Skip to comments.
IRAQ WAR TIMETABLE MOVED UP TO MARCH/ EARLY APRIL..
DEBKA and World NetDaily ^
| February 23, 2002
| Terrorism and Security Newsletter
Posted on 02/23/2002 10:12:57 AM PST by codebreaker
Special forces landed in Russian Republic of Georgia, fanning out to Turkey, Jordan, and Israel .
Iraqui Border buildup of Oman Kuwait and Jordan continuing by U.S. Military.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: georgia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
To: copycat
I think this March/ April stuff is to get the Iraq Air Force down.
It will be November before we can clean up the mess of Saddams regieme.
To: MattS
but I was under the impression that our arsenal was severely depleted That could be disinformation. I would be surprised if the President had not ordered a massive amount of ordnance on September 12. That stuff would be pouring into inventory by now.
22
posted on
02/23/2002 12:44:05 PM PST
by
OK
To: sinkspur
OK.
So, if we started a buildup on the first of March, that would put us into June or July, so the timing is right.
Was he talking about 100,000 combat troops? If so, that means 300,000-500,000 in the theater, not counting the other 100,000 to 200,000 needed here for support. Also, allowances have to be made for the (unlikely) chance that other states will come to Iraq's aid, or that Iraq has deployable weapons of mass destruction.
23
posted on
02/23/2002 12:44:26 PM PST
by
VMI70
To: OK
Rummy says.. 'Don't believe everything you read in the papers!'
To: deathscythex
Saddam was begging for his life today, saying that the U.S. should try and overthrow him instead of killing the Iraqui children.
To: codebreaker
March 20 is my guess.
But if Saddam (now 65) and not the kind of man to remain vigorous to a very old age...thus past his prime right now...were serious about being willing to step down if it would save his country an ordeal...
Why couldn't he simply fly off to a villa on (say) the coast of Syria, or seek asylum in (say) Morocco...and leave his successors to sort out with Bush what kind of Iraq we want and need.
I am afraid Saddam is being disingenuous, and he is hoping to get in some licks with nuclear or other WMD's here for a few minutes.
26
posted on
02/23/2002 12:59:41 PM PST
by
crystalk
To: crystalk
Doesn't Saddam have cancer that has spread to the bone, I heard he was pilots trained to fly airliners at Isreal.
That's why it is important to get the air force down.
To: codebreaker
I think he has a few nukes, say 3 to 6, and missiles to deliver them to Israel, and is working on longer range missiles to deliver them to the USA before long, though of course accuracy would be a problem... He might aim at New York and hit Boston, etc.
That rumor about cancer has been around so long, that if it had been true when first it surfaced, Saddam would have been dead years ago. Maybe he has cancer, but it is either not a galloping or very malignant kind (perhaps slow prostate problem) or only very recently diagnosed. My own info is that there IS NO DIAGNOSIS of cancer.
28
posted on
02/23/2002 1:15:29 PM PST
by
crystalk
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
To: 4ourprogeny
Except for the Olympics!
To: codebreaker
I still don't get why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia.
32
posted on
02/23/2002 2:12:56 PM PST
by
weikel
To: codebreaker
Just in time for my birthday in early April.
To: codebreaker
Iraqui Border buildup of Oman Kuwait and Jordan continuing by U.S. Military.Oman doesn't have a border with Iraq.
Iraq
34
posted on
02/23/2002 2:16:45 PM PST
by
AM2000
To: VMI70
One problem with this is that there has been no troop movements, activation of reserves, preparation of large transport ships, etc., all those things that are necessary as a preamble to a large scale military operation, and impossible to hide in this day and age. True, but I read that 3rd Army shifted its advance HQ over to Kuwait. There have been some modest ground forces (a few battalions) shifted, as well. Not a lot of mass yet, but some significant moves.
35
posted on
02/23/2002 2:28:50 PM PST
by
Tallguy
To: VMI70
--just can't see them doing desert storm v. 2.0. Nope, I think this time it will be strictly foment and support rebellion inside iraq. The resources don't exist for it anyway, so they have to something completely different. I more expect large scale internal fighting to break out in at least two if not three fronts inside iraq, with the US providing tactical cover, and very little troops on the ground.
I also think-wild card here-that any action will come before the end of march because of japan's financial crisis.
36
posted on
02/23/2002 2:44:20 PM PST
by
zog
To: VMI70
One problem with this is that there has been no troop movements, activation of reserves, preparation of large transport ships, etc., all those things that are necessary as a preamble to a large scale military operation, and impossible to hide in this day and age. Very true....IF....the operation was to replicate Desert Storm. Large troop buildup would not be needed if the action was started with the use of tactical nukes, hmmmmm?
37
posted on
02/23/2002 2:56:05 PM PST
by
varon
To: copycat
I agree with you about the military advisor piece -- but how many troops do we have throughout the Balkans, etc., that we didn't have before Desert Storm? Would there be as massive a buildup -- or are troops being quietly re-deployed?
38
posted on
02/23/2002 4:01:20 PM PST
by
alethia
To: codebreaker
Stop posting DEBKA. It is pure manure.
To: zog
just can't see them doing desert storm v. 2.0.You're probably right, but there will be a need for "holding forces." I think several brigades might be required to deter Saddam from sending his tanks into Saudi or Kuwait. Without some significant forces Saddam might be tempted to let his remaining tanks roll into his neighbor's oil fields. While I'm confident that he probably couldn't do it, I wouldn't want to bet my oil supply on it. Saddam should be reminded the battle of Khafji where a pair of his armored brigades were essentially mauled by a single Marine OP calling on indirect fire.
40
posted on
02/23/2002 4:04:27 PM PST
by
Tallguy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 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