• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

*UPDATE* Charle Rose - Saddam is Likely to Unleash WMD at his end.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
It amazes me how many people support Saddam despite the atrocities he has commited. It also is quite interesting that people do not want to take preventive action because we might p!ss off some arabs who already want us dead... what are they gonna do, kill us twice?

Think about this people. Do not just blindly parrot "give peace a chance" thinking that solves anything.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
It amazes me how many people support Saddam despite the atrocities he has commited. It also is quite interesting that people do not want to take preventive action because we might p!ss off some arabs who already want us dead... what are they gonna do, kill us twice?

Think about this people. Do not just blindly parrot "give peace a chance" thinking that solves anything.
WHO are you talking about that is "supporting" Saddam outside his own country (and even inside the arab world)? The arabs HATE Saddam BUT they HATE US WORSE. If we went there wqith UN support, the Arabs could NOT declare jihad against the whole world . . . HOWEVER, NOW, they WILL declare jihad against the US and Britain.

Bush already screwed up "give peace a chance" with his bungling in the UN. :p
 

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"""""The point of this interview is that 1) Saddam is playing to world opinion so he can't use WMD yet
and
2) When he feels he has nothing to lose he WILL unleash them, damn the consequences to his people... and
worst of all,
Using WMD is Saddam's free choice to make.""""""""

DOH, DUH...
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"""""The point of this interview is that 1) Saddam is playing to world opinion so he can't use WMD yet
and
2) When he feels he has nothing to lose he WILL unleash them, damn the consequences to his people... and
worst of all,
Using WMD is Saddam's free choice to make.""""""""

DOH, DUH...
Well, maybe its "doh, duh" to us - but look at the majority of posters in this thread that refuse to acknowledge that the above possibilities are even real.


 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I do wonder how people like Powell, Rice, and Tenet could be so ignorant as to endorse the pipe dream of the power structure in Iraq succumbing to US entreaties. I know Bush is ignorant so I can excuse him believing Wolfowitz et al. But the other three HAD to know that hating Saddam is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT for people to endorse a US invasion.

IMO, Saddam is definitely keeping his WMD reserved until he thinks Baghdad will fall. He will kill thousands of Iraqis and GIs, while sneaking out during the chaos that follows.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,430
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Iraqi people will speak for us, when they are free to do so without fear of execution....

You give Saddam more crddit than he deserves, he is responsible for killing more muslims than anyone in the last 50 years and is hardly popular within the region...
Again - you and most everyone else - are missing the point: IF saddam unleashed WMDs ON Baghdad in an orgy of mass-destruction at his "end" - there will be no time for ANYONE to speak "for" us. The arabs will "react", J-I-H-A-D.

I am NOT giving this evil dictator any "credit" - his stated goal is unite arabs in jihad against the West. It's pretty "simple" of a plan - and "effective" too - as NONE of you (me included) has a CLUE how to defeat this awful plan. :(
That is still an IF.
Clearly. Agreed. Without a doubt. Indubitably.

But it is not only a "possible IF" it is "likely".

If we are not prepared for this Baghdad Endgame, THEN we are NOT prepared. ;)

Why is this a likely if? If Saddam does this, why wouldn't the Arab world distance themselves from such a horrendous act as much as possible. They've been pretty good at distancing themselves from Saddam in the past. What makes this so different? Because Saddam killed millions of his own people? He has already done that. I find your scenario the least likely of all. Oh, Saddam may very well do what you say, but the outcome of that act is what I disagree with.

BTW, keep rolling your eyes. It only makes your statements appear even more foolish.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I do wonder how people like Powell, Rice, and Tenet could be so ignorant as to endorse the pipe dream of the power structure in Iraq succumbing to US entreaties. I know Bush is ignorant so I can excuse him believing Wolfowitz et al. But the other three HAD to know that hating Saddam is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT for people to endorse a US invasion.

IMO, Saddam is definitely keeping his WMD reserved until he thinks Baghdad will fall. He will kill thousands of Iraqis and GIs, while sneaking out during the chaos that follows.
I really think I "know" - it's POLITICAL and motivated by big business. Bush must have thought his "timing" is right and since "God is on his Side" in this crusade, we can do no worng.

They really DID think it would be "easy" in the beginning - and that's not "the media".


 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jjones
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Iraqi people will speak for us, when they are free to do so without fear of execution....

You give Saddam more crddit than he deserves, he is responsible for killing more muslims than anyone in the last 50 years and is hardly popular within the region...
Again - you and most everyone else - are missing the point: IF saddam unleashed WMDs ON Baghdad in an orgy of mass-destruction at his "end" - there will be no time for ANYONE to speak "for" us. The arabs will "react", J-I-H-A-D.

