U.S. Ships Tanks to Gulf, Bush to Make Case on Iraq

Reuters | 9/04/02 | Stefano Ambrogi

[kattracks]

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will ship tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Shipping sources said Wednesday the U.S. Navy had booked a large commercial ship to carry tanks and heavy armor to the Gulf, a sign its own vessels might have made such shipments.

The U.S. Military Sealift Command chartered a U.S.-flagged general cargo ship to sail from the southeast U.S. coast to an unspecified Gulf port for discharge in late September, they said.

This is the third shipment of arms and military hardware in a month using commercial shipping, which military analysts say shows the U.S. Navy has probably exhausted the capacity of its own fleet and resorted to the open market.

Military analysts say the movement of heavy armor to the Gulf mirrors similar movements ahead of the 1991 Gulf War and shows the superpower is building up fire power in the region ahead of a military strike.

In line with a pledge to consult on any move against Iraq, Bush will meet top members of Congress from both parties at the White House to discuss U.S. efforts to overthrow Saddam.

At the meeting scheduled to start at 1345 GMT, Bush could face tough questions from a Congress skeptical of using the military to achieve a "regime change" in Baghdad.

The White House, which accuses Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction, says Bush has made no decision on how to proceed against the Iraqi leader.

Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has begun preparing the nation for war, telling Britons in his most uncompromising speech on Iraq to date Tuesday the world should face up to the dangers posed by Saddam.

SADDAM PROMISES IRAQIS VICTORY

Saddam, meanwhile, said Tuesday the Iraqis would emerge victorious from any showdown with their enemies.

"We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing," Iraq's state television quoted Saddam as saying in an open letter to the Iraqi people.

In Johannesburg, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the European Union and the United States agreed to push for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq but the Union felt it premature to say what would happen if Baghdad refused.

Rasmussen, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said after meeting Secretary of State Colin Powell at the Earth Summit the bloc wanted a United Nations blessing for any action against Iraq.

"There is agreement between the EU and the United States that here and now we should concentrate our efforts on ensuring that international weapons inspectors can get free and unrestricted access to Iraq," Rasmussen told a news conference.

"Nevertheless, I think it is of vital importance to pursue the U.N. track."

Powell said Tuesday he was exploring proposals that would restore inspections, which ended in 1998. In contrast, Vice President Dick Cheney said last week the inspectors could "provide no assurance whatsoever" and could even add to the danger by giving a false sense of comfort.

NO PROGRESS ON INSPECTIONS

The United Nations said Iraq had moved no closer to accepting weapons inspectors despite fresh overtures by a top Iraqi official, albeit with conditions attached.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said Baghdad would discuss the return of the inspectors in conjunction with other issues, a stance rejected by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and members of the 15-nation U.N. Security Council in the past.

"At this stage I cannot say they've taken a decision to allow the inspectors. I mean they have questions," Annan told CNN after he spoke to Aziz at the Earth Summit. His spokesman, Fred Eckhard, repeated the comments in New York.

The inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction were pulled out of Iraq in December 1998, on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid. They have not been allowed to return.

Aziz said a comprehensive solution would involve tackling U.S. threats to oust Iraq's leadership, American and British air patrols over the north and south of Iraq and the lifting of sanctions imposed for Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

U.S. allies, Muslim countries and many other nations are wary of any unilateral action, demanding a role for the United Nations in clarifying Iraq's capabilities and intent, and in authorizing any attack should that effort fail.

Arab foreign ministers began a two-day meeting in Cairo expected to focus on U.S. threats against Iraq. Arab countries have unanimously opposed any military action against Baghdad.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard sought to calm protests over possible Australian involvement in any military action against Iraq, saying Canberra would only send troops if it was "in the national interest."

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Sources say U.S. shipping tanks to Gulf

[Straight Vermonter]

I had a political science teacher who said that mobilizing an army was so expensive that leaders felt once it was done they HAD to fight. Seems we are in, at least, the initial stages of mobilization.

[Chad Fairbanks]

the Mother of All Battles

Can't the guy come up with something new? Of course, this could explain why the libs like him - he recycles... ;0)

[chance33_98]

Tanks? We don't need no stinkin' tanks. What we need is a pretty mushroom cloud from whence the bright flash will be burned into the retinas of the rest of the arab world. Or maybe a few stealth bombers with enough daisy cutters to level bugdead once and for all. Sodomy WhosInsane will probably be hiding out in his rebuilt babylon though, so we better hit that too. Though I would not put it past him to flee just before it starts and hide in mecca.

[xzins]

I had a political science teacher who said that mobilizing an army was so expensive

While true we do it regularly for training purposes. The only way to learn to ship an army when you MUST is to actually practice doing it when it isn't necessary. There is also the old military tactic known as a "show of force." Sometimes that will achieve your ends.

[chance33_98]

"We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing," Iraq's state television quoted Saddam as saying in an open letter to the Iraqi people.

Paging Michael Newdow...some leader said God! Oh wait, you only complain about America. Maybe if you spent more time serving in the military defending it you might appreciate it more.

[1Old Pro]

tick tock, tick tock

[1Old Pro]

mobilizing an army was so expensive that leaders felt once it was done they HAD to fight.

Which is why the decision was made many months ago. We're go'in in.

[Reagan Man]

>>>What we need is a pretty mushroom cloud...

Yea right! Guess you're looking for a regional war in the ME, possibly leading to a war world thereafter.

Time for you to stop talking and to start thinking.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Yeah -

I saw several of those trains going down that direction a few days ago.

Figured it'd be better not to make too big a deal over it at the time .... But now, it appears to be a nice "signal" of increased determination from the WH.

[chance33_98]

Time for you to stop talking and to start thinking.

I am thinking Hiroshima. And who would start a world war with an insane leader of the country with more nukes then all of the rest of the world combined. Let me put it to you this way - if China nuked Iran tomorrow, would you want to rush off to war with them?

[American in Israel]

We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end...

One would think last time he would have learned that he is not fighting mothers, a normal Islamic target. Seems Jihadists do not do so well when fighting men...

[Momaw Nadon]

Check out the Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!

[Reagan Man]

You have a strange way of thinking.

If, and that's a huge hypothetical IF, the US were to nuke Saddam's Iraq, every nation in the world condemn such an action. The Muslim fundamentalists, Arab radicals and all their terrorist allies, would most defintiely declare war on the US. If you think the situation in the ME is bad now, it would get must worse. The ME would be thrown into a dark age for decades to come and the world would be thrown in a state of unrest not seen, since the events of WWII. Thats just my opinion.

Taking out Saddam is a must, but talking about the US using nukes to achieve its goal of removing Saddam from power is crazy talk. May be someday the US and Isreal will be in an all out war with the Muslim/Arab world, but not right now.

[chance33_98]

every nation in the world condemn such an action.

God knows they love us already.

You have a strange way of thinking.

Naw, I just prefer the direct approach. Seriously though, I was joking about nuking them - but only because it would contaminate the oil. I would however issue a simple warning - next country to attack us gets erased. A fair warning which I would carry through on.

[Yehuda]

I don't advocate nukes as a first strike option (this morning...) but I don't understand your statements:

"If, and that's a huge hypothetical IF, the US were to nuke Saddam's Iraq, every nation in the world condemn such an action. "

Almost every nation in the world condemns us right now for contemplating removing this wannabe Hitler who has WMD.

"The Muslim fundamentalists, Arab radicals and all their terrorist allies, would most definitely declare war on the US. "

Those three groups declared war on us YEARS ago.

"If you think the situation in the ME is bad now, it would get must worse."

How so? Another 6 day war that would insure peace in the ME for at least another 7 years?

"The ME would be thrown into a dark age for decades to come"

The arab world is STILL IN THE DARK AGES.

" and the world would be thrown in a state of unrest not seen, since the events of WWII. Chats just my opinion. "

You are envisioning a repeat of WW2 - We can preempt that and WW3 by taking out those nations and occupying them BEFORE they hit us harder than they did on 9/11.

"Taking out Saddam is a must, but talking about the US using nukes to achieve its goal of removing Saddam from power is crazy talk."

Ever? Do we wait till he uses NBC on our troops or "right before he launches..."

"May be someday the US and Isreal will be in an all out war with the Muslim/Arab world, but not right now."

I think it's begun- it may not be "all out" yet, but we are very close.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

The ME would be thrown into a dark age for decades to come

While using nukes, particularly at the outset, well before you'd have any knowledge whether such a "last resort" weapon was required, would be inadvisable...

the question must be asked: How much darker and more chaotic can the middle east be than today? How do you destabilize a region that has no stability to begin with? How can whatever comes after Sadaam Hussein, or the Ayatollahs, or Assad, or Fahd be any worse than those characters are to begin with?

