U.S.A. To Invade Iraq -- Part II (Official Iraq thread)

"We have no weapons, but if you invade you betcha we're gonna use 'em!"

I'm not surprised at this. Doesn't Uday control virtually every visual media outlet in Iraq?

 

Some people are willing to die for their beliefs. How do you stop a person infected with a deadly influenza virus from coming through customs?

Influenza also incapacitates people within a short time.

 

No it doens't.

From infection you have a few days before symptoms appear to pass through customs unremarked, then you just have to infect others dicretely with them just upset about perhaps being coughed upon and then let the disease spread on it's own.

Even better Influenza is transmitable before you show any symptoms, so as you pass through the airport you have the chance of spreading it around the world.

And thats only for a nation like the United States, there are many nations with fewer health related concerns. If they started it in France, how long before it spread to other countries? ho long before it spread to the world?

 

Influenza is a natural strain, and many humans have great resistance against it. Even if it were one of those "super"-influenza outbreaks, then I would think that not nearly as many people as in 1918 would lose their lives.

The reason that the 1918 influenza outbreak came was World War One. The soldiers fought in Europe, got the rare strain, and transmitted it easily in the trenches. Then they went home and gave it to friends and family. Do you see anything like World War One coming in the near future?

 

Considering in a normal year tens of thousands of people in the US alone die of Influenza I think it's quite possible for a more virulent strain to be used as a terror weapon which would severely curtail all human interactions.

All things considered the death toll in the best case scenario would certainly be tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Ineffective? Well certainly eventually it would die out and almost certainly it would infect even those the people who let it loose would consider friends...

But I know of some groups who would accept that sacrifice, don't you?

 

But I know of some groups who would accept that sacrifice, don't you?

Usually it's a political gain. If there are few people to gain anything, then it's a stupid prospect even to them.

 

Is driving an airplane into a building a rational act?

Then why do you pretend releasing a bio weapon would be?

 

Well, to them it is. It's sacrificing few for many. With successful bioweapons, it's sacrificing many for few.

BTW, we're starting to get way off-topic with our discussion.

 

And if you'll recall the woefully incompetant Tokyo group using Sarin was an apocylypse cult.

They don't give a damn about the rest of us to start with.

God help us if they'd been competant.

But we are getting offtopic.

In any case, international law refers to NBC(ABC? CBS?.. god help us... FOX?) weapons as weapons of mass destruction. It's silly to argue the media shouldn't.
Furthermore since Saddamm is banned from having both and methods for dispersing them etc. etc. the point is moot.

 

U.S. Plans Massive Attack on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. war plan calls for the launch in March of three or four hundred cruise missiles a day at the start of a war on Iraq, more than were fired during the entire first Gulf War, according to a televised report on Friday.

U.S. officials and analysts have predicted for months that an attack on Iraq would be swift, massive and designed to catch Baghdad by surprise.

But the report by CBS Television, quoting Pentagon sources, offers new details of Pentagon thinking at a time when the Bush administration is undergoing a military buildup and trying to persuade President Saddam Hussein force will be used if he does not disarm.

A Pentagon spokesman declined comment.

CBS said the battle plan, called "shock and awe," focuses on the "psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces."

"If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March, the Air Force and Navy will launch between three and four hundred cruise missiles at targets in Iraq -- more than were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War. On the second day, the plan calls for launching another three to four hundred cruise missiles," the network reported. During the 1991 Gulf War, a U.S. led armored column swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite Republican Guard divisions in the largest tank battle since World War II.

But this time the target is the Iraqi leadership and the battle plan is designed to "bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible," the network reported.

 

Farraday:
And thats only for a nation like the United States, there are many nations with fewer health related concerns. If they started it in France, how long before it spread to other countries? ho long before it spread to the world?

There are may nations with fewer health care than the US, I agree. But where did you get the idea that France was one of them? Actually, if I wanted to start an epidemic, I probably would choose a country were you have to show your insurance before getting healed (this is maybe exagerated, but you get the picture), rather than a country were the poorest don't even pay...

 

Is it just me or do people find it highly disturbing that Mort 's article pretty much announced some of our war plans and when we plan to start them?

 

Is it just me or do people find it highly disturbing that Mort 's article pretty much announced some of our war plans and when we plan to start them?

Personally I find the idea of launching 300-400 cruise missiles a day rather more disturbing.

 

If "psychological destruction" is their goal here, that quantity of cruise missiles won't be hitting anything but sand. They wouldn't dare fire that many into cities.

 

Has anybody read the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six? Or another book the preceeded it but I can't think of the name. But in it the leader of Iran creates a larghe country out of seceral smaller ones and releases a bio weapon at several large trade shows.

 

I've seen several of Tom Clancy's movies. I heard a lot about his books, but haven't read any.

I've seen the Sum of all fears though and though it wasn't Iraq it is a very realistic picture of what could happen if a war starts with Iraq.

