Attack Saddam and I'm a dead man

[G-Man]

As you may know and may not know, Saddam has chemical weapons (he used them against Iran and against rebels) and he has SCUDs that can hit Israel (used them in desert storm). What does it mean? It means that if he feels threatend by you guys, he'll give me anthrax. Israel has "hetz" missiles, but not enough to stop all the scuds. So, if anyone feels like attacking Iraq, and appearantly Bush feels like it, you better take over their weapons of mass destruction before you start to shoot your cruise missiles.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I guess today there are a lot of psycho rulers who are getting weapons of mass destruction.We are heading to a dangerous world if we don't do something about that.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders:<br /><strong>We are heading to a dangerous world if we don't do something about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, you're heading for a dangerous world. I'm heading nowhere <img src="icon9.gif" border="0"> <br />Let's see who can lose what in this war:<br />Iraq/Afghanistan - only the goverment. Probably very low civilian casualties.<br />USA/NATO - only soldiers. The terrorists are already doing whatever they can to hurt you so I don't think the war will make more attacks on the NATO countries. The soldiers can always be withdrawd.<br />Israel - best scenario - end to fanatic Islamic terrorism (yeah, right)<br />worst scenario - Were dead. Were all dead.

Alright, so I have this alien looking thing that I put on my head and supposed to help me stay alive.<br />In this times I'm more then willing to worship the Israeli pilot that destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor.

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

I spent a good part of the gulf war in Iraq. Not necessarily in the KTO, either. You don't need to know where or what, and mostly, it was no action, boring as hell, but an essential job.

Two points:

(1) Saddam had badly ****ed up his handling and storage of these munitions, and the lethality was far less than they would have had if properly stored. A significant portion of his BCW capacity was destroyed, a significant portion wasn't. Given his limited funding sources, and his rebuild of his conventional forces, it's not likely that he has fully rebuilt his BCW arsenals to pre-gulf war levels.

(2) Over the course of the gulf war, the allies refined their SCUD hunting techniques. This time, if Iraq is the target, we won't have an arbitrary division of the country into KTO and the rest of the country, and in a scenario calling for the destruction of Hussein's rule and the Iraqi military capacity, the higher level of desperation on Hussein's part is well recognized. More JSTARS, more SOF's on the ground all over the country, more strike aircraft all over the country waiting for designation of SCUD launchers will be an immediate priority in any full scale operation agaisnt Iraq, if such an operation is undertaken.

 

[amadeus]

Not attacking Saddam would be the mistake. We did it in ten years ago under G.B. Sr, and I see no reason why we can't do it now.

 

[SunTzu]

I doubt Saddam will launch Chemical weapons are any other weapons of mass destruction. He'll launch scuds. But thats it. Do we still have well our Patriot Missle Batteries in Israel? If not i think we should give you ALOT of them. Since your our ally in the middle of a sea of enemies.

 

[BlueMonday]

Didn't the UN destroy all his bio-chemical weapons? I'm sure he's got one or two hidden in some wet cave in the middle of the desert; but one or two would barely do anything.

Also, I don't think Saddam is a total idiot and would try to use them. He could've used them in the Gulf but didn't because he knew if he used his, we'd use ours (and since we have millions of tons of various agents, he'd have his ass handed to him in a bread basket). Speaking of which, I just remembered that I live 50 miles away from the Tooele Army Depot, which contains about four-fifths of the U.S. military's chemical and biological agents. It's a pretty frightening thing looking out there, where several square miles are dotted with hundreds of underground bunkers each containing enough agents to kill hundreds of millions of people.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by SunTzu:<br /><strong>in Israel? If not i think we should give you ALOT of them. Since your our ally in the middle of a sea of enemies.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We bough a lot of patriots. But I don't like them. In the gulf war we launched dozens of them. Not a single hit. That's pathetic. But as I said we have the "hetz" which is like the NMDs (I think that's how you call them) being tested in the US only our hetz has never failed and is already operational. The problem is that if Saddam is attacked (In the gulf war the coalition forces stoped before reaching Bagdad) then he'll probably order to launch dozens of scuds, when only a few of them will have mass destruction weapons. We can't handle all these missiles. Scuds are so cheap and the hetz is so expensive...<br />Anyway, I don't say you shouldn't attack Iraq, as they're major terror supporters. Just be careful not to get me killed. One scud in Tel-Aviv will wipe out half of our population.

 

[SunTzu]

In the gulf, the patriot missles did hit many scuds but the problem with scuds is that the warhead isn't always destroyed with the missle. That was the case in the Gulf War. We'd blow up the missle but the warhead would fall and still hit civilian areas and blow up.

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

Originally posted by BlueMonday:<br />[qb]Didn't the UN destroy all his bio-chemical weapons? I'm sure he's got one or two hidden in some wet cave in the middle of the desert; but one or two would barely do anything.<hr></blockquote>

What was identified was dealt with by coalition forces at first, then UN later, but before the UN people went anywhere, they were subject to delays, harassment, footdragging, etc., to buy time to remove what the Iraqis could.

