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

Reuters | 9/04/02 | Stefano Ambrogi

[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.

[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.