Iraq gets ready for Armageddon

Intel Briefing ^ | May 7th 2002 | Richard Bennett

[maquiladora]

Iraq is desperately seeking new conventional weapons from Eastern Europe, China and North Korea,while at the same time pushing ahead with its Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The United States talks in terms of a War with Iraq much later this year or even in 2003, however recent developments might suggest that Washington does not have that amount of time before Saddam Hussein becomes a genuine threat not only to the Middle Eastern but to much of Europe and US forces deployed throughout the region.

It is reported that on April 15th 2002 crates of highly sensitive material were loaded onto an Iraqi Air Force IL-76 at a Ukrainian air field in Odessa. The Ukraine has since denied that they have supplied new radars to Iraq and indeed this was apparently the cover story at the base, however the possibility that the crates in fact contained the final ingredients needed to give Saddam Hussein the ultimate weapon cannot be ruled out. The time to a major confrontation with Iraq is short and the risk of a nuclear conflict may now be growing rapidly.

[maquiladora]

Richard Bennett is a highly respected intel/milnet analyst with remarkable contacts. This is no Debka-esque individual, when he speaks, I listen.

[maquiladora]

Just to back that up:
Richard Bennett Media services are regularly used by - BBC TV News (UK), ITN News (UK), CBS (USA), BBC World Service (UK), CNS News (USA),The Sunday Times (UK), San Francisco Journal (USA), Rocky Mountain News (USA), Ha'aretz (Israel), Fox TV News (USA), Daily Mail (UK), Daily Express (UK), AFP (France),Barrons (USA), Quarto (UK) and Virgin (UK) amongst many others, while AFI carries out confidential research for corporate, defense, legal & academic clients.

[Ranger]

I hope that next year we don't concentrate our troops in Iraq but keep them dispersed.

[maquiladora]

Check this out, from the current issue of Time Magazine:

Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway — and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East — the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. But Cheney hadn't lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when.

[mhking]

The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when.

Given Saddam's urgency at trying to come up with a nuclear warhead to lob onto New York or Washington, I would say it had better be sooner rather than later.

[Orangedog]

I have a very bad feeling that right about the time that the bulk of our forces be concentrated on Iraq, some other country will try to open a window of opportunity. What if North Korea decided that it would be the right time to invade South Korea? Or what if China decides to "re-integrate" Taiwan? Hell, what if the both make their move at the same time?

In the Gulf War we used almost all of our forces along with the coalition forces to give Saddam the twisted version of Noah's Ark by raining TNT down on his troops and infrastructure for 40 days and 40 nights. This time around we have less hardware, fewer people in uniform, and I imagine that England will be the only other country to go in with us. Our military is not set up to handle three theaters at the same time. Two might even spread our forces too thin.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think you're on to something.

[Frank Grimes]

bttt

[USMMA_83]

Iraq has always existed. Kuwait, on the other hand was carved out of Iraq prior to the Brits leaving the Arabian lands.

[Psalm 73]

"What if North Korea decided that it would be the right time to invade South Korea? Or what if China decides to "re-integrate" Taiwan?"

We already put the world on notice regarding our response to agression while we are heavily committed in another theater.
Remember the big brou-haha about our nuclear weapons usage Report?
Screw with us while we are vulnerable and the response will be devastating - I don't think anyone doubts this.

[Mark Bahner]

The United States talks in terms of a War with Iraq much later this year or even in 2003,...

Maybe the Bush Adminstration does. But the Bush Administration is not "the United States." In fact, the President doesn't even have the legitimate authority to go to war, under the Constituion, without a Congressional declaration of war.

...Washington does not have that amount of time before Saddam Hussein becomes a genuine threat not only to the Middle Eastern but to much of Europe and US forces deployed throughout the region.

There's a simple solution to that problem. Washington should remove ALL forces "deployed throughout the region," as well as those deployed in Europe. Washington's legitimate authority is only to defend the United States.

[Orangedog]

I agree, that should be our position. My only reservation is that if we were to use even tactical nukes against China in response to invading Taiwan, the Chinese may follow through on their threat of incinerating Los Angeles. They might even take it personally if we use nukes on North Korea since they are on one of their borders. Certainly if the Chinese were to nuke U.S. territory, China wouldn't have to worry about an over-population problem after our response. I'd hate to see this turn nuclear, but if it comes to that, we need to make an example of them.

This is a bit off-topic, but I wonder how the world economy would react if there were to be a brief and limited nuclear exchange, either involving us or between two countries like India and Pakistan. Even if no U.S. cities were to be involved, I have to think that the stock market would drop a lot harder than it did post 9/11, and there might even be a run on the banks from the panic and fear of another nuclear exchange. One thing is certain....we live in interesting times.

[darth]

Wrong. All of this territory was part of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years prior to WWI. The Al Sabah family settled the previously empty area of Kuwait and ran it for the Ottomans starting in 1830. The "19th province of Iraq" b.s. is Iraqi propaganda. Go look at an atlas that pre-dates WWI and see what I mean. The Brits and French carved up the Ottoman Empire after they won the war and set all of the modern boundaries for a bunch of countries that had not previously existed.

[ohioman]

You are brain dead if you feel that simply "removing all of our forces" from the middle east and Europe will solve our problems. Ever hear of that little thing called WWII?

[Semper]

Washington's legitimate authority is only to defend the United States.

Defending the United States has long ago progressed beyond ignoring what is going on in other parts of the world. If you wait until a problem gets to your borders, the damage will be much more severe (See England and France circa WWII).

[Semper]

..the greatest president we have ever had..

What credible person has concluded that? He has not served even half of one term yet. You are paying attention to fools or misinterpreting others.

the Constitution?? you mean that thing that talks about stem cell research, gun control...

Gun control is addressed in the Constitution (in the context of that era). The authors of the Constitution did not even know of stem cells. Whatever you are trying to communicate is fairly obscure.