It's insane to think all of it was found, or some not replace since the UN inspectors left. From a war planning point of view, if there is an objective to remove Hussein (I highly doubt there will be, and any action in Iraq is speculative), serious consideration has to be given to desperation acts/blackmail/parting blows the Iraqis might try.

It has to be planned for, doesn't mean any of it will happen.

Also, I don't think Saddam is a total idiot and would try to use them.<hr></blockquote>

If he's about to be a dead total idiot, as opposed to a live total idiot in power, the equation is different.

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Rangers, Lead the Way ]</p>

 

[PinkyGen]

If Saddam launches anthrax at Israel, Israel will launch their nuclear tipped Jericho missiles and destroy Iraq. Saddam knows this.

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by PinkyGen:<br /><strong>If Saddam launches anthrax at Israel, Israel will launch their nuclear tipped Jericho missiles and destroy Iraq. Saddam knows this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<br />ShitDAWG! That would be even worse. This whole thing is spiraling out of control and there's nothing we can do about it, damn it!

 

[amadeus]

I sincerly doubt the United Nations side with the United States on this issue. Only remember that Stalin and the Communist Party USA were pushing the establishment of the United Nations, and since it's establishment, has constantly opposed the United States on issues in the Middle East.

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by rmsharpe:<br /><strong>I sincerly doubt the United Nations side with the United States on this issue. Only remember that Stalin and the Communist Party USA were pushing the establishment of the United Nations, and since it's establishment, has constantly opposed the United States on issues in the Middle East.</strong><hr></blockquote><br />?????????? what age are you living in?<br />this is not an issue of Communist, and it has nothing to do with Stalin?<br />please explain you reasoning to me again cause I don't see what your getting at <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

<br />MISSING PERSON

<br />have you seen this man-------->

<br />if so please find a way to place him in his rightfull spot as my Avatar!

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by rmsharpe:<br /><strong>I sincerly doubt the United Nations side with the United States on this issue. </strong><hr></blockquote><br />A tad out of date.<br />The UN security council passed a resolution 9/13 supporting armed action against the terrorists

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by BlueMonday:<br /><strong>

<br />ShitDAWG! That would be even worse. This whole thing is spiraling out of control and there's nothing we can do about it, damn it!</strong><hr></blockquote>

But Saddam knows Israel would do this. Saddam may have many things, but stupidity is not one of them, or else he would not be here right now. He knows that launching these weapons at Israel would result in his own destruction.

P.S. All sides wanted the UN after WWII, as they saw it was a way to help guarantee the peace.

 

[starlifter]

<br />posted September 16, 2001 11:40 AM <br /> As you may know and may not know, Saddam has chemical weapons (he used them against Iran and against rebels) and he has SCUDs that can hit Israel (used them in desert storm). What does it mean? It means that if he feels threatend by you guys, he'll give me anthrax. Israel has "hetz" missiles, but not enough to stop all the scuds. So, if anyone feels like attacking Iraq, and appearantly Bush feels like it, you better take over their weapons of mass destruction before you start to shoot your cruise missiles. <br /><hr></blockquote>

Both the Israelis and the United States have plans for dealing with Iraq on an emergency basis. Rest assured that we can deal with Iraq from North Dakota if things escalate to weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, Saddam may take a lot of innocents with him should he choose to do so. Such is the nature of a truly evil man such as him. Should we attack him again, my feeling is that we will not leave him in power at the conclusion of the conflict.

Anthrax can be a terrible biological weapon, and perhaps the only real way of dealing with it is with an offensive nuclear strike as a preventative measure. It is likely that all prior wars in the Middle East will be dwarfed in magnitude, should murderers like Saddam have their way. But sooner or later, they must be stopped.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by PinkyGen:<br /><strong>If Saddam launches anthrax at Israel, Israel will launch their nuclear tipped Jericho missiles and destroy Iraq. Saddam knows this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Saddam knows it, but if the US will try to capture/kill him then he'll have nothing to lose. Just like if during the cold war the USSR would try to destry the US - you would nuke them, they would nuke you back, end of story. The same here. The US will try to stop Saddam's goverment, and since his missiles can't reach Washington, he'll shoot them at Tel Aviv. We nuke Iraq. No more Iraq and Israel.<br />And now an attack on Iraq seems very likely - The Iraqi newspaper "Babel" called all people to "prepare to fight the Americans".<br />The US started it's gulf war sattelite TV. People all over Iraq can recieve pictures of Iraqi citizens being shot by Saddam's men, things like that. Why would you do it if you aren't about to attack them?<br />I guess it's "Nahhash tzefa" time for me.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</p>

 

[rouli]

Just a little comment the "hetz" missile is known in the US as the "arrow" (quite a stupid name <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )

 

[G-Man]

I know in English it's arrow, but people don't change weapons names in different countries. Just like we sell "kfir" aircfafts and "barak" missiles without calling them young lion and lightning.<br />And as an Israeli I expected you to complain to. You see, does Americans and Europians like people to suffer. Look how much money they give to countries in Africa. So if we convince them we're really in a pathetic situation, and that it's because of them, they'll give us enough money to cover Tel Aviv with gold. <img src="graemlins/king.gif" border="0" alt="[King]" /> <img src="icon12.gif" border="0">