I am NOT giving this evil dictator any "credit" - his stated goal is unite arabs in jihad against the West. It's pretty "simple" of a plan - and "effective" too - as NONE of you (me included) has a CLUE how to defeat this awful plan. :(
That is still an IF.
Clearly. Agreed. Without a doubt. Indubitably.

But it is not only a "possible IF" it is "likely".

If we are not prepared for this Baghdad Endgame, THEN we are NOT prepared. ;)

Why is this a likely if? If Saddam does this, why wouldn't the Arab world distance themselves from such a horrendous act as much as possible. They've been pretty good at distancing themselves from Saddam in the past. What makes this so different? Because Saddam killed millions of his own people? He has already done that. I find your scenario the least likely of all. Oh, Saddam may very well do what you say, but the outcome of that act is what I disagree with.

BTW, keep rolling your eyes. It only makes your statements appear even more foolish.
You don't need the emoticon to make your statements look ridiculous - your words are sufficient.

Since we are only disagreeing with the OUTCOME of my scenario, I'd suggest you go back and re-read my posts WHY I think the arab world will rise up in jihad . . . is it your debating "tactic" to keep asking me to repeat myself or do you really not get what I am saying?

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
They really DID think it would be "easy" in the beginning - and that's not "the media".
I really believe Tenet and Powell have NEVER operated under the premise that liberating Iraq would be easy. Assuming it gets much uglier before we see the light . . . Franks has been designated the fall guy for Rumsfeld's BS vision. I thought it was really smooth how this battle plan became Franks' baby . . . and the icing on the cake Gen. William Wallace (nice handle) getting caught with has hand in the truth jar.

As for the post-war, I'm sure they thought it was going to be more expensive and difficult than the invasion . . . it's one reason why they didn't want to talk about it. I want this war to end quickly for the sake of the Iraqis, US troops, and US taxpayer picking up the tag.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
They really DID think it would be "easy" in the beginning - and that's not "the media".
I really believe Tenet and Powell have NEVER operated under the premise that liberating Iraq would be easy. Assuming it gets much uglier before we see the light . . . Franks has been designated the fall guy for Rumsfeld's BS vision. I thought it was really smooth how this battle plan became Franks' baby . . . and the icing on the cake Gen. William Wallace (nice handle) getting caught with has hand in the truth jar.

As for the post-war, I'm sure they thought it was going to be more expensive and difficult than the invasion . . . it's one reason why they didn't want to talk about it. I want this war to end quickly for the sake of the Iraqis, US troops, and US taxpayer picking up the tag.
Sure they did
In the months preceding the war, President Bush was largely silent on the subject of the conflict's cost, duration and dangers, while key administration officials and advisers presented upbeat forecasts. Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would "step aside" and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase repeated by other top officials. Others in advisory roles in the administration predicted Iraqi soldiers would "throw in the towel" and Hussein would collapse like "a house of cards" -- phrases senior administration officials often echoed in private.
What, did you forget already? And what is Cheney - chopped liver in the Administration or was he confused?

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
I am beginning to hear "my" Doomsday Scenario in many news discussion programs - tonight on PBS . . . I guess a lot of people are getting more clueless (like me). :p

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
What I have been saying for days. :p

The point of this interview is that 1) Saddam is playing to world opinion so he can't use WMD yet

and

2) When he feels he has nothing to lose he WILL unleash them, damn the consequences to his people... and

worst of all,

Using WMD is Saddam's free choice to make. :Q

So, watcha think now?
I think the news is just trying to hype a sensational story. They know if they mention "chemical weapons!" that people will tune in.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: apoppin
What I have been saying for days. :p

I think the news is just trying to hype a sensational story. They know if they mention "chemical weapons!" that people will tune in.
I tend to think it is the LIKELY scenario.

What makes you think Saddam WON'T destroy Baghdad and millions of his people to get at the Coalition and create jihad?
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
So, watcha think now?
I think the U.S. ought to get the nukes fired up. KFC anyone?
So you are looking forward to jihad against the US and Britain?
How will there be a Jihad against the U.S. and Britain when those in charge would fried up extra crispy style?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
So, watcha think now?
I think the U.S. ought to get the nukes fired up. KFC anyone?
So you are looking forward to jihad against the US and Britain?
How will there be a Jihad against the U.S. and Britain when those in charge would fried up extra crispy style?
HOW?

Just as in Iraq, we see UNconventional warfare - suicide bombers, ambush from "civillians", fake surrenders, eventually infectious diseases and chemical weapons and other "dirty" weapons.

We will NOT see a declaration from arab countries of WAR against the US/Britain - rather we will see a RELIGIOUS declaration of JIHAD that arabs all over the world WILL heed. For example, of the HALF-MILLION Arab-Americans in Southern California alone - you can be CERTAIN that more than a few are RADICAL and HARDCORE and WORST of ALL they will get support from the more MODERATE arabs.