Even a depopulated middle-east (the darkest of all ages) would be preferrable to the current lineup.

[Magnum44]

This is the sign that most here have been impatiently waiting for. Nov, Dec, Jan at the latest.

[CreekerFreeper]

what kind of goofy-a$$ poli sci teacher/prof is that? If you follow that logic, we'd bombed the heck out of Cuba in 1962, as well as fought several other wars.

[rightwing2]

Bush sending heavy M-1 tanks to the Gulf to fight Saddam? This must really be embarrassing for the Chief of Staff of the Army and those other DoD/Army unilateral disarmers who continue to sing the siren song that "tanks are obsolete". What ever happened to Bush's secret plan to drop the 82nd airborne on Baghdad to accept the 425,000 man Iraqi Army's surrender on behalf of the US with the aid of a few thousand light infantry Special Forces troops. Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing. The answer-because the Stryker light armored car brigades would be utterly decimated by Saddam's heavy tank forces, but better now than later when the entire US Army is reduced to a tankless army of 1930s era armored cars armed primarily with 50 cal machine guns.

[RightWhale]

the Iraqis would emerge victorious from any showdown with their enemies.

Without a doubt. Iraq will emerge without Saddam, without the Ba'ath party, and with fresh international contracts and a lot of new foreign investment. Happy times are just around the corner.

[Maximum Leader]

Interesting you mention the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The theory that a mobilized army means war was certainly true in 1914. Once Austria-Hungary started mobilizing, Russia mobilized, in response, the Germans mobilized, in response the French mobilized. Because the mobilization orders were intricate and exact (especially, since the troops were moved by railroad, all the RR schedules had to align), once the order to mobilize was given, there was no simple way to stop the mobilization. If an army did try to stop it, they would be left hopelessly fouled up, and vulnerable to enemy invasion. So even though no one really wanted a war, there was no one to stop the slide once mobilization started.

Anyways, Barbara Tuchman wrote a book about all this in 1962 called "The Guns of August". The Cuban Missile Crisis arose a few months later and this book appears to have been on everyone's mind. JFK is quoted as saying he didn't want someone to some day write a book called "The Missiles of October" because he had blundered into a war.

So, that teacher is wrong. Our command structure is intentionally set up so that the president can change his mind at the last possible minute. So like JFK in "13 Days" (and like every skipper in every movie about the Navy), the president can yell "Belay That!" just before the balloon goes up.

[AzSteven]

Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing?

Well, those Strykers are the top of the line in the newest US Army technology. We wouldn't want to be unfair to Iraq by coming in with such an overwhelming technological superiority and look like bullies by sending our overpowering Strykers in. What would the UN think?

Besides, its for the children...

[rightwing2]

Well, those Strykers are the top of the line in the newest US Army technology. We wouldn't want to be unfair to Iraq by coming in with such an overwhelming technological superiority and look like bullies by sending our overpowering Strykers in. What would the UN think?

Technological superiority? Newest US Army technology. Those Stryker IAV's are thinly armored, poorly armored "death traps" that are going to get a lot of good soldiers killed in the next war--maybe as soon as Iraq this fall. Having fancy comms and neat digital displays ain't going to mean jack squat when confronted with 125mm cannon armed Iraqi T-72s or even T-55s for that matter. The Iraqi tanks will wipe them out. Won't even be a contest. Imagine the headlines--"Top of the line US Army Stryker Brigade smashed by Saddam's armor". We don't want to give Saddam that kind of propaganda victory, now do we? I'd really like to see you explain exactly how you think 50 cal MG armed Stryker armored cars are going to deal with Saddam's 2200 tanks or even his 3700 BMPs and BTRs for that matter.

[hchutch]

Agreed. I'd rather have M8 Bufords over the LAV Strykers.

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

Personally, my view on the "Modernization" is that we ought to add two or three "light" (relatively light) armored cav regiments that could be deployed somewhere. Same organization as a heavy unit, but replacing M1A2s with the M8 and M3s with the LAV-25.

[AzSteven]

I'd really like to see you explain exactly how you think 50 cal MG armed Stryker armored cars are going to deal with Saddam's 2200 tanks or even his 3700 BMPs and BTRs for that matter.

The Iraqis will be utterly devastated, of course. Shinseki says so. And just imagine when the third-generation version of the Stryker, code--named 'Slapper' comes out. Armed with the latest in .22 LR single-shot weapons, and protected with a dense coating of Pentagon papier-mache.

