PDA

View Full Version : "Chemical attack is guaranteed"


peter2002
Mar 10, 2003, 07:53 AM
An Iraqi defector has told Sky News that Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons if the country is invaded.

His warning comes amid revelations Saddam Hussein may be planning to use pilotless drone planes to spray British and US troops with anthrax and sarin gas if they attack.

In an exclusive interview, the officer with Saddam's elite Republican Guard, said the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was "100% guaranteed".

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12265723,00.html

_____________

Darn, I hope we have enough body bags for our troops. Things are going to get real messy after March 17th.

Pete :(

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 08:17 AM
This is not good - how reliable is this site, I've never heard of it and there isn't mention of the defector on any other news pages that I've seen.

If Sadam uses WMD, all hell will break loose, everywhere. People will be pissed at him for using them, pissed at the US military for forcing war and getting so many people killed. Uhg!

D :( :( :(

dobbin
Mar 10, 2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
This is not good - how reliable is this site, I've never heard of it

I don't know for sure about reliability but I would guess that its good as Sky news is one of the biggest news services in the UK, along with BBC and ITN.

mkubal
Mar 10, 2003, 08:59 AM
So there is a 100% chance that he will use the chemical weapons that he swears up and down that he does not have. Seems contradictory.

Matt

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by mkubal
So there is a 100% chance that he will use the chemical weapons that he swears up and down that he does not have. Seems contradictory.

No, what that will do if further increase the resolve of the US to go after him. Cause more deaths on both sides and lead to some really nasty results by the time its all said and done.

One thing that the US might do is initiate the conflict - even with all the unsupport - and then when the WMD get used, basically say "We told you so..." Ugh! It shouldn't have to come to this, but then Sadam is not exactly playing with a full deck it seems and there really doesn't seem to be any other solution than force.

D

topicolo
Mar 10, 2003, 09:51 AM
That's why I don't think Saddam will use chemical/biological weapons unless it becomes a last resort. He knows that he can't win in a direct military confrontation so it's going to use deception to sway world opinion towards stopping the war on his country. If he uses any WMD he has, he would've proven Bush right and his games will fall apart.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:12 AM
The interview of this guy was shown on Fox news this morning. It is legit. I would have to agree that there is a 100% chance that he will use them. As for Body bags pete, all the troops have been inocculized for Anthrax, and have the best chemical weapons training in the world. It won't be ugly for our troops, but it will be for any civilians in the area, and for the Iraqi troops that use the weapons.

Don't think doomsday yet Duke, it won't get that bad.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Don't think doomsday yet Duke, it won't get that bad.

I'm not thinking doomsday - I'm thinking that this conflict may set new standards/laws for weapons of mass destruction. Its a dark cloud that might have a silver lining, but its going to get much uglier before it gets better.

And don't forget possible backlashes against the US and more terrorist attacks at home. No, it won't be good, hopefully eveyone will learn something here.

D

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
I'm not thinking doomsday - I'm thinking that this conflict may set new standards/laws for weapons of mass destruction. Its a dark cloud that might have a silver lining, but its going to get much uglier before it gets better.

And don't forget possible backlashes against the US and more terrorist attacks at home. No, it won't be good, hopefully eveyone will learn something here.

D

I am hoping that the lesson is that if you give the world the finger for 12 years, you are going to get your ass handed to you on a silver platter. Point is, that most countries have agreed not to use Chemical and Biological weapons. So, it is the rouqe countries that we are up against. Now in three years, I may be proven wrong, but I think Iraq will be a democracy and there will be a state for the Palistinians.

drastik
Mar 10, 2003, 10:34 AM
Short of a couple of select bullets ina couple of select heads, this is going to be ugly. We are talking about war, and we ar talking about twice the bombs uised in the first gulf conflict being used in a period of a few days. Serious Arc lighting. People are going to die, its going to be bloody, most people who die won't deserve it. War is ugly, since I'm now convinced its going to happen, I'm left to hope for a silver lining, but I doubt there will be one worth all the death that is comming with it.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by drastik
Short of a couple of select bullets ina couple of select heads, this is going to be ugly. We are talking about war, and we ar talking about twice the bombs uised in the first gulf conflict being used in a period of a few days. Serious Arc lighting. People are going to die, its going to be bloody, most people who die won't deserve it. War is ugly, since I'm now convinced its going to happen, I'm left to hope for a silver lining, but I doubt there will be one worth all the death that is comming with it.

How about the freedom of 24 million people? Would you give up say, 80,000 lives for the benifit of 24 million? Would you give up 80,000 lives to protect the lives of 6 billion? Think about it. The majority of lives lost will be Iraqi military, and you will see massive, massive surrender in the opening days of the war. They don't want to fight us. Count on it!

lmalave
Mar 10, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So, it is the rouge countries that we are up against.

Heh, funny typo Backtothemac. Reminds me of the cold war battle cry:

"Better dead than rouge"

drastik
Mar 10, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How about the freedom of 24 million people? Would you give up say, 80,000 lives for the benifit of 24 million? Would you give up 80,000 lives to protect the lives of 6 billion? Think about it. The majority of lives lost will be Iraqi military, and you will see massive, massive surrender in the opening days of the war. They don't want to fight us. Count on it!

You know as well as anyone that massive bombing (6000 bombs they are now saying) over major urban areas is indesciminate. it will not just kill Military. The US has annonced its intention to "shock" Iraq into quick compliance. This means quick and massive bloodshed.

Yes, the freedom of 24 million people is a good thing, 80,000 deaths is a terrible thing when the same thing could be achieved without the 80,000 deaths. I don't se the rush to kill so many. If there is a chance to avoid it, we should take it. With so much of a military presence on the ground, and inspectors inside, Iraq is rendered a non-threat. the screws are on too tight for Saddam to do anything, and he knows it, hence the flim-flam and the runaround from him.

In my opinion, Iraq in check is as good as removing Saddam. If he is rendered powerless, who cares about him. We keep looking untill we have found everything, Saddam ca do nothing in the meantime and hey, thousands and thousands of innocent people don't die.

crazytom
Mar 10, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by drastik


With so much of a military presence on the ground, and inspectors inside, Iraq is rendered a non-threat. the screws are on too tight for Saddam to do anything, and he knows it, hence the flim-flam and the runaround from him.

In my opinion, Iraq in check is as good as removing Saddam. If he is rendered powerless, who cares about him. We keep looking untill we have found everything, Saddam ca do nothing in the meantime and hey, thousands and thousands of innocent people don't die.

So, the US should keep over 250,000 troops stationed in the Middle East just to keep Saddam in check? Who's going to foot that bill for the next 20+ years?

I'd like to see a diplomatic end to this, but that hasn't happened and probably won't. I was against the war, but I think that Saddam is just toying with everyone and I think the Iraqi's are ready to be free of his oppression. (Heck, I'd be p*ssed if everywhere I went I saw GW's face plastered on some monument and passed by one of his 'palace's every 10 blocks!) Saddam is very slick, and pitted up against George 'strategery' Bush , it's easy for him to be more verbally persuasive.

Once the war does start (and it will). It should be quick. We've warned the Iraqi people in the past (by dropping leaflets) and we'll probably do it again. I don't think there'll be much resistance from the people. It's going to be Saddam's 'personal' army that's going to be dangerous. They need to be taken out quickly and carefully---but I assume they'll get in their licks before it's all over (and it'll probably be a crime on their own people, but blamed on the US).

drastik
Mar 10, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by crazytom
So, the US should keep over 250,000 troops stationed in the Middle East just to keep Saddam in check? Who's going to foot that bill for the next 20+ years?

I'd like to see a diplomatic end to this, but that hasn't happened and probably won't. I was against the war, but I think that Saddam is just toying with everyone and I think the Iraqi's are ready to be free of his oppression. (Heck, I'd be p*ssed if everywhere I went I saw GW's face plastered on some monument and passed by one of his 'palace's every 10 blocks!) Saddam is very slick, and pitted up against George 'strategery' Bush , it's easy for him to be more verbally persuasive.

Once the war does start (and it will). It should be quick. We've warned the Iraqi people in the past (by dropping leaflets) and we'll probably do it again. I don't think there'll be much resistance from the people. It's going to be Saddam's 'personal' army that's going to be dangerous. They need to be taken out quickly and carefully---but I assume they'll get in their licks before it's all over (and it'll probably be a crime on their own people, but blamed on the US).

I don't think an ongoing inspection would take twenty years, it might take two, at the most. Even that would be long. We are only three months into these inspections and a lot has been accomplished. We have discredited reports, discredited Us inteligence, found illegal arms, forced distrucion of them, the inpectors have been granted everything they have asked for.

As far as footing the bill, who do you think is footing the bill for the 100 billion dollars the White House estmates the war will cost. Since the whit house gave that figure, it is probably on the low side anyway.

Outside of all this, it really doesn't matter. My opinion and your opinion don't mean ****, the 2000 election taught us that. Bush is going to do it because he thinks its right and he is the president. We put him there (sort of) to do just that. The man considers himself a crusader against evil, a force for good, just like the terroists consider themselves. You can't argue with that type of fanaticism. It was stupid to elect him in the firt place, and it doesn't help that we really didn't.

I do hope that this is quick. The economic crunch this war rhetorc has put me through has gone on long enough, and the market isn't going to get better untill this is settled.

(Before people start flaming about the election, remember that even with winning Florida, he did not recieve over fifty-percent of the popular vote. Neither did Clinton in his first term, and I disagree with that too, for the rcord, but election poitics is a different argument)

I started with speeling corrections and soon gave up

peter2002
Mar 10, 2003, 12:30 PM
Iraq is the new boogeyman. The military hasn't had a real mission since the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Cold War".

Now, the military is the biggest government outlay pushing $500 billion this year. Generals and senior officers love war because you have to become a proven killer to get promoted to the top ranks in the military. There are no pencil pushers in the Joint Chiefs.

Iraq may or may not help terrorists. But it doesn't really matter. You can't stop terrorists. Terrorists are like roaches and rats. For every one you kill or capture, there are 50 you don't see.

Bush will get voted out in 2004 anyway. Stupid is what a stupid does, like father like son.

Pete :)

crazytom
Mar 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
I hear that al-Queda is purchasing US and British uniforms and are going to wreak havoc in villages...

LethalWolfe
Mar 10, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by drastik
I don't think an ongoing inspection would take twenty years, it might take two, at the most. Even that would be long. We are only three months into these inspections and a lot has been accomplished. We have discredited reports, discredited Us inteligence, found illegal arms, forced distrucion of them, the inpectors have been granted everything they have asked for.



2 years? The first 7 didn't get the job done why would another 2 be the magic number for success? If the inspectors have been granted everything they've asked for why hasn't Iraq been offically labled "disarmed" and why hasn't Blix said they are in completely compliance w/all UN resolutions? Iraq still hasn't told anyone what happened to the tons (yes literally tons) of B/C agents found during the last inspections and the vast majority of Iraqi scientists, to the dismay of Blix, still aren't talking w/inspectors unless there is an Iraqi offical in the room and/or the interview is tape recorded.

So aside from not fully compling Iraq is in full compliance.

IMO the only way for inspections to work is if UN forces are allowed to occupy Iraq and the country is locked down under Marshal Law until the weapons inspectors certify Iraq is disarmed.
The current setup is like having the police calling and warning someone that they are getting a search warrent and will be there in a few hours.


Lethal

macfan
Mar 10, 2003, 01:42 PM
drastik,

(Before people start flaming about the election, remember that even with winning Florida, he did not recieve over fifty-percent of the popular vote. Neither did Clinton in his first term, and I disagree with that too, for the rcord, but election poitics is a different argument)

The 2000 election was decided in accordance with the consitution, which allows someone to be president with a majority of electoral votes without regard for the popular vote. If you don't like the electoral college, get an amendment passed. Good luck.

Also, Clinton didn't win a majority in his second term either. George H. W. Bush was the last president to get more than 50 percent of the popular votes.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by drastik
I don't think an ongoing inspection would take twenty years, it might take two, at the most. Even that would be long. We are only three months into these inspections and a lot has been accomplished. We have discredited reports, discredited Us inteligence, found illegal arms, forced distrucion of them, the inpectors have been granted everything they have asked for.

As far as footing the bill, who do you think is footing the bill for the 100 billion dollars the White House estmates the war will cost. Since the whit house gave that figure, it is probably on the low side anyway.

Outside of all this, it really doesn't matter. My opinion and your opinion don't mean ****, the 2000 election taught us that. Bush is going to do it because he thinks its right and he is the president. We put him there (sort of) to do just that. The man considers himself a crusader against evil, a force for good, just like the terroists consider themselves. You can't argue with that type of fanaticism. It was stupid to elect him in the firt place, and it doesn't help that we really didn't.

I do hope that this is quick. The economic crunch this war rhetorc has put me through has gone on long enough, and the market isn't going to get better untill this is settled.

(Before people start flaming about the election, remember that even with winning Florida, he did not recieve over fifty-percent of the popular vote. Neither did Clinton in his first term, and I disagree with that too, for the rcord, but election poitics is a different argument)

I started with speeling corrections and soon gave up
Whether you agree or disagree with the way this country elects its Presidents is irrelevant. Whether you think Bush should have been elected or not is also irrelevant. He was elected, get over it, stop trying to make it like this is the one man Bush destroys the world show. It really is a pathetic argumetn and it gets tiring to hear it so many times. So let's discuss the facts instead than shall we, instead of hurt feelings over an election. You say inspections will work in just 2 years, hmmm.... funny how this has been an ongoign issue for 12 years. Granted inspectors were not in the country all 12 years, I believ 7 is the number of years of actuall inspections. Yet these 7 years have been ineffective. (Yes 7 years, not the three months you claim). Saddam has not and is not complying. Inspectors have NOT been given everything they asked for, if they had we would NOT have an issue here. You claim we've accomplished alot with inspections. Nothing has been accomplished. Oh, you mean when Saddam all of a sudden produced some weapons that he "didn't have" and destroyed them. That wasn't compliance. That was just a ploy that Saddam knew people like you would fall for. The simple fact that he pulls these weapons that he supposedly doesn't have out of thin air shows he was not complying with inspectors at all, and if you think those were all of his weapons you are far mistaken. Recently Iraq has promised to use the chemical and biological weapons it "doesn't have" against American troops if we start a war. Wierd how they can use weapons they "don't have" This is not an issue of Bush's "fanaticism" that can't be argued with. Maybe the issue your having with fully seeing the facts is your blind hatred for Bush. There are 17 UN resolutions stating the requirement of Saddam to disarm, That's right 17 UN, not Bush, UN resolutions. Let's move past the election and not be so petty, so that we may discuss the actuall issues here.

beatle888
Mar 10, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How about the freedom of 24 million people? Would you give up say, 80,000 lives for the benifit of 24 million? Would you give up 80,000 lives to protect the lives of 6 billion? Think about it. The majority of lives lost will be Iraqi military, and you will see massive, massive surrender in the opening days of the war. They don't want to fight us. Count on it!



this is the type of comment i hate. so your saying we should kill innocent civilians because we have to protect innocent civilians in a hypothetical scenario regarding iraq? i wonder how easy your words would would come out of your mouth if you were in iraq...A$$hole


OH AND WHOS TO DECIDE WHICH 80,000 LIVE WILL BE ENDED? DO YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER? LETS PUT HER OVER THERE, THEN SING YOUR TUNE...

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
this is the type of comment i hate. so your saying we should kill innocent civilians because we have to protect innocent civilians in a hypothetical scenario regarding iraq? i wonder how easy your words would would come out of your mouth if you were in iraq...A$$hole


OH AND WHOS TO DECIDE WHICH 80,000 LIVE WILL BE ENDED? DO YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER? LETS PUT HER OVER THERE, THEN SING YOUR TUNE...

Ok, two words and they are not merry Christmas. They have the initials of FU! Call me an *******. Go frig yourself! Sorry everyone, but I posted a logical post, and genius here can't get it.

Secondly, yes, I have a daughter, and if she was in Iraq, I would say go in and free her! Jesus man, are you so friggin dense that you don't get that? The 80,000 that I forcasted were not civilians, but total Iraqi loses. Civilians will be in the area of 1 - 3 thousand. Yea, that sucks, but I am sure the other 23.99 million over there will be very happy about gaining their freedom.

Third, I have served this country in the Navy, and every man in my family has served going back to my Great Grandfather. That being said, I understand mistakes can happen in war, but I also understand that the US has spent billions on weapons that minimize both those mistakes, and mechanical mistakes as well.

so, that being said, go back, grow a brain, and then reread my post.

G4scott
Mar 10, 2003, 04:15 PM
Saddam is in a dilema. He knows that if the US attacks, and his WMD's are exposed, he'll be in big *****. Either that, or he'd have to use them, which would put him in even bigger *****.

Now, if they find none, then the US would be in the *****, but that's not going to happen.

Saddam is screwed either way. It just depends if he uses the "I'm gonna take down as many people as I can before you get me" tactics...

Oh, and beatle888, get a life...

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 04:27 PM
Saddam is a known killer/Murderer/Tyrant. The idiots that want to keep this guy going are simply blind,stupid and dumb. Today another example of him having bombs to disperse chemical and or bio weapons. You know the ones that the inspectors forgot to mention in the last report to the U.N. To all the peace marchers out there you are fools blindly backing a killer. Way to go you idiots. If you are to stupid to see this then perhaps you all should take your dumbass selves and be some human shields for this Killer. Yeah France is making deals with this Murderer, The U.S. on the other hand is not only going to disarm him but we will get rid of him and bring Freedom to the Iraqi people. This Guy is Evil its just to bad that the Democrats here in the U.S are Blinded by their faith in the Liberal Democrats. Over in Europe its to bad that that the leaders they choosen are cowards that are controled by their pocketbooks and self interests.( France is a discrace) all of you so called peace marchers that are marching for this guy should be ashamed of yourselves and ignorance.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
this is the type of comment i hate. so your saying we should kill innocent civilians because we have to protect innocent civilians in a hypothetical scenario regarding iraq? i wonder how easy your words would would come out of your mouth if you were in iraq...A$$hole


OH AND WHOS TO DECIDE WHICH 80,000 LIVE WILL BE ENDED? DO YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER? LETS PUT HER OVER THERE, THEN SING YOUR TUNE...
How about I hate this type of comment. Do our troops go in trying to kill civilians? No. In fact they do everything possible to protect innocent life, including putting their own lives at greater risk in some instances. You shouldn't be attacking BTTM like that he is one of the most level headed posters here, something you obviously are not. SADDAM BRINGS THIS WAR! NOT AMERICA! Saddam also kills his own people, and many die just due to the conditions of a country under such a ruler. If this is the kind of mindless crap you are going to post, don't post at all.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
You shouldn't be attacking BTTM like that he is one of the most level headed posters here, something you obviously are not.

Hey, thanks for getting my back. That means a lot to me. I actually tried to be very cool in my response, and posted nothing close to what I wanted to say to him :)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 04:52 PM
we are going to give the Iraqi populas everychance of warning and knowledge to get the heck out of harms way. the ones who dont or are siding with Saddam to bad. Even our military has been dropping leaflets for weeks. In fact we want to help the Iraqi people by getting rid of this killer of his own people. Just think if not for Bush Saddam would be making more and more of all of his stuff while the U.N. stands by ignoring this. Lets hope the Iraqi people get the hell out before we come to free them.

groovebuster
Mar 10, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
SADDAM BRINGS THIS WAR! NOT AMERICA! Saddam also kills his own people, and many die just due to the conditions of a country under such a ruler. If this is the kind of mindless crap you are going to post, don't post at all.

Many died just because of the sanctions... and they were not made by Saddam.

groovebuster

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster
Many died just because of the sanctions... and they were not made by Saddam.

groovebuster
Why are those sanctions in place. Yes thats right Saddam invaded Kuwait and brought it upon himself. Why were the sanctions not lifted? Because Saddam did not comply with the disarmament requirements of the cease fire. Again Saddam kept the sanctions upon his people. Your argument is full of holes and shows no real understanding of the issue.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster
Many died just because of the sanctions... and they were not made by Saddam.

groovebuster

Your right. They were made by and enforced by the world. Not just the US.