We will have no clear target (unless it is to be a religious war). ;)

 

Glitchny

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2002
5,679
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Iraqi people will speak for us, when they are free to do so without fear of execution....

You give Saddam more crddit than he deserves, he is responsible for killing more muslims than anyone in the last 50 years and is hardly popular within the region...
Again - you and most everyone else - are missing the point: IF saddam unleashed WMDs ON Baghdad in an orgy of mass-destruction at his "end" - there will be no time for ANYONE to speak "for" us. The arabs will "react", J-I-H-A-D.

I am NOT giving this evil dictator any "credit" - his stated goal is unite arabs in jihad against the West. It's pretty "simple" of a plan - and "effective" too - as NONE of you (me included) has a CLUE how to defeat this awful plan. :(
Even if addam does blow up baghdad how would thre be no time to react? im pretty sure that the ARAB world isnt united enough as a whole to instantly yell Jihad at a moments notice. Therefore we would have time to react, unless of course the muslims are jsut waiting for addam o blow up baghdad and then they launch thir attack on the US, and its all a big conspiracy between ARAB's and Saddam!!
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Glitchny
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Iraqi people will speak for us, when they are free to do so without fear of execution....

You give Saddam more crddit than he deserves, he is responsible for killing more muslims than anyone in the last 50 years and is hardly popular within the region...
Again - you and most everyone else - are missing the point: IF saddam unleashed WMDs ON Baghdad in an orgy of mass-destruction at his "end" - there will be no time for ANYONE to speak "for" us. The arabs will "react", J-I-H-A-D.

I am NOT giving this evil dictator any "credit" - his stated goal is unite arabs in jihad against the West. It's pretty "simple" of a plan - and "effective" too - as NONE of you (me included) has a CLUE how to defeat this awful plan. :(
Even if addam does blow up baghdad how would thre be no time to react? im pretty sure that the ARAB world isnt united enough as a whole to instantly yell Jihad at a moments notice. Therefore we would have time to react, unless of course the muslims are jsut waiting for addam o blow up baghdad and then they launch thir attack on the US, and its all a big conspiracy between ARAB's and Saddam!!
Well I guess you are asking me to explain my scenario further . . . OK

The Arabs are seething with ANGER right now. They view the Anglo-American incursion into Iraq as an Imperialist Expansion benefitting Israel (don't ask me HOW they see this or why but they just DO). The also see it as ILLEGAL since it isn't supported by the UN.

The religious extreme leaders are already calling for jihad and the MODERATE arabs are getting more and more angry as Saddam's propaganda machince churns out photos of dead and dying civilians. They are near the "breaking-point" NOW.

If the news of millions of Iraqi dead and wounded flashes around the world - they are not going to stop and THINK "maybe Saddam blew up Baghdad" - NO WAY, it'll be the "Coaliton's Fault" becaue (at the very least) they shouldn't have been there in the first place - and jihad will occur in very short order.

At least I HOPE it isn't this way - but what's to stop it? Moderate arabs? There won't be ANY.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com

My doomsday scenario is pretty "tame" compare with what's on the net now. :Q I guess I was just among the "first" to consider it. . . . from the article:
Wars, even lopsided ones, rarely go according to plan. The nightmare scenarios if U.S. President George W. Bush launches an attack to oust Saddam Hussein range from the horrific but improbable -- a wider Middle East war that goes nuclear -- to a likely Iraqi scorched-desert retreat that could create huge problems for advancing U.S. troops. . . .

"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last," U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told U.S. troops stationed in Italy yesterday. "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
(this is from Feb 8; IS this TRUE? Did Rumsfeld really say this?)
"If he knows he's going down, Hussein has no reason to hold anything back," warns Richard Betts, the Leo A. Shifrin Professor of War and Peace Studies at New York's Columbia University.

Mr. Betts, a military-affairs and terrorism analyst, believes there is a "one in five" chance that Iraq may attempt to attack the United States directly.

Mr. Bush warned this week that Baghdad could launch an unmanned drone from a ship to spray anthrax hundreds of kilometres inland. Far easier, and no less effective, would be an envelope of spores dumped into the subway systems of New York and Washington that could cause tens of thousands of casualties.

The longer the war lasts, the more casualties, the greater the risks. Images of besieged Baghdadis dying in the streets or hordes of fleeing refugees will be beamed to a worldwide audience, enflaming passions on Arab streets.

"To avoid a cascade of unintended consequences, Bush must use the firepower he is assembling in the gulf as a terrible swift sword that beheads Saddam in a single stroke," Strobe Talbott, former undersecretary of state in the Clinton administration, wrote in Yale Global on-line. Even if fanatic Iraqi troops were to spray anthrax or nerve gases across the path of invading U.S. troops -- causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties -- "a lot of Arabs are going to believe we did it," Mr. Betts said.

