Good article

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-23 11:00pm

Anyone who argues this as a serious reason to not commit an action has conceded victory to terrorists.

I do not support invading Iraq tomorrow, but I also do not think we should be afraid of "inflaming" terrorists.

Though why we can't just invest heavily into Russian oil is beyond me. I for one would not mind pulling out of the middle east completely, and letting them get back to killing each other instead of us.

Phrased it wrong. Not so much inflaming terrorists (who, by definition, are already inflamed); but providing them with fresh recruits.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-23 11:09pm

However why countiue to work on them? Is he preparing for yet another War with Iran? How useful where they in Iran, If you want to say its a pride issue I'll accept that but why else would he contiue to devople Chem and Bio Weapons after thier uselessness aginst the avarage army today is demosrated first hand?

Not every military has the NBC protection capabilities of the USA and the USSR; and even then, the USA and USSR still developed such weapons even though their enemy is the best NBC protected armies of the planet. Using chemcial weapons against a protected enemy can contribute to victory by reducing the efficiency of an enemy force- as such, nations may still employ them.

Contrary to what hey have before when they have lied Vympel, you have to admit if it was massive fake job there would be SOMTHING, the complete lack of anything indicats somthing important but un-releasable

I'm not saying that they're pulling a massive fake job, but what I am saying is that they have nothing concrete, only vague assertions, and this is not the stuff to go to war on.

Conventional weapons kill people, Not "Make them mildly unconfortable

Chemcial and Biological can only conventonaly be used aginst the unprotected Civil popluas, not the Armed Forces of another country

Chem/Bio weapons are a little more than mild discomfort to an enemy force. There is a good chance you will kill enemy infantry before they can get their suit/ mask on, for example, and once they have their suits on they might as well be slogging through mud and looking through blurred spectacles for how efficient they are.

Not sure or not able, One can't annouce on National TV that say Saddam's Right hand man is feeding us information

If that was hypothetically the case, they could reasonably say they have evidence from a well-placed source that a definite link exists- they have been careful to not make any such claims of a definite link- covering their ass.

You've posted a few many of which are quite length, diging back through to find two guys names while I'm busy digging up info on others is not high on my list you must understand, if you would be kind enough to name the one that was well... named

"The TIMES retained two satellite image specialists to interpret the photos: Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington D.C, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of his work."

For ten to thirty years?

I doubt he'll live for 30 more years.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-23 11:21pm

Hmm could not find anything to disagree with in you on your latest post besides the one comment that Saddam won't live 30 Years

The point remains he's likley to be around for quite awhile(Twenty years say)
Is containment for that long a period of time fesiable?

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-24 10:49am

Why not? The USSR was contained for 45 years, and then there were huge ideological reasons for war (the evils of communism, the evils of capitalism etc), constant clamoring for war, yet the peace was maintained.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-24 11:21am

Why not? The USSR was contained for 45 years, and then there were huge ideological reasons for war (the evils of communism, the evils of capitalism etc), constant clamoring for war, yet the peace was maintained.

Diffrence, We know that we had less than ten years per-Primere of the Soviet Union, no one could simply stay in power that long and the Soviet Union was un-done by its own drive to stay up with the West in EVERY area, even those that did not matter in the slightist

And still even the head of the Soviet Union did NOT have absolute power, he had to kiss and make promises to get his job and keep it on a day to day basies, The Inner Concile held the true power, over the Ecnomey, The Army, and the Argculture, and of course the KGB and the nukes

Meanwhile Saddam has SADDAM, there is no checks on him at all, The Soviet Union was a Dictatorship style Communist Goverment but it was NOT a Dictatorship, there where many many checks on the head of the party

The people did not forget Stalin and what happens when one man holds absoulte power and they endevered to make sure it never happend with any of his succesiros

However we have another Stalin on our hands

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-26 09:38am

Forgot about this discussion.

Iraq may be dictatorial as compared to the authoritarian USSR, but from the beginning I've also been challenging the contention that Saddam will , irrationally do something like reinvade Kuwait, or attack Israel. All experience with him points to him being a rational, evil man, not an insane loony. When he attacked Kuwait, he felt he had nothing to lose and everything to gain; remember he asked the US if they had any opinion on the matter, and the ambassador said, in effect "we have no interest". If the ambassador had said "we will use military force to guarantee Kuwaiti sovereignty", Saddam wouldn't have attacked.

Also, as I've shown, his military isn't nearly in the condition it was in 1991, with much of its equipment lost and the Order of Battle for the both the Army and Air Force much reduced through 1991 losses and spare parts attrition. The US stomped him then, they can definitely stomp him now if he tries anything.

Additionally, what kind of nuclear weapons could he develop and how would they be delivered?

Let's say you make a nuclear bomb. How do you deliver it?

ICBM- out
Artillery piece- range
Aircraft- SAMs, certain death at the hands of the aircraft constantly patrolling the no-fly zone, or in Israels case, the Israeli air force.

Terrorism? Not only are the links between Saddam and Al-Quaeda unestablished, but there's every reason to believe, judging from the CIA and common sense, that he would only use WMD, if he has them, if backed against a corner. Also, terrorist delivery of such a device isn't about to win any war.