I did not know she had been decommissioned.
Posted on 03/13/2003 4:59:55 PM PST by Drewman626
7:53pm EST
FoxNews Alert just reported that Iraqi troops have left Baghdad with heavy artillary and are heading south to the Kuwaiti boarder. More troops with SCUD missle launchers are heading west. The thought is that Saddam is about to attack our troops.
This is breaking news and details are few and far between.
TURN ON FOX
I did not know she had been decommissioned.
Now now lets be fair. Clinton was also a product testor. "test driving" the Cuban cigar.(remember?)
1) If I recall, wasn't there some sort of alert to beware of March 14th -- lot's of "chatter" indicating that something big could be planned for then?
So follow me here:
a) Let's assume for a minute that this is true.
b) Let's also assume for a minute that Saddam has been tipped off about it in advance. Whether he has aided or abetted it is irrelevant - the US will assume and claim that he was involved anyway.
c) Saddam can thus reasonably assume that soon after the terrorist attack(s), possibly even within minutes, President Bush will forget all about the UN and order our forces to GO, with or without the Brits.
d) Saddam also knows that as soon as the US begins, his ability to inflict major -- and what he hopes to be unacceptable -- casualties will be very limited.
e) Therefore, Saddam would want to position his forces so that they could inflict maximum havoc AT THE SAME MOMENT as the terrorist attack(s) are unfolding.
2) Another thought:
a) There have been broad hints dropped that we are intensively trying to turn various Iraqi generals, to either surrender or -- preferably -- join is a coup/rebellion against Saddam.
b) We can safely assume that Saddam knows all about this, and even that he knows exactly who has talked to which General and what each has been offered. His tenure and longevity has been built upon such capabilities.
c) Ditto with the rank & file troops. Saddam knows which ones are reliable and which ones are not.
d) It would therefore make all the sense in the world for Saddam to make sure that all of these unreliable troops, and all of the unreliable Generals, to be sent as FAR AWAY from Bagdad as possible prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
e) By sending them to the Kuwaiti border, Saddam knows that there is an excellent probability that the US will liquidate them ourselves, a nice little service to Saddam.
f) By making them launch WMDs against us right at the start, this will guarantee that the US will not be particularly inclined to accept surrenders or "defectors."
g) This will also guarantee that a sizeable percentage of US ordinance will be expended right at the beginning in the southern desert, where it would do the least harm to Iraq (other than the poor soldiers targeted).
3. While conspiracy theories usually don't hold any water, given current events one cannot totally discount the possibility that some particularly nasty international conspiracies are going on in secret against us. For example:
a) What if Iraq cut a deal with N. Korea -- Both will launch pre-emptive strikes at the same time? Normally, even if we sustained some casualties in Kuwait, we could recover. But if our forces were depleted right at the outset, and at the same time there was an urgent need to send reinforcements to Korea, then the the US would be in a very bad spot. I could see both Saddam and Kim concluding that this was probably as good an opportunity as they are ever going to get to inflict major damage on the US and survive, and that they have a strong interest in secretly working together.
b) At this point, I wouldn't trust the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese to not give Saddam the benefit of their best intelligence, so that he will know almost exactly when the US is going to launch our attack, along with many important details about it. Saddam could then move his troops into position in confidence that we would be able to use them effectively to strike the hardest possible blow against us just before we attack.
It could be one of the above, or all of the above. One thing is for sure, though: If Saddam does strike first, it will not be because he is crazy, but because he has carefully planned it, and because it makes good sense from his perspective.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now).
But rigid thinkers don’t use ad homonyms.
Which would mean he'd need to know when that moment is...
Ted Kennedy
Great addition.
Get real! We won't launch a nuke at Iraq. Ever!.....CatOwner
If the Iraqis launch a dirty nuke at Israel, the nuke (or two or three) that will be launched at Iraq will be Israeli.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're sadly mistaken
I wish I was "sadly mistaken" but we have at least six months of incontrovertable evidence that shows Bush is a willing puppet to the capricious whims of the UN, the seditionists in the Department of Hate, and any petty tyrant with an axe to grind, while he has not been a friend to the US citizen.
And tell me about how Bush has stopped the appeasment to North Korea, last time I checked, your tax dollars are still being looted from wallet and into the nuclear power plants, fuel oil and food. NK gets nuclear power, the US is shutting down our plants. NK gets oil, our prices for home heating and gasoline are rising. NK get subsidized food. We get to pay above market prices for sugar, corn, wheat and other foods with price supports. So if Bush grabs ankles for NK where there is a clear and present danger even the leftists recognize, what makes you think he will demonstrate a real backbone with a guy who has been menacing the world for decades?
Agreed. What happens if an Iraqi jeep backfires? Headlines = "WAR STARTS!!!!!!"
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.