Saddam has authorized use of mass destruction weapons - US defense official

Northern Light via intellnet.org ^ | Feb. 9, 2003 | AFX News Asia

[Centurion2000]

Here's another thought - what if the french and germans suddenly, without consultation and warning, fly a few thousand of their troops into Iraq tomorrow to back up their "plan" of "occupying Iraq for long term inspection and demilitarization..."

Then the french and germans get ONE warning to evacuate Iraq ....

[Dog Gone]

That's a good point. I know Saddam will try to use WMD. Whether the army will follow orders is unknown.

[Squantos]

Awwww Gheeesh Yehuda don't say that out loud :o) ..... Albeit I'm not sure if the Pope hisself was sitting next to old SadAssed Insane that GW will or should stop now......

GIT ER DUUUNE !

Stay Safe !

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

This is too warped even for So Damn Insane.

[Pining_4_TX]

So, why are we sending our troops instead of just nuking the whole damn place? Because Bush wants to play "nice". He believes in "compassionate warfare" - the kind that does not completely destroy the enemy and leaves our troops there for years as sniper fodder.

[CyberAnt]

This is so important to say LOUDLY AND CLEARLY

We are being threatened with weapons Sadaam says he doesn't have!!

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

We (myself included) have been operating under the conclusion that Saddam is a madman and his end-game strategy will be to use every weapon in his arsenal, and, like Hitler before him, to die in his bunker. I would like to consider the possibility that Saddam is not crazy (in the clinical sense) in that he doesn't want to die and he doesn't want his family to die. Would anyone care to venture on the probability that, once war becomes totally inevitable, and the big daisy cutters in the sky are about to do their thing, ole' Saddam realizes that, perhaps, discretion is the better part of valor, and decides to play Let's Make a Deal?

Everything I've read and heard does not give that scenario much of a chance. I think it actually has a higher probability than the conventional wisdom gives it, maybe even better than fifty-fifty. After all, the alternative is certain death, which is not such a welcome outcome for a guy who has been living the good life for a generation. He's not a religious fanatic who believes he is on the short list for 72 virgins. Getting a one-way ticket to Libya or Algeria might start looking pretty good to him in the very near future.

[Letitring]

So, are you saying you'd rather he continue to use these WMD against us here and abroad, in a sneaky, third-party manner, continue his use of terrorist as his delivery system? I would rather we deal with Saddam straight up, using our Military, who God willing, has a much better chance of surviving, than say, the citizens of NYC. Either way, this man is not going away, must be dealt with, is not and will not leave us alone and won't stop his manic behavior. Nothing the last 3 Presidents have done has worked. Saddam is bent on bringing these horrible weapons to America. It might happen in a city near you. I'm not willing to take that chance. I don't want even one more American hurt by these rabid terrorist, and their sponsors. Just my 2 cents.

[AndyJackson]

I think it actually has a higher probability than the conventional wisdom gives it.

I think it has a reasonably high probability of succeeding, but only if Bush continues to send clear signals that he is not bluffing, that he is taking deliberate steps without hesitation that will lead to war by a date certain, and there is no derailing this except "complete" capitulation by that date certain, and that any any misteps will hasten the actions that will leave their heirs and successors nothing but a burning cinder.

Then everyone on the other side can calculate to a certainty that they have one option to survive, that that option must be exercised by a certain date, and that absent that capitulation by that date certain, nothing will save them and their heirs and offspring.

This is where liberals keep going wrong. Giving a guy the choice between certain death or an action whose outcome is moral is not immoral. Giving a guy a choice between an immoral outcome with a 75% survival rate and a moral outcome with a 25% survival rate and the outcome is also clear. But the latter is exactly what liberals do.

[Wolverine]

Asked whether the United States would strike back with similar weapons, Rodman, whose remarks were translated, refused to specify.

Rummy answered here

The first speaker, who poses the question, is Rep. Meehan of Massachusetts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replies (including a follow-up question from Meehan), followed by remarks from Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Momaw Nadon]

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Exactly! As long as the outcome for Saddam is certain, he may just give up before the bombs start falling. This is not Clinton in the White House. The rest of the world knows it, and Saddam is about to learn it, if he hasn't already. I have a little analogy:

A criminal is holed up in a barn. You threaten to blow up the barn if he doesn't come out. That doesn't work. Now, throw in a time bomb that is set to explode in five minutes, and see if he changes his mind as he watches the numbers count down.

[Wolverine]

Someone's put out a (futures) contract on Saddam

 

Contract history

 

Current Market Price <<<< constantly updated

[Squantos]

I was watching FNC this afternoon....seems the subway is alledgedly the new Islamakazi target........Stay Safe Yehuda !!

[Fabozz]

"So, why are we sending our troops instead of just nuking the whole damn place?"

Back in WWII, we estimated the conquest of Japan would cost 1,000,000 US casualties, in three separate amphibious invasions each bigger than D-Day. "Nuking" two cities with a combined population of 424,000 spared those losses, but only at a cost of 103,000 innocent civilian deaths. Let's set that 1:10 as an acceptable ratio—we and the world will tolerate killing one innocent civilian if it spares 10 US troops.

Baghdad has a population of 4,834,773. "Nuking the whole damn place" would kill 1,174,484 civilians—people whose only crime is that they let fear of Saddam's torture chambers keep them from overthrowing the Baathist despot. If you assume that Saddam will order his troops to use WMD on our own, and if you assume his field commanders will carry out that order, and if you assume we will not be able to take out those weapons first, and if you assume his WMD will prove effective against our protective measures, and if you assume his WMD will achieve the same 25% kill rate that ours do, then "nuking the whole damn place" will spare the lives of perhaps as many as 75,000 US troops, for a civilian-to-solider ratio of 15:1.

In other words, the moral calculus for "nuking" Baghdad is some 150 times worse than that for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That decision has been debated and second-guessed for 50 years. I don't think hesitation to commit a terrible act with less than 1% of the justification that was only barely sufficient for Truman makes Bush a wobbly-kneed liberal dove.

[American in Israel]

How do we say "oops" in French...

Sacre Blouie?

[American in Israel]

Outstanding post!

[archy]

How do we say "oops" in French...

Sacre Blouie?

In the argot of the French Foreign Legion, you'd say merde du bordel!