BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bugsy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

GUEST,Oldguy, you are, of course entitled to your point of view, as I am to mine.


Cheers


Bugsy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:09 PM

Nope. I actually didn't get the money at all, since I'm still a dependent on my parents' tax form, but it would have been $64.01.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

CarolC:

Now you are teaching me things. I must have been thinking about an earlier attempt at line item veto that failed. Also it confirms a thought in the back of my head that Congress can over ride a veto.

I think it points to the fact that another attempt at line Item veto should be made. If the people in Congress are too busy to vote on a lot of bills, let them work 5 hour weeks like their constituents do. They are sure as hell able to vote raises for them selves with no problems.

Robert Byrd is a reformed member of a terrorist organization called the KKK and uses the N word at will. With out pork he would be toast.

I have heard several people say that the current budget has more pork than ever.

I thought everybody got a $600 rebate in 2001.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM

The line item veto was, in fact, passed into law and signed by President Clinton (I believe this was during his second term in office):

Line Item Veto passed by congress and signed by Clinton

Here's some information on how it was first used:

Clinton's first use of the Line Item Veto

In 1998, the Supreme Court stuck down the law, declaring it unconstitutional.

Line Item Veto stuck down

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:32 PM

Line item veto is definitely too much power for any one person to have, even if I trusted the president. I agree that each appropriation should stand on its own merits, and ideally a bill should not contain appropriations or clauses not germane to the initial concept of the bill.   Unfortunately, the same people who would determine what was germane are the people making the porkbarrel in the first place. The $64.01 was my rebate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:48 PM

FL:

At least we agree on the pork barrel and reduced government spending except I think pork is wrong.

There was a bill proposed to enable line item veto power to the president so he could veto parts of a bill. It did not pass.

Maybe line item veto is giving more power to the pres. but I think each appropriation should stand on its own merits. The ridiculous things that ride on the back of more important bills are in effect blackmail


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM

Forum Lurker:


Explain where the $64.01 figure came from and give us an example of "It's not actually a crime to spend national funds on projects that only help you, your family, and your friends, even at the expense of your nation's well-being. If it were, we'd have our own regime change to worry about."

Bugsy:

You are right, it is too long and after the first few sentences all credibility is lost and it seems a waste of time to read the rest.
If you want to hear some really outlandish anti-American propaganda, listen to Ramsey Clark.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:48 PM

Here's a link to Bugsy's article just in case we need it...

The United States of America Has Gone Mad by John le Carre

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

DougR-Explain to me how the $61.04 that I get under Bush's plan counters the reduction in government services, or the slowdown in the economy which inevitably results whenever more money is saved instead of spent. As far as I know, the federal government spends every cent in it budget, where private citizens often place a great deal into savings accounts, especially when the economy is looking sour.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bugsy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:28 AM

I haven't been following the threads on the USA/Iraq conflict so this
may have already been psoted somewher on the 'Cat. Be that as it may,
it's still worth another airing here.
This was sent to me by a friend a week or so ago.


Sorry if it is a little long.



The United States of America Has Gone Mad
by John le Carre

The Times, UK - January 15, 2003 America has entered one of its periods
of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than
McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term
potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have
hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms
that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically
eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate
interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing
out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East
Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was
he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still
be trying to explain such tricky matters:- as how it came to be elected
in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the
already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the
ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties.
They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its
continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies
are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are
told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to
around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in
the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of
Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how
long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the
American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88 per
cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin
Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring
tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one
in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on
the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being
misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and
fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his
fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with
the enemy. Which is odd, because I am dead against Bush, but I would
love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his
methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. The
religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps
the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an
arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God
appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God
appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy,
and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b)
anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are
equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers
one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor
of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive,
Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior
executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief
executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000:
senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil
tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations
affects the integrity of God's work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the
ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating
them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that somebody was
Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: That man tried to kill my Daddy. But it's
still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's
work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed
Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and
Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family
and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is
the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis
of Evil but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to
sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who
helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't
won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his
heart's content. Other leaders do it every day; think Saudi Arabia,
think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and
none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he
has still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel
or America could hurl at him at five minute's notice. What is at stake
is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic
imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to
demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and
China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to
show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America
abroad.The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all
this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it.
He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice.
Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't
get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself
against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a
glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our
Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply
shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal
survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an
improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his
holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy
rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us
into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been
there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more
democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN.
By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the
Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke
unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in
the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN
approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special
relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's
sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties
about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how
he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault
on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf
of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and
because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp
David, Blair has to show up at the altar. Last Friday a friend of mine
in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car
saying: Peace is also Patriotic. It was gone by the time he'd finished
shopping.




It's basically what I have beleived from the start but have not been
able to put across in a discussion.


Cheers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:58 AM

Thanks, Lurker. President Bush has proposed such a plan. It has been introduced in the House and will make it's way to the Senate, hopefully in the near future. It's called tax cuts! Surprise, surprise! Thanks for listening!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:36 AM

I've never heard any theory that explains how less money circulating can mean more money for an individual to circulate. If you have such a theory, I will gladly listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:30 AM

That is if you believe in the Keynesian theory of economics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM

Porkbarrel legislation is a fact of life. When an interim senator was appointed after Wellstone's death, he publicly stated that he would use this opportunity to obtain as much money as possible for Minnesotan companies. Bush's regressive tax cut obviously benefits his friends and family far more than it does the average American, and anyone who's ever heard of Keynes can tell you that reduced government spending doesn't help the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:41 PM

Oops, Old Guy, that might be quite a challenge.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:23 PM

Give us an example.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:56 AM

Oldguy-It's not actually a crime to spend national funds on projects that only help you, your family, and your friends, even at the expense of your nation's well-being. If it were, we'd have our own regime change to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:37 AM

I agree.

I think that when we refer to Saddam we are referring to his sons their cadre of dictatorship.

It is easier to type Saddam instead of the Iraqi Regime.

His sons would be even worse of that could be possible.

Saddam has one of his son's father in-law under house arrest because he fears a coup in the works.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Beccy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:16 AM

While I think we all can agree that Saddam is an evil bastard, I think we can probably all also agree that he's not in this alone. There is NO possible way he could have committed the atrocities he has commited on such a grand scale by himself. In addition to being the puppetmaster of the Ba'ath regime, he has groomed his own sons their entire lives for taking over his job. He took them, as small children, to torture chambers with him in order that they might understand their duties should he be unable to continue as dictator. How about asking his daughter how she liked having her husband killed because he disagreed with dear old pater-in-law.

I posit that- in accord with my opinion that we are not only justified but obligated to remove Saddam- we are also obligated to remove the rest of his regime. In order to do this, the "just assasinate Saddam" idea is pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:37 AM

America imports over a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. As much as 90 percent of the oil produced by Iraq ends up in America. It is sold to Russian traders who sell it to US oil companies. The Russians are afraid that they might loose their place as middlemen if the Iraqi regime changes.

Hence the Russian stance against the war. In the sense that American oil companies will have more direct franchises on the oil coming out of Iraq, it is about oil. But oil is also preventing the war.

The price of oil is inflated because of a "shortage" caused by Middle East tensions and traders marking it up due to this "Shortage". Iraq can produce 2 or 3 times the oil they are producing now. The quality of life in Iraq would be improved many times over if the regime cared about them instead of personal visions of greatness.

Why in hell does Saddam spend money on more palaces and weapons instead of investing the millions of dollars flowing into Iraq every day on infrastructure? That will never change unless someone takes forceful action.

The diplomatic efforts to make a change have been going on for 12 years while the situation grows worse.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:52 AM

Except that Saddam would never trade with him. I doubt he'd trade with any American companies, because it woud weaken his anit-American stance and out of spite. I would agree that it's not Bush's primary motivation, but I definitely think it enters into the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:34 AM

Then I suppose you would agree, Lurker, that Bush couldn't possibly be motivated to invade Iraq because he only wants to fatten the pocketbooks of the oil companies then, right? All he would have to do to do that is end the sanctions (embargo)!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM

A large part of the reason that the U.S. stepped into the Gulf War was to keep the region stable, because instabilities in the major oil-producing countries tend to have a negative effect on the economy of America, and indeed the world. It's not necessarily that Bush plans to occupy Iraq and leech every drop of oil from the sand, simply that the economic impact is taken into consideration. As I said before, simply ending the embargo would provide considerable gain for U.S. oil companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:25 PM

I'll take on this one...

Why didn't the current group of greedy oil men in power phony up a plan to "drop thousands of bombs on millions of innocent people" in Venezuela and take over their oil?

The preferred method for accomplishing regime change in South America is CIA covert operations. There is no proof that I know of at this time of that (which doesn't prove anything one way or the other), but there is quite a lot of cirumstantial evidence that the US government is very much behind the turmoil that is going on in that country over oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:37 AM

Will those people here that are saying in essence that "it is about oil" please explain where the oil is in Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia? None of those places have any abundance of natural resources to usurp.

Explain how the opportunity to control the oil in Kuwait was missed? All those evil, conspiring oil men were in power then.

Why didn't the current group of greedy oil men in power phony up a plan to "drop thousands of bombs on millions of innocent people" in Venezuela and take over their oil?

Anybody want to step up to the plate?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:00 AM

I wonder how many more times the fact that the U.N. did not authorize the troops to take out Saddam during Desert Storm will have to be posted before people believe it?

The argument that the U. S. just wants to take over the oil fields in Iraq simply doesn't hold water. It would have been a simple matter to seize the oil fields in Iraq or Kuwait or both the first time around, and we didn't. That'a pure horse pucky Bobert.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

I think it was from Voltaire we got something like:-

"God is not on the side of the big Battalions - He is on the side of the best shots."

While you are doing your reading Forum, read up on why the Republican Guard was formed, read up about the specific role of the Special Republican Guard inside Iraq, read up on the specific role of the Fedayeen Saddam.

Having done that, put yourself in the position of an ordinary Iraqi, who for years has been living under the threat of terror those detailed above could visit on your family, your friends or indeed even yourself. Now, having done that, ask yourself how you would behave towards them if all of a sudden it was them in a tight corner - would you do everything in your power to assist them - or would you just turn your back on them - I will leave it to you.

"What you seem to be saying is that our overwhelming military force will make the Iraqis simply surrender."

Did the last time units of the Iraqi Regular Army surrendered in droves.

"While I can't speak knowledgeably on the morale of Iraqi troops, I can say that there are innumerable examples of technologically or numerically superior armies being defeated or greatly damaged in conflicts similar to this one."

But generally it there are far more examples of it going the other way - consul a bookmaker, he'll give you odds.

A short story - During the break-out from the Normandy beach-head a German SS Division almost got caught around Caen - they were subjected to extensive bombing - they managed to escape. The experience, according to their commanding officer, was such that any time thereafter, those who had survived the fighting round Caen, when faced with even the prosect of repeating that ordeal - would run. They would do anything other than stand - and these were guys who had been fighting hard for four years.

What chance an Iraqi conscript barely out of basic training, whose Officers and senior NCO's have gone through a similar experience to that of those Germans. Talking of conscripts, and the Iraqi armed forces are largely manned by conscipts, take a look at the demographic make up of Iraq. Now put yourself in then place of a Shia Muslem, or a Kurd - who has been trapped into joining up - are you going to fight the infidel invader to the last bullet, the last drop of your blood to save Saddam - Don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:16 PM

I've done quite a bit of reading, on a wide variety of military subjects. How exactly is the idea that soldiers tend to put up a stronger defense on home territory based on an ignorant perspective? I think that it is taken as a given by most military strategists that battles fought in a city will tend to be slower and bloodier than those fought in open country. I think that our experience with guided weapons in Afghanistan has taught us that they are not always perfectly effective in damaging only the target that they are aimed at. What you seem to be saying is that our overwhelming military force will make the Iraqis simply surrender. While I can't speak knowledgeably on the morale of Iraqi troops, I can say that there are innumerable examples of technologically or numerically superior armies being defeated or greatly damaged in conflicts similar to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:44 PM

Forum Lurker,

From your posts relating to this subject, you possess very little knowledge with regard to military matters, logistics, strategy or tactics.

By way or research - Do a bit of reading

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

You think that troops defending their own country will surrender faster than those occupying a neighbor? Why is that? While Saddam's troops might not be fanatically loyal to him, I still have difficulty believing that they will simply give up at the first bomb, especially given that said first bombs are going to be droppen on Baghdad proper. Bombing the capital didn't work all that well for Hitler, and he did it for a lot longer than Bush plans to.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Forum Lurker,

"So, if we invade, the people against whom all of Saddam's security precautions were taken will be able to assassinate him, yet we can't do it ourselves?"

Why does that matter? Do you particularly want "it" to be done by "ourselves"??

"If Saddam is dead, then our stated reasons for invading go away. We can only watch whatever government takes over to make sure they obey UN resolution 1441."

Not in the slightest, the premise for going in will be specifically to enforce outstanding UNSC Resolutions.

"As to not being a war of attrition, I have difficulty seeing any other way when tens of thousands of troops are being attacked in their home city. That's the kind of fighting that looks like Stalingrad."

I can vaguely remember a previous thread where this was discussed at length, for a great many reasons concerning the troops that Saddam can count on and their normal role within Iraq, there will be no Stalingrad. To those that Saddam can depend on most Baghdad is not their home city.

"The reason Desert Storm never got to that point is that Saddam's forces were defeated and destroyed in detail well outside of any cities. That's not going to be the case this time around."

The reason "Desert Storm" never got to that point was that the UN Resolution, upon which the coalition was based, called for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait - nothing more nothing less. The only Iraqi forces defeated and destroyed in detail were, in the main, regular army formations making up the occupying garrison forces in Kuwait itself and some other units in the forward areas on the Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi borders. Only very few Republican Guard elements were engaged - The Iraqi Army remembers that. And you are right in saying that will not be the case this time round - I reckon they will pack it in a damn sight quicker than they did the last time round.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:43 AM

So, if we invade, the people against whom all of Saddam's security precautions were taken will be able to assassinate him, yet we can't do it ourselves? What if that does happen? If Saddam is dead, then our stated reasons for invading go away. We can only watch whatever government takes over to make sure they obey UN resolution 1441. As to not being a war of attrition, I have difficulty seeing any other way when tens of thousands of troops are being attacked in their home city. That's the kind of fighting that looks like Stalingrad. The reason Desert Storm never got to that point is that Saddam's forces were defeated and destroyed in detail well outside of any cities. That's not going to be the case this time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:11 AM

Forum Lurker,

"...is it going to help that much if we bomb half of the city apart?"

I don't think that any city is going to be bombed to that extent - none were the last time.

"If he's that secure, how are we going to find him in an invasion?"

We actually need to find him?? My guess is that should this start, the result will be inevitable and he will probably be assassinated by members of the Ba'ath Party.

"The idea of a surgical strike is to hit specific targets, not necessarily the leaders themselves, with quick and overwhelming force."

In your post you mentioned doing this with "air-mobile troops" - considering the forces Saddam has in Baghdad, this air-mobile operation you propose would have to greater than Arnhem and the chance of success even then would be doubtful.

"Attacking the military command centers is just as, if not more, effective than the leadership itself."

That is what they did the last time - completely destroyed Iraq's air defence systems and their command and control centres - then defeat in detail whatever units actively oppose you. Apart from some fairly obvious concerns, Saddam also fears a coup by his army - he always has, that is why the Republican Guard were formed. He then thought that they too could turn, so the Special Republican Guard were formed. One of the results of this paranoia is that his army's means of fighting for any great length of time are strictly controlled, ammunition is held back - this makes his lines of supply extremely vulnerable once command of the air has been established.

"I don't know exactly how many people 4 brigades constitute,"

A Special Republican Guard Brigade consists of around 2,500 men, so 4 Brigades would be 10,000. As well as SPG units in Baghdad, there are also RG, FS and Regular Army and Air Force units.

"If Saddam's defence forces are as large and capable as you seem to imply, it would be much more effective to hit them quickly and precisely than to wear them down in a war of attrition."

Saddam's forces are large, but, compared to the forces they will be up against, are not as capable. "Desert Storm" was not fought as a war of attrition - neither will this one, should it happen. And I keep saying that because war is not inevitable - even at this juncture - All Saddam has to do is co-operate with the disarmament process and comply with UNSC Resolutions. He may do this, he may not - one of his main reasons for not complying is that without his weapons he cannot exercise the control over his civilian population that he requires to stay in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM

If they are really that effective, is it going to help that much if we bomb half of the city apart? If he's that secure, how are we going to find him in an invasion? The idea of a surgical strike is to hit specific targets, not necessarily the leaders themselves, with quick and overwhelming force. Attacking the military command centers is just as, if not more, effective than the leadership itself. I don't know exactly how many people 4 brigades constitute, but I can be fairly sure that you can't put all of them into one place at a time. If Saddam's defence forces are as large and capable as you seem to imply, it would be much more effective to hit them quickly and precisely than to wear them down in a war of attrition.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:40 AM

Forum Lurker, when you say:

"Which is the problem, the regime, or Saddam? I have heard plenty of people say Saddam's a madman, and I agree, but is the rest of the Ba'ath part just as bad? If so, then see option two. It's not what I'd prefer, but a surgical strike executed by airmobile troops ought to be able to seize power fairly quickly and thouroughly."

You are jesting - aren't you??

The Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam exist solely to keep this man safe and in power.

The Special Republican Guard alone has 4 Brigades located largely within Baghdad. That is 14 Battalions, an armoured brigade and an air defence command with elements to secure Baghdad's ground-based air defences against any attempt such as you propose - or against any attempted coup by the Iraqi Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:51 AM

Which is the problem, the regime, or Saddam? I have heard plenty of people say Saddam's a madman, and I agree, but is the rest of the Ba'ath part just as bad? If so, then see option two. It's not what I'd prefer, but a surgical strike executed by airmobile troops ought to be able to seize power fairly quickly and thouroughly. While it won't give Bush the satisfaction of capturing Hussein and executing him for war crimes, it should achieve all of his legitimate goals, and with less loss of life on both sides than a land-based invasion which operates on the basic principle of destroying their entire defensive infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 05:52 AM

Forum Lurker,

Unfortunately just killing Saddam Hussein would not remove the Ba'ath Regime from power in Iraq - Saddam's son might posibly replace him (As Assad's son replaced him as President and leader of the Ba'ath Party in Syria), or another senior member of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party would take over (probably Tarek Azziz).

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:09 PM

Assassination. It's simple, effective, and doesn't kill thousands of innocent Iraqis, Americans, British, etc. Failing that, resume military operations targeted solely at isolating and removing Saddam and the Ba'ath from power, on the grounds that the cease-fire agreement is invalidated. Just don't call it pre-emptive, and don't say it's just for the good of the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:08 PM

You don't exactly sound undecided, Raedwulf.

Here is a thread that is trying to get into the Saddam shifting side of things that you raised just now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:22 PM

Yes, if it's necessary.

Yes, we all 'know' [note the quotes, please] that Bush is only after the oil & Blair is nowt but a poodle. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, because many of you are determined never to believe anything else, no matter what 'evidence' [note the quotes, please] is presented. (Me? I don't believe the politicians, but I don't believe the anti-war league either. I'm neither absolutely for nor absolutely against - I've seen very little convincing evidence either way)

So war's ruled out because it's inherently immoral & innocent people will die. OK.

'Scuse me, but best estimates suggest rather more than a million Iragis have died since Gulf War I...

Ah sorry, forgot - that's all the West's fault because of immoral sanctions...

OK, so we lift sanctions. And presumably Saddam, busy laughing up his sleeve, goes back to the grosser & more unsubtle methods of slaughtering those who are unfortunate enough to live within the borders of modern Iraq...

Is it just me, or have the anti war muppets not actually offered a single solution to the problem of Saddam? If we don't go to war, the vast majority of you will have forgotten him in 6 months time.

BUT 'INNOCENT' IRAQI's WILL STILL BE DYING!!!!

I don't like the idea of going to war against Iraq, I certainly don't trust the motives of Bush & his cronies (or paymasters, depending on your p-o-v), but Saddam is pure-bred excrement. Bush Sr bottled & botched the job last time round. Sanctions have failed to topple Saddam's murderous regime.

What *exactly* is your cure for the problem, you who so vehemently oppose war? It's easy to knock, but what will you do to rescue Iraq from Saddam? Sadly, at the moment I can only conclude that the US & UK are going to wind up fighting the right war for entirely the *wrong* reasons... :(

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

Don has supplied some very interesting links Forum Lurker - you really should read them:

What Dugway does in relation to CB weapons:

1. The mission of Dugway is to test U.S. and Allied biological & chemical defense systems; perform Nuclear Biological Chemical survivable testing of defense material; provide support to chemical and biological weapons conventions; and Operate and maintain an installation to support test mission.

2. Today DPG continues its role in the testing of chemical agents, pathogens, and toxins, now conducted in sealed containment chambers (rather than open air testing as in the past).

3.   The Department of Defense has designated U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) as the primary chemical and biological defense testing center under the Reliance Program.

4.   Testers here determine the reliability and survivability of all types of military equipment in a chemical or biological environment. The chemical laboratory, permitted storage area, and many test related activities are operated under contract.

5.   The Reginald Kendall Combined Chemical Test Facility (CCTF) is a state-of-the-art 48,000 square foot chemical laboratory facility designed to support testing of chemical warfare defensive equipment. Specific areas of the mission include evaluation of chemical agent detectors, testing of personnel and collective protective equipment (e.g., masks, clothing, shelters, etc.), testing of decontaminants, evaluation of military equipment for NBC survivability, analysis of waste and environmental samples, and safety air monitoring.

NOTE: In the above, or alternatively, read in the text contained in the links as supplied by Don - you will not find any reference to the testing of any CB weapons systems or munitions. Which is not really all that surprising since:

"In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002."

Yes you do have stockpiles of CB Agents and some obsolete munitions and at present they are being stored for controlled and audited destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

I have read the book you refer to. "The Third World War" written by General Sir John Hackett, published by Macmillan in 1985. It was published in two versions as the original was originally manuscript was written when the Shah was in power in Iran. The second or modified version reflected the realities imposed by the Sha's downfall.

It has been some time since I read it, but I cannot recall any resort, on the part of NATO to use CB weapons. When I get the chance I will go back and check.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

They existed then, and still exist now. Plans were made for their use, both tactically and strategically. If you doubt it, look for books about chemical and biological weapons in your local library. You should find something that makes reference to development and testing. For policy, I don't have that many sources, but try the book "The Third World War," written by a former NATO general. Somewhere in there, you will find predictions, by a policy-maker for NATO, that chemical munitions would be used by NATO in a large-scale war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

Don,

Your story holds good for conventional weapons - it does not hold good for CB weapons or for the process of developing counter-measures, which against CB weapons are passive - design and durability of suits and respirators for use by personell, filtration systems and gas tight integrity for vehicles, 'Citadel' tests for ships and structures.

Not once in my time in the service did I ever come across any US or NATO reference to the use of CB weapons by US or NATO. Not once did I ever see any CB munitions. Soviet Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries had them - take a look at the organisation of their armed forces required to support that capability - and all for a weapon that was considered to be extremely unreliable and unpredictable in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM

The difference is that a defense against new, improved AP rounds is effectice against all kinds of ammunition. Developing nerve agents so you can develop defenses against them doesn't protect at all from any research that someone else is doing on a different category of nerve agents. Also, you don't need stockpiles nearly the size of ours for research alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM

Teribus, there is an old story about a company that had two divisions. One division made armor plate and the other division made armor piercing shells. Whenever the division that made armor plate felt they had something that was impenetrable, soon after it would be returned to them with a hole in it. So they would go to work to improve it. When they had another new improvement, soon after they would be presented with yet another test sample with a hole in it. So they would go back to the old drawing board, and. . . .

Across the company's proving ground, whenever the armor piercing shell division felt they had something that would punch through anything, they would soon be presented with a piece of armor plate with, maybe a dent, but no hole in it. So they would go to work to make it even more armor piercing. And then, of course. . . .

That's what's going on here. How can you test your defensive measures without having the offensive weapon they're supposed to defend against with which to test them? And, of course, how can you tell how effective an offensive weapon is unless you can try it against possible defensive measures? Thus, we leap-frog toward perfection (!)

For decades, Dugway in particular has been a secret testing area for exotic weapons, and it still is. Yes, the United States does have chemical/biological weapons. But of course, all our weapons are strictly defense.

(Oh! But what was that Bush was saying about pre-emption?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

LOL!!!

BZ - MGOH

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:09 PM

There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, Dear Teribus,
There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, a Hole.

Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel, Dear Donuel,
Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel - Prove it...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

Then prove it Donuel - Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:25 PM

Teribus.

I know of what I speak when I say your are 100% wrong about operational "devices"

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/ductapeer.jpg