If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Throwing a nuke at us would trigger armageddon, the Russians don't want that, we don't want that and the USA doesn't want it.
The russians know they would be on the recieving end of about 1000 megatons of nukes, the USA the same and we'd get hit by about 300.
No country in the West could survive.
A war with Saddam won't start armageddon, but could prevent it.
Interesting take on matters Greenhat, so all those oil wells he ordered set on fire as his troops (those who weren't merely foreign migrant worker conscripts who surrendered immediately) were retreating wasn't classed as a withdrawal? lol. I think it's you who need to go brush up on the facts! :rolleyes:
Again this is most interesting since coalition forces lost only around 148 combatants with some 400 or so wounded in action. (hardly consistent with the effects of a WMD attack if any had ever actually ocurred). Hmmmm I suppose his missiles must have flown the wrong way eh? LOL. Once again, whatever you take to be fact needs serious reassessment.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-non-use.htm
No chemical weapons were employed by Iraq during Desert Storm, plain and simple. Perhaps you are confusing matters with chemical agents that might have been released into the air from coalition bombing raids on various suspected production/storage facilities (a likely source of Gulf War Syndrome following the conflict), but that by all reckoning is a far cry from direct employment of WMDs upon our boys. Sadly, this piece of history is not quite far enough in the past as to be conveniently revised to support such a bogus claim… try again.
How about we try giving the WHOLE picture shall we Greenhat? Such as the fact (which you conveniently left out) that the SCUDs he launched against Israel were merely hollow shells which caused a bit of excitement and some property damage but little in the way of any significant casualties and nothing close to what would have been the case if he was so ready to employ WMD’s abroad.
Frankly once again, strangely incorrect on all scores for one with a claim to the finest military intelligence available. Hmmmm.. maybe the term military intelligence truly is an oxymoron. LOL.
Thanks for playing, next contestant please!
Actually I don't.
He didn't withdraw, he fled in the face of overwealming armed forces who were battering his forces. Either that or I imagined the events of 1991.
Much of the information coming out of that period has highlighted that he could no longer communicate with his troops and therefore many of his orders could not be carried out.
You would also have noted that the presenece of the SAS and others helped prevent his use of scud missiles (the main system for delievering his WMD at the time)
Whether of not the US supported his invasion of Iran is irrelevant. He didn't do because they supported him, he did it because he wanted to...
Except you now question the validity of what these "sources" may have unearthed...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the support of his nation is irrevelant also. He doesn't really need it does he?
So he lives in a world of lies etc, so what? Does that stop him from killing people?
I'll see if I can answer both for you. Okay, I don't profess to be an expert on intelligence issues, but lets lay out a scenario for you...
US/UK intelligence agency has a source close to Saddam. Very close. This source provides detailed high level information on a regular basis, invaluable data detailing the whereabouts of WMD etc. As you say Saddam doesn't have the support of his people, so this isn't too much of a fancy idea is it?
Okay, so this source confirms the existence of WMD to the US/UK who decide that action is necessary. However, they need to get a UN Resolution passed.
Problem is that two members of the Security Council have a veto, and in order to convince them you would need to share this source, who can be identified by the very nature of his information, to these two countries. These countries are Russia and France. Both allies of Iraq for years.
One of these countries is known to have leaked US/UK intelligence before. Neither Govt are "friendly" to the US.
Hmmm, would you risk the source, still not knowing if you would get the Resolution you need?
Anyway, salient point, mentioned before is that the Govts with whom the US/UK routinely share intelligence support their stance. Co-incidence?
Faced by a coalition of nations that clearly called for his withdrawal, did he retreat? I guess you have forgotten Desert Shield. Faced with forces attacking his, did Saddam order withdrawal? No, retreats occurred as troops "broke and ran". That doesn't qualify as a withdrawal, it qualifies as panic. It most especially doesn't indicate Saddam's tendencies. Remember the promised "mother of all battles"?
I see you are also incapable of understanding a basic sentance. What part of the verb "ordered" is beyond your comprehension? Or are you under the foolish assumption that all orders are received and followed?
As for the "empty shells", that is just a flat out lie. A SCUD missile requires certain weight distribution in order to fly in anything resembling the designed trajectories. Since each SCUD launched at Israel did fly in a manner consistent with the design parameters, the warheads were not empty shells. Anyone who watched the news during the Gulf War will remember the impact areas, the fact that they carried explosive charges is more than slightly evident. Ah yes, the actions of a man who wants to be left alone....attack the most powerful nation in the region.
:rolleyes:
Well, in some situations that certainly is a possibility. The other is that certain governments will use this apparently unanswerable argument to do as they please. So it's up to the individual, after considering the track record and past actions of the countries involved in such allegations, whether it is likely that the allegations are true and we should just take their word for it, or they're just telling porkies.
In the case of Iraq, considering the agenda the US has (and hasn't even bothered to deny) towards that country, and the likeliness of agents having infiltrated in any Iraqi nuclear weapons programme I think most people can decide for themselves whether they can trust the word of Bush and Blair.
I'd say based on your comments on CT and intelligence operations in general, that you have no idea of how likely it is that there are agents in the Iraqi nuclear program, Iraqi government or Iraqi military (any of those could be a source for such information. Surprise.).