Iraq Striking First

bad kitty

naughty feline
Joined
Apr 7, 2002
Posts
12,574
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html

Iraq Might Strike First, Defense Officials Warn
Friday, March 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein may be considering pre-emptive strikes on American and British troops, Israeli targets and his own people if he feels war is inevitable, Pentagon officials have told Fox News.

"We have to assume that if he feels he has been backed into a corner, he may believe his only real shot comes from trying something first," one official said Thursday night.

Defense surveillance has revealed movements of Iraqi troops and heavy artillery toward the southern border, from which they could take up positions to shell U.S. troops dug in inside Kuwait, Fox News learned Thursday.

U.S. officials also said they have seen Iraqi surface-to-surface Scud missiles moved into parts of western Iraq that would put them within striking distance of Israel.

The Iraqis may have wired key oil fields in the north and the south of the country with explosives for possible detonation should the coalition launch an attack.

The developments could signal plans for pre-emptive missile attacks on Israel, as well as attacks on U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians.

U.S. officials said any and all such eventualities were built into the main allied battle plan, implying that there were prescribed counter-measures in place should Iraq attack first. Officials would not comment on the details of any pre-emptive scenarios.

The United States has been moving about 10 Navy ships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles from the eastern Mediterranean to the Red Sea, senior U.S. officials said Thursday. The move indicates weakening U.S. confidence that Turkey will grant overflight rights for U.S. planes and missiles.

From the Red Sea the cruisers, destroyers and submarines would be able to launch their Tomahawks — expected to be fired in the opening hours of a war — over Saudi Arabia to targets in Iraq.

The ships are part of the USS Harry S. Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier battle groups, which have been operating in the eastern Mediterranean for weeks in anticipation of war against Iraq.

No decision has been made to move the carriers themselves from the Mediterranean, but that could be a next step, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Each carrier has about 80 aircraft aboard.

Tomahawks are satellite-guided missiles designed to be used in the opening stages of war to strike high-value, fixed targets such as government buildings in areas where the risk of civilian casualties is relatively high.

The Tomahawks evade radar by skimming land or sea surfaces. Following the Gulf War, they became one of the U.S. weapons of choice to respond to Iraqi breaches of U.N. sanctions.

The issue of Turkish overflight rights for U.S. missiles and planes has been overshadowed by the Bush administration's struggle to win Ankara's approval to base 60,000 or more U.S. troops there to open a northern front against Iraq.

The Turkish parliament failed to pass the U.S. request for basing rights earlier this month. Pentagon officials said Thursday it appeared increasingly unlikely that the Army would position its 4th Infantry Division there as originally planned.

About three dozen cargo ships with the 4th Infantry Division's weaponry, equipment and supplies have been waiting off the Turkish coast for weeks, and the troops are still at their base in Fort Hood, Texas.

During the 1991 Gulf War the Navy positioned carriers and Tomahawk-launching ships in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It now has three carriers in the Gulf — the USS Kitty Hawk, the USS Constellation and the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Fox News' Bret Baier and Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
Iraq would never break a U.N. resolution and launch a pre-empted strike, that is so out of character for them.
 
If you were in Iraq's position....kinowing that the US and Britan were going to attack you...wouldn't you consider striking first????
 
Mountain Man said:
If you were in Iraq's position....kinowing that the US and Britan were going to attack you...wouldn't you consider striking first????
I would consider getting my ass in gear and doing what I was supposed to do in the first place. ;)
 
Well, a good offense is the best defense, however, Saddam attacking us first would result in his total obliteration, I think he's aware of that. It would make about as much sense as a goat trying to butt a hungry lion.
 
plasticman33 said:
Well, a good offense is the best defense, however, Saddam attacking us first would result in his total obliteration, I think he's aware of that. It would make about as much sense as a goat trying to butt a hungry lion.
True, but he has proven that he isn't the brightest Crayon in the box.
 
plasticman33 said:
Well, a good offense is the best defense, however, Saddam attacking us first would result in his total obliteration, I think he's aware of that. It would make about as much sense as a goat trying to butt a hungry lion.


But is't total obliteration exactly what's gonna happen to him??

I was watching Condi Rice last weekend...and she was asked if the US would still demand "regime change" even if Sadam completely disarmed according to UN Mandate....Her answere...he won't disarm...and "Regime Change" is necessary in Iraq.

So hes a dead man no matter what happens....knowing his warped mind...why not take out as many US/British troops as he can before that happens?
 
More fear-mongering by the Bush Oil Team and its Ministry of Propaganda.

Jesus, I can't believe anybody is falling for this tripe.
 
one could also say in this situation if it were to happen his hand was forced and why wait for the inevitable. Two wrongs never made a right is another thing people could say.

Either way there are two constants. One, Iraq is acting like my 4 yr old when he gets into trouble and gets his dessert taken away. Two and like my 8 yr old when dealing with his 4 yr old brother, Bush is acting like the worlds keystone cop on steroids imposing his will on everyone else.

I harken back to a analogy of two toddlers fussin over a sandbox...
 
Hamletmaschine said:
More fear-mongering by the Bush Oil Team and its Ministry of Propaganda.

Jesus, I can't believe anybody is falling for this tripe.

Tripe or not (and this has the ring of truth to it), Hussein is a dangerous motherfucker and should be dealt with now.

Why is it every time someone mentions being in favor of a war against Iraq, or points to evidence that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, they are accused of being a war-monger or a fear-monger?
 
Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

brokenbrainwave said:
one could also say in this situation if it were to happen his hand was forced and why wait for the inevitable. Two wrongs never made a right is another thing people could say.

Either way there are two constants. One, Iraq is acting like my 4 yr old when he gets into trouble and gets his dessert taken away. Two and like my 8 yr old when dealing with his 4 yr old brother, Bush is acting like the worlds keystone cop on steroids imposing his will on everyone else.

I harken back to a analogy of two toddlers fussin over a sandbox...
As I have said, sometimes it appears as a wrong, sometimes you have to take drastic measures to keep really bad things from happening. Kinda like a back burn fire.
 
Stormfang said:
Tripe or not (and this has the ring of truth to it), Hussein is a dangerous motherfucker and should be dealt with now.

Why is it every time someone mentions being in favor of a war against Iraq, or points to evidence that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, they are accused of being a war-monger or a fear-monger?


For the same reason that people who are against the war are called anti-americans and pacifists


It makes the name callers feel better
 
Ugh.

*shakes his head*

It's a shame that we'll never have any good, worthwhile debate about the necessity of war in Iraq because of "name callers." It always degenerates into a bunch of insults, or into rhetoric.
 
Re: Ugh.

Stormfang said:
*shakes his head*

It's a shame that we'll never have any good, worthwhile debate about the necessity of war in Iraq because of "name callers." It always degenerates into a bunch of insults, or into rhetoric.
Some people are actual adults and can discuss things as such... you just have to overlook the others. ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

bad kitty said:
As I have said, sometimes it appears as a wrong, sometimes you have to take drastic measures to keep really bad things from happening. Kinda like a back burn fire.
however bk, the base line question of why now has never been answered. With me, it is not a Bush/Republican thing. I have a deeply rooted distrust for both major parties. Funny, I told my wife shortly after the attacks on NYC and DC when the wave of patriotism was whipping everyone into a comatose frenzy this will give Bush all the reasons he thinks he needs to wage war on any country that he deems a threat. If this was Clinton or, god forbide Gore, I'd be saying the same thing in the same situation. This is not about protection, this is about potenial colonialism. While I honestly feel Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, the precedent he is setting is one that very well may change the future and lead to many many wars. My sons are 8 and 4, I do not relish the thought of them fighting somewhere in a land that means diddly shit to me. Why now is what I've wanted to hear from the President for months now. Why now has never been answered.
 
Re: Ugh.

Stormfang said:
*shakes his head*

It's a shame that we'll never have any good, worthwhile debate about the necessity of war in Iraq because of "name callers." It always degenerates into a bunch of insults, or into rhetoric.

You want to debate killing people that have done nothing to us?

That's not worthwhile to me...
 
Re: Re: Ugh.

bad kitty said:
Some people are actual adults and can discuss things as such... you just have to overlook the others. ;)
Unfortunately I tend to want to discuss things rationally, even with people who are irrational.
 
Re: Re: Ugh.

Purple Haze said:
You want to debate killing people that have done nothing to us?

That's not worthwhile to me...
Thank you for making my point. You immediately challenged me with rhetoric, and so negated any chance of serious discussion.
 
Oh boo hoo hoo.

Sorry to dissapoint you, Stormfang. You picked the wrong thread for a discussion. bad kitty pastes an article full of rhetoric, and we're supposed to discuss a ridiculous hypothetical situation?

Excuse me for not wasting a morning typing out why an attack on Iraq is not only immoral, costly in dollars, costly in innocent lives, and an overall stupid idea that some people still think is necessary because they believe everything they hear on television.

You want an intelligent discussion? Pick a topic that isn't stupid.
 
Because you've already made up your mind, what is the point in debating you?

What will we debate?

~How many Iraqis to kill?
~How best to kill them?
~When to kill them?
~Where to kill them?

What is it that you're uncertain about that you'd like to debate?
 
Gunner Dailey said:
Iraq would never break a U.N. resolution and launch a pre-empted strike, that is so out of character for them.

Well the early evening news has just reported that he's moved heavy artillery to Iraq's southern border, facing the invading troops...

ppman
 
Back
Top