(The original post was intended to be sarcasm, but I forgot the little 'sarcasm' symbol. But I suppose the Iraqis could be hurt from shrapnel from exploding Strykers, of course...)

[rightwing2]

The Iraqis will be utterly devastated, of course. Shinseki says so. And just imagine when the third-generation version of the Stryker, code--named 'Slapper' comes out. Armed with the latest in .22 LR single-shot weapons, and protected with a dense coating of Pentagon papier-mache. (The original post was intended to be sarcasm, but I forgot the little 'sarcasm' symbol. But I suppose the Iraqis could be hurt from shrapnel from exploding Strykers, of course...)

ROFLOL!!! Yes, I agree the Iraqis might take collatoral damage from exploding Strykers. BTW, the Army recently came out with a new bulletproof vest. I strongly suggest that Stryker crewman wear them at all times because they will need them to protect against new Russian tungsten carbide 7.62 AP and standard issue 14.5mm HMG AP bullets bouncing around inside the Stryker crew/troop carrying compartments. Incidentally, I have been inside a Stryker prototype at the Pentagon. The vehicle has a high profile. Stryker troops cannot fight mounted. The Remote Weapons System cannot fire on the move. These and many other reasons are why 13 out 14 Strykers in the Stryker company at Millenium Challenge 2002 were destroyed before they were resurrected by the armored car generals in order to avoid a public relations disaster for the Army leadership.

[colorado tanker]

"Bush sending heavy M-1 tanks to the Gulf to fight Saddam? This must really be embarrassing for the Chief of Staff of the Army and those other DoD/Army unilateral disarmers who continue to sing the siren song that "tanks are obsolete". What ever happened to Bush's secret plan to drop the 82nd airborne on Baghdad to accept the 425,000 man Iraqi Army's surrender on behalf of the US with the aid of a few thousand light infantry Special Forces troops. Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing. The answer-because the Stryker light armored car brigades would be utterly decimated by Saddam's heavy tank forces, but better now than later when the entire US Army is reduced to a tankless army of 1930s era armored cars armed primarily with 50 cal machine guns."

LOL! Well, as you know, Stryker struck out. Looks like the adults, who would actually have to fight in Iraq, are in charge now. I don't care how lousy the Iraqi soldiers are, I still want my Abrams.

[hchutch]

And if they want air-deployable armor, BRING BACK THE M8.

[mhking]

The United States will ship tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Let's try that sentence again:

The United States will ship more tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to tells Congress and the American people what we will do to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

[rightwing2]

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

This of course is a moot issue since the LAV-25 was rejected by the Army as being impossible to fit on a C-130 just as the Stryker MGS is impossible to fit on a C-130. The LAV-25 has more firepower than a standard issue M-113. However, M-113 can be fitted with guns as large as 76mm and has been by many of our allies. Even with a 76mm turret, the M-113 would be C-130 transportable because it is tracked and has a lower profile than a LAV-25. The other problem with LAVs is that they are road-bound. They have little to no battlefield tactical mobility and as Millenium Challenge proved they are very susceptable to flat tires even without live ammo being fired on the battlefield! 13 Stryker tires had to be replaced during the four day Millenium Challenge exercise totalling 6% of the Stryker companies tires. Each one of those vehicles could have been turned from mobility kills to hard kills while changing their tires. With flying bullets, we could see 75-100% mobility kills for the wheeled Stryker WW2 relic design vehicles.

[colorado tanker]

"And if they want air-deployable armor, BRING BACK THE M8." Amen! Sing it brother!

[hchutch]

I like your re-write much better. Much closer to the truth.

[Highest Authority]

I vote for nukes in the first strike! That would definitely cause a lot of "wet sand" under those arab robes! It would end the conflict instantly!!

[Jake0001]

How about the weasel approach?

We start bombing the crap out of Baghdad with conventional bombs and all the sudden it lights up in a nuclear explosion.

Explanation? Saddam MUST have had a bomb and our bombing inadvertantly detonated it.

[Almondjoy]

First use of nukes is a bad idea.. if we did and go unpunished just wait till China decides to wipe out Japan and Taiwan for regional dominance.. and what the hell would we do without the Finnish? You know Crazy Ivan is gonna truck a bomb over there simply because they were embarassed by them during WWII.

[reagan_fanatic]

"We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik
(the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing,"

Ever notice how every boast, every threat these diaper-heads make
against the United States always ends with 'God willing...?'

I think the English translation should be 'If we're lucky..'

[Yehuda]

"First use of nukes is a bad idea.. "

Ever? Do we wait till he uses NBC on our troops or "right before he launches..." ?

Here lies buried 50,000 American dead, they had the moral high ground according to Almond Joy ...

"if we did and go unpunished just wait till China decides to wipe out Japan and Taiwan for regional dominance."

If we are UNPUNISHED? What do you think this is, kindergarten? "He did it first, no he did it first..."

bwah...comparing the U.S. taking out the next arab hitler as morally equivalent to oriental Stalinist's wiping out semi-democratic neighbors.

Stick with candy bars, "my bruther..."

[VaBthang4]

""We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing," Iraq's state television quoted Saddam as saying in an open letter to the Iraqi people."

This statement alone confirms the absolute need to remove Saddam....nobody is that stupid....he has to be a deranged monster.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Seriously though, I was joking about nuking them...

I didn't note a sarcasm tag.

>>>I would however issue a simple warning - next country to attack us gets erased.

Hmmm. Are you serious this time?

[Reagan Man]

>>>... but I don't understand your statements...

My remarks are pretty straight forward, pragmatic and reasonable. When the subject is the use of nuclear weapons, rushing to judgment is out of the question. There is a lot of international politics being played by an assortment of nations throughout the world.

You sound like a warmonger, ready to nuke any adversary and start WWIII. Thank God you're not in charge.

[Senator_Palpatine]

Goood...everything is proceeding as planned.Baghdad will soon be under my control..."

[Reagan Man]

>>>How much darker and more chaotic can the middle east be than today?

If the US was to nuke Saddam, it could very well open the flood gates and possibly ignite nuclear exchanges between other nations who have nuclear weapons capability, like Pakistan and India. Iraq could then attack Israel with WMD and Israel would retaliate. If you remember your physics, all out nuclear exchanges, would create a nuclear winter effect and throw the world into darkness and chaos.

[wimpycat]

LOL! Isn't it fun "translating" what politicians and diplomats say into what they're really saying?

[Yehuda]

*>>>... but I don't understand your statements...*

Nice editing job - you left off the beginning of my statement before the question:

"*I don't advocate nukes as a first strike option (this morning...) *

"My remarks are pretty straight forward, pragmatic and reasonable. When the subject is the use of nuclear weapons, rushing to judgment is out of the question. "

You gave opinions without any explanation and refused to explain when asked.

"There is a lot of international politics being played by an assortment of nations throughout the world. "

Duh. And someone you know once wrote: " I understand, Arabs and Muslims respect only one thing, superior strength. " *

If you are so reasonable, why don't you try explaining your positions and answer the question of why we should wait till someone else nukes us first.

"You sound like a warmonger, ready to nuke any adversary and start WWIII. Thank God you're not in charge."

I went through your original comments and noted a difference of opinion. You however resort to ill-founded suppositions and snide remarks. You come off like an appeasing uneducated teenage weasel. One can only hope you are having a bad day , or pray that YOU aren't in charge.
_________

* http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/673054/posts?page=36#36

[Reagan Man]

>>I went through your original comments and noted a difference of opinion.

That's what this is. A simple difference of opinion. But that doesn't mean you should jump to conclusions. I said in my post at RE:#15, Saddam must be taken out... and I meant it. If you want to overreact and come across as a warmonger, willing to use nukes at the drop of a dime feel free.

>>>You however resort to ill-founded suppositions and snide remarks.

No I haven't. I just don't agree with your warmongering rhetoric.

>>>You come off like an appeasing uneducated teenage weasel.

Hardly. But I suggest you knock off the insults.

[jwalsh07]

REFORGER

[Almondjoy]

First off you show how ignorant you really are. Nukes aren't a play toy fool? What are you asking for the end of the world? Let me ask you this.. do you believe God? Do you honestly believe the killing of innocent civilians is just for America's needs? If so you I good idea where your heading off after death. But regardless of what any ridiculous ideas you have of redemption you clearly have no concept of the world today.. are you lost back in 1945?

As for your 2nd point I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong.. that's the problem.. you think of the "morally equivalent" HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAH .. that's truely childish.. you think you have the moral high ground over China? What makes you so just.. you just wanted to slaughter a few million Iraq's because you don't want to see 50,000 American dead... If your God cares so little about life to give you the moral high ground on who lives and who dies.. you can have him.. but I'll tell you what... HE DOESNT EXIST!