Skip to comments.
Powell: Summer No Obstacle to Fighting Iraq
Reuters via Yahoo! ^
| November 21, 2002
| Reuters
Posted on 11/21/2002 6:47:45 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FYI and discussion
To: Momaw Nadon
Our riflemen will always shoot their butts off.
They are "Men for All Seasons".
I know. I was one of them when I was young.
2
posted on
11/21/2002 6:53:53 PM PST
by
LibKill
To: Momaw Nadon
I doubt GWB will have the patience to wait that long. If Sadaam messes up before or on the Dec 8th deadline we can almost surely see the war begin before the new year.
3
posted on
11/21/2002 6:55:35 PM PST
by
Mixer
To: Momaw Nadon
I prefer the President's original formulation: "We shall deal with our enemies at a time of our choosing." (a paraphrase)
4
posted on
11/21/2002 6:56:46 PM PST
by
Argus
To: Momaw Nadon
I know it gets very hot in Iraq in the summer, but how cold does it get in the winter? I've done time in chem suits (most of which don't breathe) and they are almost unbearable in the heat of summer for extended periods and can also be uncomfortable in very cold climates, which I doubt describes Iraq.
5
posted on
11/21/2002 6:57:06 PM PST
by
umgud
To: Mixer; LibKill
To: Momaw Nadon
Bush wants to send the signal to Saddam that stalling for a few weeks won't stop us. Hence, this statement.
7
posted on
11/21/2002 7:02:21 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Momaw Nadon
It is time for the FOG of war to set in. It is getting very foggy.
Every memeber of the Bush administration including President Bush is engaged in keeping Saddam from knowing what is coming.
It is a simple strategy. Bush talks tough and every one under him talks soft. He has been doing that and having his staff act like that ever since the start of the talk about taking down Saddam. The obvious object is to get Saddam thinking he can fake his way throught it one more time.
Just remember we will find out when we are going to attack Saddam shortly after Saddam finds out.
That is the only way we can attain surprise. Surprise is the most important asset in war. Just go back and read our newspapers in the month before D day in world War II.
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Common Tator
SOP for Bush has been to analyze a problem, decide on a course of action, announce what he would do, and then wait for people to beg him to implement it.
As you pointed out, Bush knew all along that he would have to explain Iraq to congress, America, and the world.
Bush waited until the media and rats demanded he explain it to congress.
Then he waited for them to demand he explain it to America.
Then he waited for them to demand he explain it to the un.
Republicans are already demanding we do Iraq.
Of course Bush and our military planned out long ago the optimal timeframe for the launch of attacks.
So if it was decided Jan 15th was best...it will be Jan 15th regardless of conflicting political concerns.
But if March is just as good as January, and Bush stays true to form he will wait for the media-rats to demand he start the war, and not a minute sooner.
10
posted on
11/21/2002 8:08:26 PM PST
by
Once-Ler
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: Momaw Nadon
No matter how he spins it, winter is better.
To: Momaw Nadon
Let's see ... We were told to fear the "brutal Afghan winter," now it appears we must dread the "brutal Iraqi summer." Just a good thing our first line of defense isn't the journalists.
To: LibKill
I think Powell's statement is also an indication that we have great confidence in our ability to capture and destroy Iraq's chemical and biological weapons before a major ground invasion begins. The chem and bio weapons will be destroyed by air power or captured by special forces backed by overwhelming air power. Those early missions could be done at night in the Spring. After the chem/bio weapons are gone, our soldiers won't be wearing chem suits and the heat won't matter that much. I also get a sense that Bush & Powell are expecting a large number of Iraqi defections. Perhaps the CIA is already distributing some cash inside the Iraqi army. I've read some reports about the CIA making a lot of "deals with Iraqis in the Basra region." ("Cash is king", all over the world.)
To: umgud
Old Arab saying: When Allah created Hell, he wasn't satisfied, that's when he created Mesopatamia.