The spectre of the Iraqi ruler gassing his own people, torching oil fields to create mayhem, and lashing out with missiles against Israel all to ignite anti-U.S. fury across the Arab world are not just worst-case scenarios. Mr. Hussein's track record of desperation in defeat includes all three.

It could be worse this time.

In 1991, Iraq refrained from loosing chemical weapons against the U.S.-led coalition troops and didn't tip the scores of Scuds it fired into Saudi Arabia and Israel with nerve gas, deterred by Washington's blunt warning that using weapons of mass destruction would bring a nuclear response.

But in 1991, the U.S.-led coalition wasn't headed for Baghdad to oust the dictator.

This time, Mr. Hussein knows the U.S. military objective is to unseat him, not just push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

Although there is no evidence that Iraq has mastered putting chemical or biological warheads on medium-range Scud missiles, Mr. Betts and other analysts believe he will launch them at Israel if he can.

While Israel might hold back if it suffered a handful of casualties as it did from conventionally tipped Scuds in 1991, hundreds of casualties might provoke an Israeli nuclear response; just the trigger for a war engulfing the region that might suit the Iraqi leader in extremis. Mr. Hussein seems unlikely to repeat his mistakes of 1991, when he left his army exposed in the desert to be pulverized by coalition bombing and then cut off and destroyed by encircling U.S. tanks. Already, there are reports that his best units are being deployed in and around Baghdad and Mr. Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, their tanks dispersed in mosques and near schools safe from U.S. warplanes and ready for a last stand.

Baghdad has more than four million people and even a few determined defenders could re-create the ghosts of Somalia or Vietnam for senior American commanders. "What worries me most is if we end up getting into protracted combat in cities, in downtown Baghdad," said retired U.S. general Norman Schwarzkopf.
:Q

Do a Google search - "Worst case scenario" Iraq war

Gasp!

 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,307
0
76
There has been a Jihad against the US for 20 years. Are they going to declare "Double Jihad"??
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jmman
There has been a Jihad against the US for 20 years. Are they going to declare "Double Jihad"??
No - of course not (do I "sense" sarcasm?)

Its just that the MODERATE Arab will no longer exist. Their "gloves" will be off and all bets will be off.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Today 04/04/03 PBS Charlie Rose.

The exact scenario above was described in great detail by an analyst who said it is "likely", because Saddam is "Messianic" (in his mind and want to be immortalized) and at the LAST INSTANT of his defeat - when HE loses hope (because he knows if he is not in power, he dies anyway) he will blow up Baghdad.

What I didn't know: The UN inspectors found that Saddam had PREARRANGED in 1991 - if the coalition was to take Baghdad - to launch ALL his SCUDS loaded with his chemical and biological WMD at Israel - even if his loyalists lost contact with Baghdad they were to launch.

Whatcha think, now?

I think our special ops boys better be pretty "special" to get us out of this scenario. ;)



Edited for crappy grammar and spelling . . .
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
I thought Iraq could only hit Israel from Western Iraq. Now unless our troops missed some hidden bunkers in the west, I dont know if Iraq can hit Israel at this point or not. In any event the Patriot missles over their now should be capable of knocking most down. I believe they have shot down 50-60% of the missles launched at Kuwait, which means the scuds should be in the 75-80% range. The smaller missles are harder to know down because they fly lower to the ground.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: LH
I thought Iraq could only hit Israel from Western Iraq. Now unless our troops missed some hidden bunkers in the west, I dont know if Iraq can hit Israel at this point or not. In any event the Patriot missles over their now should be capable of knocking most down. I believe they have shot down 50-60% of the missles launched at Kuwait, which means the scuds should be in the 75-80% range. The smaller missles are harder to know down because they fly lower to the ground.
If you read the thread instead of just the update you'd realize I'd originally asked "How are we going to defend against Saddam launching all his WMD at one time INSIDE Baghdad - killing many thousands of Coalition forces and MILLIONS of his own people - to start jihad against "The Great Satan".

I figure, he is NUTs and will view his own people as expendable traitors (for losing) to be redeemed as martyrs as the jihad starts when the Muslim and Arab countries BLAME the COALITION (that's US and Britain) for the millions of dead Iraqis.

Anyway, I just saw Charlie Rose and HAD to post tonight . . . I'm heading for bed now and will check back in the AM. I'd suggest you read the entire thread so the arguments don't have to be repeated over-and-over.

EDIT: The Update was something I never heard before - that Saddam was going to blast Israel if Baghdad was invaded in 1991. It shows what this MADMAN is CAPABLE of.



So how do we defend against this?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY