Speaking my brains...

[Tom Tom]

Countdown...

Originally posted by Buddha 3
A little prediction:

The whole thing will kick off during the night of thursday the 20th to friday the 21st of March. Why? The deadline is Thursday morning 5 AM Iraqi time. Which means that there will be less then an hour of darkness left, which is why they'll start the next night. This is because the US troops are likely to go up and over at night, exploiting the vast technological superiority of their equipment. I doubt there will be a prolonged air campaign. I think it'll be swift and brutal, with huge amounts of force applied to a few small points on the map.
If I'm right, it means I get a war for my 30th birthday...

Happy birthday to you
Happy Birthday to ...................KABOOM................
You
Happy Birthd............SPLAT........ay to Buddha 3
Happy ......................BANG............Birthday to you

 

[Tom Tom]

Originally posted by stongl
Fair point,

Ah but what if Saddam decides to launch a pre-emptive strike into Kuwait? I mean he's gotta know what is coming, from a military standpoint it has to be the most sensible option.

Does anyone think Saddam will resort to Chemical weapons???
I thought in the last Gulf war the "rumoured" deal was "you use chemical weapons we use nukes." Surely he's got nothing to lose this time round?

Bit of a worrying thought............

Would the US dare to use Nukes especially with out UN backing and at the risk of killing half of the middle east including their own troops.?

 

[Buddha 3]

A pre-emptive strike would not be in his interest. In the previous war he made a spoiling attack on Khafji, which was crushed, but which allowed him to say "hah, look at me".
If he does the same now, it would only lead to the destruction of forces he'd need to defend his throne. If he'd send in second rate troops, they would just surrender at the first sight of US troops (kinda like those guys did that surrenderd when the US and British held a live fire excersize...).
I doubt Saddam will be able to use chemical weapons on a scale of any impact. If he still has any left, I bet the US planners know full well where the stuff is hidden, and I think those stockpiles will be amongst the first sites to be targeted. It'll be one sided mostly. The only thing that might not be that easy is the actual taking of Baghdad, if the Republican Guard decide to stand and fight.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
1--What I meant is that at this point in time, the UN is a very indecisive institution, something that I think is a sad state of affairs

2--It makes Bush look like he's taking the same path as Saddam took many years ago.

3--The US has been the victim of a direct attack. So now it wants to kick ass, which makes a lot of sense. But ignoring international law and order, even if it is slow in acting, is a bad thing.

I'm staying outta this, really I am, as everyone is already doing a bang up job but . . .
1--No, actually it's not. It's a body filled with states who have competing interests and different agendas.
2--The inability to make moral distinctions is a sign of insanity.
3--Revenge isn't the point at all. Nor is international law and order being ignored in this little drama by anyone except Saddam. Even if all sides lined up hundreds of lawyers to make every argument possible nothing would be settled and not everyone is gonna agree--See number 1. So long term which course is more likely to assure ongoing order, the pacification of lunatics and terrorists or their elimination?


PS--Jay's prediction. New moon soon.

Register your screw drivers at a police station near you today!

 

[duffistuta]

I was staying out too, 'til Jay mentioned the elite republican guard, and then - in homage to Uncle Bill - I had to chime in...

"Remember how it started, they kept talking about 'the Elite Republican Guard' in these hushed tones like these guys were the bogeymen or something. Yeah, we're doing well now, but we have yet to face-THE ELITE REPUBLICAN GUARD. Like these guys were twelve feet tall, desert warriors. KRRASH. NEVER LOST A BATTLE! KRRASH. WE **** BULLETS!

Yeah, well, after two months of continuous carpet bombings and not one reaction at all from them, they became simply, 'the Republican Guard.' Not nearly as elite as we may have led you to believe.

And after another month of bombing, they went from 'the Elite Republican Guard' to 'the Republican Guard' to 'the Republicans made this **** up about there being guards out there'. We hope you enjoyed your fireworks show. It was so pretty, and it took our mind off of domestic issues! The Persian Gulf distraction."


RIP

 

[Justin Owen]

If Saddam aims to do anything other than step down, there's no way he'll do anything other than sit and wait unless he's totally flipped off the skillet. A pre-emptive strike would not only accomplish nothing, but it would expose his attacking troops and make them much easier targets for the US attack when it comes (as well as spreading them thin). They'd be just as well off sitting out in the desert waving bright orange flags and sitting on top of a big target in the sand while screaming "HERE WE ARE!!!."

It's far more likely he'll set fire to his oil fields and generally try to make a big mess of things while setting up as much of a defense as he can muster. Smoke from the oil fields, especially in dense areas, could make it harder for aerial attack. And would add another thing to think about for the troops coming in.

All of that being said, I don't expect the Iraqi army to put up any kind of a fight. They may wait 'til the last minute but plenty enough of those folks remember what happened in Desert Storm and I'm sure none of 'em are anxious for a repeat performance. Like the live-fire surrender that was brought up...when all the chips are on the table, those guys aren't stupid enough to commit suicide, nor do they believe strongly enough in "the cause."

Which brings me to a thought: I don't see it as at all beyond the realm of possibility that there could be a last-minute coup. In fact a part of me is kind of expecting it. His support among his senior staff has got to be running on empty and all it could take would be a certain individual to step up to bat and speak what all of his officers are already thinking. Same principle applies as above...when all the chips are down, those guys know what's coming and if it's between clocking their cuckoo leader who wants to fight 'til the end and following him into futility, they'd have to be crazy not to take the easy way out.

Lotsa love to all,
~J~

 

[Walker (Nitro)]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
(the terrible results of september 11th are fully to blame on the perpetrators, but were partially caused by severe design flaws in the buildings

I know its been on the TV, but who designs buildings to withstand impacts from a jumbo? It's like making a car with a built in parachute just in case you find yourself falling through the sky!

 

[Justin Owen]

Thanks

Walker, thank you...you actually responded to that and I meant to respond to it myself earlier...

The twin towers weren't designed poorly. From what I understand, they were designed to stand up to impacts from planes just UNDER the size of the ones that hit 'em. So they were hit with larger planes, and they didn't collapse immediately. Staying structurally intact for the extra time that they did saved thousands of lives, allowing people time to flee the building and clear the surrounding area. And when they finally did collapse (from the extended heat of fuel-fire that would have caused ANY steel beams ANYWHERE to eventually buckle under the pressure), they fell straight down. Planned demolitions are sometimes not as "smooth," and that's testament to great design. Had the towers not fallen straight down and instead toppled onto surrounding buildings and areas (which is apparently what Osama had been going for), the loss of life could have doubled, tripled, etc.

~J~

 

[Solonor]

The obvious reason is oil.
And personally I'm concerned more about terrorism after this war ,than before.
I don't know in which category I fall into ,Justin

 

[Justin Owen]

Solonor said:
>>>> The obvious reason is oil <<<<

Response given by Mark/Static, previously:

1) In August of 1990 Saddam offered the US ambassador to Iraq all the cheap oil the US could use if we allowed their occupation of Kuwait to stand. We attacked 5 months later.
2) If the US was truly after cheap Iraqi oil we would:
a) Be an impediment to true Iraqi disarmament.
b) Oppose any form of Iraqi regime change.
c) Flatly oppose any time-table for the use of force.
d) Use our veto on the security council as a weapon of politics.
Or simply do what France is doing.