15
posted on
11/22/2002 3:29:43 AM PST
by
Stavka2
To: JennysCool
|
Iraq Climate |
|
|
Iraq is characterized by continental areas and semi- tropic climate, relatively influenced by Mediterranean climate. The atmosphere of this climate is hot, it might be (50) c. Thats approx: 122 degree F...most computerized equipment will fail around 100 degrees without adequet cooling...which eats up fuel. Humans will fail too..especially in a chem suit which ups your body temp another 10 to 15 degrees and a flack vest adds about 10 more degrees and that's if you're standing still. Freezing may appear in the mountainous area, where temperature may be (-18) c This is about 18 degrees F...not so bad.. Rain falls mainly during winter, spring, ranging (40-1000) mm annually. While 70% of Iraq areas receive only 200 mm of rain falls or less. Iraq can be divided into four main parts according to the rain:-
- Plains (area between two rivers, at the middle and south of the country) the rain ranging (100-200) mm annually in the area.
- Mound (in the southern and western area) the average rain is about (100) mm annually or less.
- The waved area (in the north) the average rain fall (200-500)mm annually .
- Mountain area (north eastern area) the average rain ranges between (1000-1300) mm annually.
To plant in these areas, the average and the dates of rain must be considered to the irrigation of plants. During the moderate period of the year, the tropic polar and nautical polar winds prevails during the cold winter period, the climate in summer is dry and hot. The moist reaches its minimumý during summer. The dry winds increase the vapor speed, and the winter season is relatively short especially on the plains. The north western winds prevail on the plains, while the western winds prevail on the mountain . The climate is characterized by dusty storms which frequently occur in the moderate and hot period of the year in all country, especially in the middle and southern areas. |
|
16
posted on
11/22/2002 3:43:11 AM PST
by
Stavka2
To: Suburban Jim; Flatch
GW is not going to wait any longer. He has done the right thing here and when he gives the orders to let the dogs out there won't be a person that can, in their hearts, say he didn't do it by the book.
17
posted on
11/22/2002 6:11:33 AM PST
by
Mixer
To: Momaw Nadon; EternalHope; Mitchell; Sabertooth; Fred Mertz; Nogbad
We won't have anthrax vaccine for our civilian population until late 2003 at the earliest, ergo we won't be going head-to-head with Saddam until probably about six months before the next Presidential election. Military action which does not directly threaten Saddam's life or hold on power are possible before then, even including land invasions to take territory in the North and South No-Fly zones. However, we are not going to put him on the spot until his ultimate revenge can be blunted. The letters sent to Daschle et al after Saddam's destruction of the WTC last year represent a credible threat to kill millions of people and inflict the total economic loss of the major cities of the US and its allies. Bush understands this -- hence the tripartate stall: the stall on identifying the source of the anthrax; the stall on the Atta-al Ani connection; and the stall on military action to enforce regime change. Powell's comments fit within the general rubric of spinning things out. The subtext is, don't expect military action any time soon.
To: The Great Satan
We won't have anthrax vaccine for our civilian population until late 2003 at the earliestWhere does this time estimate come from? I thought it was going to be sooner than that.
19
posted on
11/22/2002 10:42:49 AM PST
by
Mitchell
To: The Great Satan
and the stall on military action to enforce regime changeRegime change isn't really the point, even though that was the phrase in vogue for a while. Notice how lately the focus has instead been on the disarming of Iraq.
The media have generally been interpreting this as a tactical retreat in Pres. Bush's position, but that is not correct. What the U.S. needs to do is remove (or mitigate to whatever extent possible) the danger of the covert delivery of WMD. Regime change without elimination of WMD abilities would be pointless. On the other hand, elimination of WMD without regime change (hypothetically, since it's hard offhand to see how this could happen) would be acceptable, even though we wouldn't be happy about Saddam staying in power.
Other than that, I agree with the general assessment. One interesting question, however, is the possibility that Iraq will engage in a pre-emptive attack before we are ready.
20
posted on
11/22/2002 10:56:13 AM PST
by
Mitchell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson