does still possess chemical and biological weapons then, has been lying all along and has totally ignored 1441.
there's your proof and your smoking gun. though kofi will stick his head in the sand and hans will continue to straddle the fence.
there's your proof and your smoking gun. though kofi will stick his head in the sand and hans will continue to straddle the fence.
10 March 2003, 04:23 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I thought we all kinda new that anyway. So a bit like any other nation with WMD they are deterrants, not to be used except in defence. This is what any of those countries (US,UK,etc) would do if invaded.
10 March 2003, 04:30 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in answer to your point, it was made clear to tariq aziz in 1991 by the joint chiefs that should chemical or biological weapons be used against coalition forces then the iraqis could expect nuclear retaliation.
though the problem is of course, if he's in a lose-lose situation on home turf, what's to stop him choosing the scorched-earth, "sampson" policy?
the only option - not watertight - is the pre-emptive destruction of as many of his delivery mechanisms as possible. i would imagine that's what the special forces pathfinders already inside iraq are planning.
though the problem is of course, if he's in a lose-lose situation on home turf, what's to stop him choosing the scorched-earth, "sampson" policy?
the only option - not watertight - is the pre-emptive destruction of as many of his delivery mechanisms as possible. i would imagine that's what the special forces pathfinders already inside iraq are planning.
10 March 2003, 04:36 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But (broken record time), is it *really* worth the risk??
He's attacked no-one with them in goodness knows how long. I would totally support action if he used any sort of WOMD, at any time, against anyone, ever again. But you can't blame him for threatening to use them if he actually does still have them, if his country is going to be obliterated anyway.
As we stand, this is *still* just a political gesture by the US, to get somebody, anybody, back for 09/11, imo. They missed their chance twelve years ago, and now they want revenge. I don't support the regime in Iraq any more than the next man, but i just don't believe there is any moral justification for what is about to follow.
He's attacked no-one with them in goodness knows how long. I would totally support action if he used any sort of WOMD, at any time, against anyone, ever again. But you can't blame him for threatening to use them if he actually does still have them, if his country is going to be obliterated anyway.
As we stand, this is *still* just a political gesture by the US, to get somebody, anybody, back for 09/11, imo. They missed their chance twelve years ago, and now they want revenge. I don't support the regime in Iraq any more than the next man, but i just don't believe there is any moral justification for what is about to follow.
Trending Topics
10 March 2003, 04:41 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course we all knew it. which is what makes limited inspections such a farce. blix won't find them and we're not going to 'burn' valuable intelligence assets inside iraq to give him a smoking gun without a guarantee by resolution that immediate action follows.
IMO, the inspections are simply a fig leaf for the UN to preserve what little credibility and point it has and for us to pay the requisite diplomatic lip service in advance of the inevitable fight.
but ultimately, if the UN means anything and has any intention of preserving its failing credibility, then 1441 *must* be enforced. otherwise how can it hope to achieve anything with regard to israel and palestine where resolution after resolution remain pathetically unenforced and irrelelvant?
IMO, the inspections are simply a fig leaf for the UN to preserve what little credibility and point it has and for us to pay the requisite diplomatic lip service in advance of the inevitable fight.
but ultimately, if the UN means anything and has any intention of preserving its failing credibility, then 1441 *must* be enforced. otherwise how can it hope to achieve anything with regard to israel and palestine where resolution after resolution remain pathetically unenforced and irrelelvant?
10 March 2003, 04:44 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well makes me feel better about not having a pension still
perhaps if turns out ok i might start thinking about my future properly!
actually ill wait a couple of years for the apocolyptic reprisals by the extremists and then think about a pension!
actually ill should wait another few years after that for a possible launch by north korea
actually fek the pension!
perhaps if turns out ok i might start thinking about my future properly!
actually ill wait a couple of years for the apocolyptic reprisals by the extremists and then think about a pension!
actually ill should wait another few years after that for a possible launch by north korea
actually fek the pension!
10 March 2003, 04:52 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
He was always going to use chemical weapons anyway. He knows this time they are out to get him where as in the Gulf War the alliance wasn't allowed to get him personally, ie remove him from power.
I doubt nukes will be used, I think its more likely the special forces have already pinpointed the missing weapons of mass destruction that are likely to be used on any invading troops.
Don't forget the air war started months ago with the no fly zone enforcement being used as a cover. All current defense sites, land and air, are being targetted and destroyed on a daily basis. The special forces have been in operation in Iraq for a very long time, way before christmas they were involved in pinpointing a major air defense station in the West of Iraq and providing all the intelligence before it was flattened by US and UK air strikes. This had nothing what so ever to do with the no fly zone.
If Bush goes down the nuclear warhead route he knows damn well the Russians and the Chinese will go mental, weather Saddam has used chemical weapons or not on the attacking troops. Its why they are in NBC suits and been training so hard for.
It will be an attack on a foreign city with weapons of mass destruction that are likely to provoke a nuclear strike. Israel is number 1 contender for a dirty missile from Iraq. If this happens the Israelis will not be held back and their retalliation will be totally disproportionate to the attack they receive. When Saddam realises he isn't going to win this one I think he will go out with all guns blazing, he will have nothing to lose personally and will destroy as much and as many people as he can.
I am all for this war even though I think it could go very wrong. Saddam has to be removed from power and the weapons of mass destruction located and destroyed before they are sold off to terrorists.
I just hope the special forces do get to the chemical weapons before they are launched on our troops.
I doubt nukes will be used, I think its more likely the special forces have already pinpointed the missing weapons of mass destruction that are likely to be used on any invading troops.
Don't forget the air war started months ago with the no fly zone enforcement being used as a cover. All current defense sites, land and air, are being targetted and destroyed on a daily basis. The special forces have been in operation in Iraq for a very long time, way before christmas they were involved in pinpointing a major air defense station in the West of Iraq and providing all the intelligence before it was flattened by US and UK air strikes. This had nothing what so ever to do with the no fly zone.
If Bush goes down the nuclear warhead route he knows damn well the Russians and the Chinese will go mental, weather Saddam has used chemical weapons or not on the attacking troops. Its why they are in NBC suits and been training so hard for.
It will be an attack on a foreign city with weapons of mass destruction that are likely to provoke a nuclear strike. Israel is number 1 contender for a dirty missile from Iraq. If this happens the Israelis will not be held back and their retalliation will be totally disproportionate to the attack they receive. When Saddam realises he isn't going to win this one I think he will go out with all guns blazing, he will have nothing to lose personally and will destroy as much and as many people as he can.
I am all for this war even though I think it could go very wrong. Saddam has to be removed from power and the weapons of mass destruction located and destroyed before they are sold off to terrorists.
I just hope the special forces do get to the chemical weapons before they are launched on our troops.
10 March 2003, 04:58 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they (we) missed the chance because the UN would not authorise coalition incursion into iraq. the remit stopped at hoofing him out of kuwait.
it was colin powell and bush snr who nixed invasion then to preserve coalition unity. in part prompted by the unopposed and wholesale destruction of retreating iraqi personnel and armour on the basra road that was going out on all the news networks and was believed to threaten the arab support at the time.
imagine the furore if we had continued to baghdad then? also, i don't think we were ready to do it - from a planning or logistical perspective. it would have been a huge gamble.
the unavoidable fact is that the problem still exists and has to dealt with conclusively. it won't go away and containment is an insufficient long-term solution.
i really don't believe the US has lashed out *****-nilly post 9/11. quite the opposite. it's been a calculated degrading of al qaeda capability: starting with freezing suspect bank accounts; destruction of the training grounds and taliban support in afghanistan; the successful killing or arrest of ranking al qaeda officials; and now nipping the potential WMD supply lines between saddam and what remains of al qaeda.
it was colin powell and bush snr who nixed invasion then to preserve coalition unity. in part prompted by the unopposed and wholesale destruction of retreating iraqi personnel and armour on the basra road that was going out on all the news networks and was believed to threaten the arab support at the time.
imagine the furore if we had continued to baghdad then? also, i don't think we were ready to do it - from a planning or logistical perspective. it would have been a huge gamble.
the unavoidable fact is that the problem still exists and has to dealt with conclusively. it won't go away and containment is an insufficient long-term solution.
i really don't believe the US has lashed out *****-nilly post 9/11. quite the opposite. it's been a calculated degrading of al qaeda capability: starting with freezing suspect bank accounts; destruction of the training grounds and taliban support in afghanistan; the successful killing or arrest of ranking al qaeda officials; and now nipping the potential WMD supply lines between saddam and what remains of al qaeda.
10 March 2003, 05:18 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Holy Ghost I think Stormin' Norman was ready to go all the way to Baghdad, he was told he wasn't authorised to do so though. I think there is a stronger case now anyway of removing Saddam from power. In 1991 it was a case of he must be removed from Kuwait and thats about it.
Now he has openly shown he supports terrorism, and for those who say he doesn't then a good example is why is it widely publicised he pays £25k to any palenstinian family for a suicide bomb attack on Israel?
He has terrorist training camps in the North of Iraq which he says are nothing to do with him. Then in that case why hasn't he made a huge issue and publicly denounced them and closed them down?
He has a large volume of chemical and biological stocks that are unaccounted for and he will not cooperate in stating whats happened to them.
He is thre biggest threat to the Middle East and until he is removed there is no way the Palestinians and the Israelis can thrash out a peace deal.
He will be removed and by the looks of it this time at any cost.
I have said before, whether he is attacked or not London will be the target of a major terrorist attack. Saying that attacking him is only making this possibilty worse is a joke unfortunately. We are an integral part of the West and the terrorists see us alongside the US whether we attack Iraq or not. London will be a victim at some time, a very sad and frightening fact and its exactly why I don't want to work there anymore.
Telboy unfortunatley Saddam is not sitting quiet and doing nothing which is what many people seem to think he is doing. He is actively part of world terrorism and he needs to be stopped. If he was not 'upto anything' then there would be no justification for attacking him.
Another fact that worries me is the revival of the North Korean nuclear programme and North Korean ships being stopped in the Gulf off the coast of Iraq. To me thats to much of a coincidence to be harmless when Saddam is trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. Nothing more North Korea would like to see than someone else do their dirty work for them. Its how the world seems to be revolving now. Get your enemies enemy to be your puppet. Just a thought.
Now he has openly shown he supports terrorism, and for those who say he doesn't then a good example is why is it widely publicised he pays £25k to any palenstinian family for a suicide bomb attack on Israel?
He has terrorist training camps in the North of Iraq which he says are nothing to do with him. Then in that case why hasn't he made a huge issue and publicly denounced them and closed them down?
He has a large volume of chemical and biological stocks that are unaccounted for and he will not cooperate in stating whats happened to them.
He is thre biggest threat to the Middle East and until he is removed there is no way the Palestinians and the Israelis can thrash out a peace deal.
He will be removed and by the looks of it this time at any cost.
I have said before, whether he is attacked or not London will be the target of a major terrorist attack. Saying that attacking him is only making this possibilty worse is a joke unfortunately. We are an integral part of the West and the terrorists see us alongside the US whether we attack Iraq or not. London will be a victim at some time, a very sad and frightening fact and its exactly why I don't want to work there anymore.
Telboy unfortunatley Saddam is not sitting quiet and doing nothing which is what many people seem to think he is doing. He is actively part of world terrorism and he needs to be stopped. If he was not 'upto anything' then there would be no justification for attacking him.
Another fact that worries me is the revival of the North Korean nuclear programme and North Korean ships being stopped in the Gulf off the coast of Iraq. To me thats to much of a coincidence to be harmless when Saddam is trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. Nothing more North Korea would like to see than someone else do their dirty work for them. Its how the world seems to be revolving now. Get your enemies enemy to be your puppet. Just a thought.
10 March 2003, 05:21 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the tree huggers say there is no evidence of WOMD or links to al-quaida.
they want saddham to either launch his supposed WOMD against civilians or to trade with al-quaida for their proof.
A dangerous game....best to get the pre-emptive strike in and to hell with the 100% proof these goddamn tony bennites want
they want saddham to either launch his supposed WOMD against civilians or to trade with al-quaida for their proof.
A dangerous game....best to get the pre-emptive strike in and to hell with the 100% proof these goddamn tony bennites want
10 March 2003, 05:26 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely though if Special Forces / Rangers did know where WOMD are located they could supply that intelligence to the inspectors who would in turn prove the case that Saddam has not complied with 1441.
Do you really believe they already know where they are? I for one prey they do but I don't see how they can.
ub
Do you really believe they already know where they are? I for one prey they do but I don't see how they can.
ub
10 March 2003, 05:28 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sti tree huggers are deaf and blind when it comes to proving someone is a threat. They will turn themseleves off when it comes to saying here is the reason for attack. They just come up with stupid reasons why the war is happening such as the control of oil.
No one needs Iraqs oil that badly, they are the 2nd biggest provider of world oil but out of the whole world supply they are not worth this much trouble for. No Government is that desperate although tree huggers seem to think thats all anyone is interested in.
Tree huggers have good intentions, no denying that, we all want world peace and stability, but being blind to what needs to be done isn't going to help achieve that wish.
No one needs Iraqs oil that badly, they are the 2nd biggest provider of world oil but out of the whole world supply they are not worth this much trouble for. No Government is that desperate although tree huggers seem to think thats all anyone is interested in.
Tree huggers have good intentions, no denying that, we all want world peace and stability, but being blind to what needs to be done isn't going to help achieve that wish.
10 March 2003, 06:29 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think they may come to say London and place some of that gas in the tube or in public places in the USA etc.?
What are the exact effects of sarin gas and anthrax on the human body anyway?
What are the exact effects of sarin gas and anthrax on the human body anyway?
10 March 2003, 08:32 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"An anonymous defector" says Saddam will use chemical weapons,and that information has just been released today.PROPAGANDA mate,dont believe a word of it.
Having said that,having come this far we MUST now invade Iraq,to not do so would be to loose all credibility and hand Saddam a propaganda victory.Its gone too far to back off now
.
11 March 2003, 10:24 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point of no return was passed long ago, I just hope for Tony's sake the war is a success. Whether or not you agree with him or not the guy's got gutts for sure. Whatever happens he will never be able to be without bodyguards now, how many people would do that to themselves, not many I bet. I've never been a fan of his but he has shown himself to be a strong leader and I for one admire him for that
03 October 2003, 03:21 PM
#20
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
And you are suprised by this?
Saddam has been saying all along to the US "bring it on you will lose"
now why would he say that if he did not have something up his sleeve? there are nearly half a million troops on his doorstep, he has no proper army, no heavy armour and no airforce so unless something like this was available to him why would he be egging on the US? hoping to call their bluff maybe! I don't think so the US are going to attck regardless.
If I was a politician I would be asking why this tin pot dictator is still defying the big boys with what they think he has???
[Edited by Wurzel - 3/10/2003 3:23:39 PM]
Saddam has been saying all along to the US "bring it on you will lose"
now why would he say that if he did not have something up his sleeve? there are nearly half a million troops on his doorstep, he has no proper army, no heavy armour and no airforce so unless something like this was available to him why would he be egging on the US? hoping to call their bluff maybe! I don't think so the US are going to attck regardless.
If I was a politician I would be asking why this tin pot dictator is still defying the big boys with what they think he has???
[Edited by Wurzel - 3/10/2003 3:23:39 PM]
03 October 2003, 05:31 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
UB as Holy Ghost has said above, the special forces and MOD/Pentagon arnt going to want to throw away the intelligence they have only for another resolution to be made and broken and then allow Saddam more time to move the units elsewhere.
Its better to know where these things are and to be able to destroy them through military operations then to say we know where they are, send the inspectors there to destroy them and then find they have gone. It would be a waste of time and wouldnt work.
[Edited by ************** - 3/10/2003 6:35:53 PM]
Its better to know where these things are and to be able to destroy them through military operations then to say we know where they are, send the inspectors there to destroy them and then find they have gone. It would be a waste of time and wouldnt work.
[Edited by ************** - 3/10/2003 6:35:53 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post