I think what scares me most about this war is the so easy use of nuclear weapons. Both uttered from Iraq as well as America. Don't they realize that will mean the end. All those fires, earth quakes, water disasters come from somewhere...

 

From what I've read, the majority of the missles would hit military targets. Yes, chances are, some innocent civilians will be killed, whether a missle would miss its target, or if civilians are near or at military targets. However, to me at least, there is a difference between a civilian killed in an attack meant for a military target (such as some of the accidental bombings in Afghanistan, where the "smart bombs" hit the wrong targets), and a civilian killed in an attack on civilians (such as the WTC attacks, where the intent was to kill innocent civilians). Yes, both are losses of life, and both are equally tragic. However, when at a military base or military headquarters, there always is the slight chance that it could come under attack. It's a risk that people take when joining the military, or when visiting a military establishment. On the other hand, I see an attack focused on civilians, and not a military establishment, as worse. These people were just going to work. They weren't planning any attacks on Afghanistan or Iraq. There shouldn't be any risk in going to work every day.

To me, the intended target is important. Striking down military establishments makes sense. Killing large groups of innocent civilians on purpose doesn't.

 

[color=663300]The article that Mort posted was most likely just to get Saddam's attention. He knows he cannot stop 400 cruise missles from taking out his military might. They'd have to dig a LOT of holes in the ground to hide everything. So even if Saddam watches CNN, is doesn't matter that he knows what we are going to do. He can't stop it, unless he complies with what the rest of the world wants him to.

Also, this kind of swift, massive attack is the safest way for both sides for this war. If Saddam's ability to fight back is SEVERELY crippled, we can either MAKE him comply with what the UN wants, or we can take him out of power and stop the suffering of the Iraqi people. [/color]

 

Another point is that this could have been announced just to watch his reaction. Perhaps, while hurrying to hide everything, our surveillance will find out where more weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Iraq. For example, if we see increased traffic into and out of an "abandoned" warehouse, they just pointed out another place where they possibly are hiding something.

 

Has anybody read the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six? Or another book the preceeded it but I can't think of the name. But in it the leader of Iran creates a larghe country out of seceral smaller ones and releases a bio weapon at several large trade shows.

Executive Orders and Rainbow Six are very good novels, and both show how easy it would be for a nation with enough money and resources to create and distribute the bio-weapons effectively.

Another thing I liked about Executive Orders was the Second Gulf War. I'd suggest reading it and another book by Tom Clancy, Into the Storm (A non-fiction book on Desert Storm), if you wanna know how we'd wage war against Saddam.

 

I'm sorry, but Darthmalt16, your pic was perfect for that post.

*turns red as everyone glares*


Yodajeff, Merlin, right on.

 

U.S. officials and analysts have predicted for months that an attack on Iraq would be swift, massive and designed to catch Baghdad by surprise.


[homer] Wellity, wellity, wellity. [/homer]

<claps>

Well done, dimwits. What the bloody hell is the point of telling people a rough time for your attack as well as the frickin' details of the plan? Why must we be surrounded with frickin' idiots? What's next? Sharks with frickin' lasers? Ill-temptered, mutated sea bass?

There's a myth in the Arab world that the US uses Saddam as a puppet. Bob Baer talks about it in his CIA memoir. They figure that if the mighty USA can't ostensibly get rid of Saddam, it's because they're pulling his strings. And since he gets about a month and a half to organise some semblance of a defensive strategty, plus to secret himself inside a relatively safe bunker, they're going to continue to believe he is a puppet because what kind of tactical move is releasing your plans?

The reason for this boobery is far more banal than such an entertaining theory. I think we're all in agreement that a surprise attack would lose that, well, crucial element of surprise by broadcasting 75% of the details a month early, right?

All I can add is followed by and with the final saying it all.

E_S

 

Let me see, 300 to 400 cruise missiles, and the possibility of nuclear weapons against Iraq. So this whole argument Bush has been spouting about freeing the Iraqi people from this madman dicator... that was all a lie then? Or did he mean "free" them in the spiritual, PERMANENT sense?! How many civilians will die by our hands in this war? How many are considered to be "acceptable losses" by this administration? This is truly sickening.

NOTE: Nuclear reference made by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card who, when asked if the US was considering use of nuclear weapons, said: "I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table, but we have a responsibility to make sure Saddam Hussein or his generals do not use weapons of mass destruction."

 

You always leave all your options open, or at least tell your enemy that you're reserving all your options. Keeps him on his toes, second-guessing. Bravo.

 

Yes, that makes all the sense in the world: threaten to destroy the very people you claim to be rescuing. That'll make them listen. (that was sarcasm, by the by, in case any of you missed it).

But, of course, Bush is an honest, forthright man who never minces words or speaks out the side of his mouth.

My point to all this? Why go through the static motion of claiming to be for the Iraqi people and against the Iraqi government when, in truth, he is against the country as a whole. Does he really care how many civilians die?