Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on August 17, 2002, 05:00:49 PM
-
The war on Iraq is already under way
Jonathan Manthorpe
Vancouver Sun
There is growing evidence to suggest the physical war against Saddam Hussein has been under way for nearly six months.
No shots have been fired or bombs dropped in anger beyond the attacks on Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries that U.S. and British air forces have been conducting regularly for a decade.
Yet almost out of sight, U.S. and allied forces have been tightening the noose around Saddam, even deploying troops inside Iraq, according to some reports.
This has been possible because of the "no fly zones" over the northern and southern thirds of the country that the U.S. and Britain have enforced since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.
The effect of this armed veto has been to deny Saddam control on the ground over much of Iraq and to reinforce the until recently heretic Pentagon military doctrine that vastly superior air power can win ground wars almost unaided.
Acceptance of the new doctrine is based on the evidence of the power of "precision" bombing in the first Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The follow-on conclusion is that a large and heavily armoured invasion force, as was deployed in 1991, will not be necessary to finish the job of removing Saddam.
Even so, sorting through reports from various places and sources around the region suggests that around 100,000 U.S. and British troops are on the ground around Iraq.
There are also reports that NATO ally Turkey has some 5,000 troops inside northern Iraq, which has become almost an independent state of its native Kurds under the protective umbrella of Washington and London's air forces.
Evidence of even more intrusive preparations is in reports surfacing in the Middle East, apparently emanating from Israeli intelligence sources, that U.S. army engineers are building at least six fighter and helicopter airfields in Kurdish northern Iraq to provide air cover for ground forces.
If the military preparations appear to be close to complete, the political groundwork is still only roughly plowed.
President George W. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, stepped forcefully up to this task Thursday when she set out for the British Broadcasting Corporation the "very strong moral case" for removing Saddam Hussein and his projects to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush administration appears unconcerned that it is unlikely to get a mandate from the United Nations Security Council for an overtly legal invasion of Iraq, as was forthcoming after Saddam Hussein's 1990 take-over of neighbouring Kuwait.
Washington is equally nonchalant about the lack of public support among its European allies and friends in the Middle East. There is evidence, though, that some Washington friends are criticizing U.S. plans in public to assuage popular sentiments while quietly aiding American preparations behind the scenes.
But Rice's BBC interview suggests the Bush administration would like to keep the British overtly on board. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been the target of increasing criticism in recent days both from public opinion and from influential figures within his own Labour Party for his apparent readiness to follow Bush to war.
"History is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world," said Rice. She went on to refer to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, a piece of history that still resonates strongly with British people.
"We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she said.
The new war against Saddam Hussein probably began early this year when Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to launch a covert operation to remove the Iraqi leader. More formal opening moves began in March when troop deployments began that have doubled the number of U.S. and British forces in the region from 50,000 to 100,000.
British and U.S. troops in the Gulf States -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates -- now number about 62,000, up from 45,000 six months ago.
The Turkish foreign ministry said in June there had been a large increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed on that country's southeastern border with Iraq. There are now about 25,000 Americans, up from 7,000, in eastern Turkey and the British sent 1,700 Royal Marines almost straight from Afghanistan to Kuwait on Iraq's southern border.
Under cover of "joint exercises," there are nearly 7,000 American troops in Jordan, according to that country's news agency Petra.
British and American special forces are already operating inside Iraq, updating information about such potential targets as Saddam Hussein's remaining anti-aircraft defences and his medium-range Scud missiles that could be used to fire biological or chemical weapons at Israel or other neighbouring states.
Israel has begun a program to vaccinate all its people against smallpox to minimize the impact of such an attack.
A week ago, U.S. and British bombers destroyed the Iraqi air force's command and control centre, where Chinese engineers installed a new fibre optic communications system last year.
The overall picture suggests a war of the python rather than the cobra; the slow and steady squeezing of the life out of Saddam Hussein's regime rather than a quick strike.
It is a war that might well remain almost silent and invisible until it is all but over.
=======================================
Oh well, guess we're goin' in.. Your right Toad, no need to debate. Lock n' load baby!!
This is what really happened to the surplus
-
No, this is what really happened to the surplus. Sooner or later you'll put aside your unreasoned bias and realize that.
BTW, the spending is a long way from over. Your grandchildren will still be fighting and paying for this shadow war.
(http://www.umbc.edu/saf/sanews/volume2/world%20trade%20center%20fire.jpg)
-
As far as Iraq:
1. This article is lots of speculation. Anything out there to support any of what he said? Or shall we just assume it's all true?
2. My views on Iraq are clearly stated in other threads. You've probably read them.. Just War Theory and all? If not, I'll post a link for you.
-
according to some reports. ]
Now thats a right handy phrase.
According to some reports, I have stopped believing anything that comes out of Canada.
-
10bears, I just can't understand how the left can complain about Bush Sr. not taking out Saddam, yet get upset Jr. is about to. I can't understand how the left forgets so quickly how Saddam has thumbed his nose at weapons inspectors for the last 10 years. I can't understand how the left doesn't see allowing Iraq to start a conflict with Israel, or feed weapons to our enemies, is a threat to us or our interests.
-
Hey I’m on the bus now.. Wasn’t on the bus but am now. They don’t build 13 thousand foot airstrips to play tiddley winks.... We’re goin’ in.
Was a bit concerned about my draft age daughter, but she don’t seem to enthused about joining up anyway. My good friend Bill’s son Tory is in the Reserves. Hawaii boys always get called up first for some reason so he’s nervous some what. I’ve known Tory since he’s three years old.
I’m guessing the pre self defense attack will start sometime around Sept 11th. I’m resigned to it. No more debate on “why”.. only thing we can do now is speculate on “how”
It would appear the article above was supposed to be secret.... got leaked out. It explains quite well on where all them billions went.
Peace... er...um.. or should I say .. War. :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
10bears, I just can't understand how the left can complain about Bush Sr. not taking out Saddam, yet get upset Jr. is about to. I can't understand how the left forgets so quickly how Saddam has thumbed his nose at weapons inspectors for the last 10 years. I can't understand how the left doesn't see allowing Iraq to start a conflict with Israel, or feed weapons to our enemies, is a threat to us or our interests.
Hmmm... I think Bush Sr. did the right thing by sticking to the mandate.
Has Iraq started a conflict with Israel? Did I miss it?
-
Originally posted by easymo
according to some reports. ]
Now thats a right handy phrase.
According to some reports, I have stopped believing anything that comes out of Canada.
What do you know about Canadian news sources that led you to this?
-
No, Iraq hasn't openly started a war on Israel at this time. How long do you think it would take for that to happen if the U.S. ever really did what a few suggest here and pull out of the region? Remember, this is the same Iraq that launched SCUD missiles into Israel in '91. Is it really unreasonable to believe they have helped al Queda and suicide bombers?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Is it really unreasonable to believe they have helped al Queda and suicide bombers?
Yes, it is.
-
They have to make a case before they pull the trigger.
I'd think they'd have to go before Congress; after all this is apparently going to be an action not sanctioned by the UN.
For now, I'm willing to wait and see. As I've said in other places, life has taught me patience after all these years. I try not to worry about what "might" happen. There's an infinite number of things that "might happen". I try to engage the ones that DO happen or are at least very likely to happen.
Worry never robs tomorrow of its sorrow, it only saps today of its joy. ~Leo Buscaglia
Worrying is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do, but it gets you nowhere. ~Glenn Turner
If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you. ~Calvin Coolidge
As far as Iraq involved in terrorism with the likes of Al Quaeda... couldn't be, right? Saddam is second only to Mother Teresa in godliness. :rolleyes:
I won't miss him if he's gone... not one second. I'll be pretty d*mn disappointed if we have to become him to get rid of him though.
For now... I'll wait and see.
-
Hey Toad here's another essay by Zepp Jamieson, sure he's a lefty but a good writer. Like I said above,, I'm on your bus now.. but here's some more food for thought. Oh I can answer Pat's question... You can bet your bippy they will call up the Reserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conspiracy theorists have this oddity. When one of their theories turns out to be true, and is so demonstrated, they promptly lose interest. The people who ran around in the sixties claiming that the FBI and CIA were spying on them for their political views and infiltrating their meetings promptly lost interest and moved on to something else the minute the government admitted that they had, in fact, been doing that very thing.
The folks who had been blasting the Warren commission report as a lie and a fraud and insisting that Oswald did not act alone became noticeably more dispirited as the notion that there was more than one shooter in Dallas gained widespread acceptance. They didn’t even wait for it to be verified; if the hoi polloi accepted it, then it was no longer a special idea.
Last month, I was chatting with a UFOlogist and . . . I don’t know. I think I got a little annoyed. He referred to aliens from the Pleiades, a constellation of stars also known as the Seven Sisters. The thing is, the Pleiades isn’t a place. It’s a direction. Seven stars, each further from each other than the nearest of them is to us, just happen to lie in the same chunk of sky. Referring to the Pleiades as a place is one of my pet peeves, along with movie spaceships that go “whooosh!” as they fly by in the vacuum in space, or people who think that if you fly faster than light, time will go backward.
Rather than grind my teeth, I decided to veer the subject away from the Pleiadeans and onto something more sensible. So I mentioned that I expected us to have proof of extraterrestrial life within a few years. His face lit up. At last! A Fellow Believer!
So he asked me how I thought this knowledge might manifest itself. I mentioned the Mars missions, and the vast quantities of water found on that planet, the plans to launch a probe to oceanic Europa, and the planned launch of telescopes powerful enough to detect the spectrographic signature of oxygen/water planets as they traversed their primary. A wide-eyed reader of Clarke, Heinlein and Asimov as a kid, nothing sparks my sense of wonder the way that stuff does.
His face fell. Clearly, he was expecting something more . . . Pleiadean. An actual discovery of extraterrestrial life wouldn’t begin to compete with his rich fantasy world of Greys, anal probes, and omniscient beings from the tenth dimension. Reality is for nerds.
In American politics, conspiracy theories abound like fleas on a two-humped cliché. Most, of course, involve erosions of our freedoms. The Birchers scream that the commies are just lying doggo, waiting to catch us unawares. Leftists scream about the Birchers. White supremacists warn of racial war and subsequent wars, and blacks give a sardonic look and say, “old news, boss.” There’s a whole bunch of people out there who believe that the Queen of England, the Bushes, and various European banking cartels are actually big evil lizards. Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl, we keep her ‘round to catch flies, as the song goes. (That IS how it goes, right?) In any event, you can be sure these lizards are up to No Good. Have you ever met an extraterrestrial giant lizard that can shape shift into human form that wasn’t up to no good? These people are vaguely scary, in the same way fans of Charlie Manson are.
Let’s suppose that Putsch’s doctor releases a report stating that the President is in excellent health, except that his tail came off when a cat caught him sunning himself one afternoon. The media would be all over that story, but the conspiracy theorists would promptly lose interest. They would say, “Yeah, we knew about that. Old news” and, covering their disappointment that perfidious reality had validated their beliefs, go on to new and ever more inventive theories.
Since 9/11, the left has been accused of paranoia and conspiracy mongering because many of us believe that Ashcroft is a totalitarian nutcase, and the President a febrile lightweight controlled by cold and vicious corporate types who won’t hesitate to kill a lot of Americans in the name of profits, especially in the form of access to oil. We warned from the beginning that Putsch would get us into a war for profit, and of course, right wingers and the press dismissed us as anti-American crackpots.
Well, according to the crackpot code, I should be losing interest in the whole thing, and launching investigations into whether it was true that H. Ross Ferengii might have really had a human mother.
With Ashcroft, of course, any doubts about his intents regarding our rights and freedoms vanished when he had the vast PATRIOT ACT ready to go mere weeks after the World Trade Center attacks.
Eight hundred pages, prepared in just two weeks? No. That was planned well before the attacks. Congress, of course, passed it without even reading it.
Putsch and a for-profit war gained some substance when he inexplicably attacked Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks. Of course, now he has a puppet government that is going to let him build a pipeline (assuming the puppet government can keep control of that ungovernable land) and gave him a place to build a huge air base. Seems that he was secretly building one in Qatar, too, long before the “Get Saddam” noises suddenly came up and we started hearing idiot noises about Saddam and Al Qaida being in complicity.
Any possibility that this was a crackpot belief died yesterday when a friend of mine came into my office, waving a opinion section from the San Francisco Chronicle. He was excited about a Molly Ivins column on class warfare
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/3963907p-4989405c.html
(truly one of her best) but even more excited by a Pat Buchanan column on the Iraq attaq. “Pat Buchanan is right on the beam!” he declared.
I refrained from saying, “Guy, you’re Jewish.” Chances were good he knew that already. Nor did I have any reason to suppose that he had converted from being a Jewish liberal to that of a neo-fascist anti-Semite overnight. So I read the Buchanan column.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20020812.shtml
He was condemning the proposed attaq on Iraq, and doing so loudly, clearly, unequivocally. Further, he was asking the questions that Congress, much of the media, and far too many Democrats have been shirking on.
I found myself in agreement with every word the man said in that column. That column only, mind you. Let’s not get carried away here.
But recently, I seem to have developed other unlikely allies. Brent Scowcroft warned that the Iraq attaq could unleash “Armageddon” in the Middle East. Dick Armey and Tom DeLay have questioned the need to attaq Iraq. Even Henry Kissinger is against it. I never thought I would be on the same side as Henry Kissinger regarding war policy at any time, but here we are.
Every ally we have is against the proposed attaq except Britain, and even there, their military leaders have publically warned Prime Minister Blair that such a plan is sheer folly.
Putsch claims that he has secret knowledge that he can’t share with Congress and that is why he wants to do this.
Buchanan is absolutely right. This decision, both constitutionally and morally, rests with Congress, and Congress alone. If Putsch tries to launch an attack unilaterally, we should impeach him immediately, and invoke the 22nd amendment, declaring him unfit to fulfill the duties of his office. He is NOT going to cost us hundreds of billions and get tens of thousands of people killed, including Americans, without a good reason why.
I guess with all this agreement coming from the right, I should remember that I’m a liberal, and jump to some other conspiracy thing I can rail about. I mean, that’s pretty bad company I’m keeping. Normally, I go wash my hands after reading a Buchanan article.
But the trouble is, I’m not a conspiracy buff. I opposed the Iraq attaq, not because I thought it could happen, but because it would. I’m not about to lose interest just because my opinion is suddenly held on a widespread basis.
This is too big for partisanship, and I’m very glad to see that among the right wingers, that feeling is growing rapidly.
Let’s save the country from Putsch’s folly – or at least make certain it isn’t folly. We can fight one another on other things later. America comes
first.
-
"Putsch and a for-profit war gained some substance when he inexplicably attacked Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks."
OK this guy looses any credibilty, objectivity or common sense at this point.
-
I read it. I'm unimpressed. He wanders all over the map and never really does make a point... unless his point is that "conservatives" have finally "seen the light", IE: finally agree with him.
IMO, this IS a Constitutional question, as I pointed out above.
Beyond that, I suspect that while Jamieson is wearing his "Constitutionalist" robes right now, he probably HATES the 2nd Amendment. Just a guess, but I'd bet he opposes it and trys to parse its simple, straightforward language to his benefit/views.
........ and indeed, a quick google search using his name and "second amendment" turns up this:
"It’s where the gun nuts have corralled your freedoms so they can pursue their hobby."
Ah, I see. Selective Constitutionalism. How quaint!
Anyway, he flatters himself. There are many, many folks in both political parties that respect the Constitution. ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts Jamieson likes.
But then I'm always unimpressed by writers that have to mangle someone's name in their work in order to diminish that person. I've always held the opinion that if you have proof of your hypothesis, you don't need to diminish the target by using second grade name-calling; the facts can do that all by themselves.
He just seems like another foam-at-the-mouth type with an inability to reason when he does that.
Now, as to you and I being on the same "bus".. I seriously doubt that. I don't think you have the same view of war that I do. I hate it. Also, I'm near certain you don't share my "national" view.
For instance, you continually refer to me as a "Republican", which always makes me smile. Most of the Republicans in the local party structure probably think of me as "that SOB". I'm probably closer to Libertarian than anything else; maybe "Constituionalist" if the is such an thing. If I had my druthers, I'd be in the "Responsbilitarian & Accountabilitarian" party.
This war may come. If it does, I hope it is done correctly, Constitutionally. With a fargin' recorded VOTE. When you go out to depose the ruler of another sovereign nation... no matter what kind of SOB he is...... the Congress should stand and VOTE and that vote should be RECORDED.
OTOH, perhaps what you're seeing is a disinformation exercise akin to Patton's "Fortitude" operation before Normandy. Maybe we can get Iraq to essentially self-distruct running hither and thither. But I doubt it.
-
Uhh dude, I thought it was fairly well known that Iraqi intelligence officers where in contact with some of the hijackers on a regular basis in Europe?
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yes, it is.
-
In all the "yes, they did" / "no they didn't" stuff since 9/11, I can't remember if these two items were ever proven false:
Mohamed Atta - chief hijacker -- met not once but twice with senior Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague, Czech Republic.
The first meeting, according to U.S. and Czech intelligence sources, occurred last Autumn and involved a high-level emissary of Iraqi intelligence, a man by the name of Ahmed Samir al-Ahani.
The second, follow-up meeting reportedly took place in the spring, this time with a former director of Saddam Hussein's external secret services, a Mr. Farouk Hijazi (currently Iraqi Ambassador to Turkey), who personally met with Osama Bin Laden.
Then there's these clips from THE GUARDIAN from the FAS.org site:
"The Guardian, Feb 6, carried two articles. The shorter article
began, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons." But as Ahmed Allawi, a senior INC official, advised, that it is not new, "There is a long history of contacts between the Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Ladin."
Also, Cannistraro explained that the Hijazi-bin Ladin meeting occurred "with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar." As a reader remarked, the Taliban are a nasty bunch and the US does not recognize them as the legitimate Gov't of Afghanistan. Rather, it recognizes the Afghan Gov't in exile, in Tehran.
The longer Guardian article, entitled, "The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Ladin versus the World," reporting on the Hijzazi-Bin Ladin meeting, observed, "Thus, the world's most notorious pariah state, armed with its half-built hoard of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, tried to embrace the planet's most prolific terrorist."
***
Anybody have any info on the veracity of these statements? Did they ever "prove" anything?
-
Originally posted by Toad
In all the "yes, they did" / "no they didn't" stuff since 9/11, I can't remember if these two items were ever proven false:
Was that meeting every proven? I didn't think so...
-
So, Sandman, what do you make of this assessment?
Mohamed Atta and Iraqi embassy intelligence officer (http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm)
"In other words, to date, Czech intelligence, the only agency anywhere that claimed to monitor the meeting, stood by its guarantee that the atta-al-Ani had taken place.
What changed in this ping-pong journalism therefore was not any new revelations— or retractions— but the introduction of an anonymous “senior administration source” with an unknown agenda, whose claim that “the Czechs” doubted the meeting took place, has now been directly denied by the relevant officials. "
He does give dates and names for his sources... you have any counter information?
I'm asking.. not engaging. This little item seems to have gotten lost amongst the other problems.
-
Found this one too.....
Mohamed Atta Was Here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/539dozfr.asp)
"...Czech officials say they have a photograph of the meeting...
The story of Atta's contact with an Iraqi agent has been disputed by some American and European officials. Time, the Washington Post, and Newsweek, plus other publications, have raised doubts about it.
But last week Martin Palous, the Czech ambassador to the United States, gave me the same account of Atta's time in Prague as other Czech officials had given to New York Times columnist William Safire, who first wrote about the Atta visit last November. Palous was home in Prague for consultations and a vacation. Both Czech prime minister Milos Zeman and interior minister Stanislav Gross have also publicly confirmed the meeting between Atta and al-Ani."
If the Czechs mentioned did publicly confirmed it, that part should be "checkable".
Comments?
-
welcome aboard the bus 10bears :)
I read that article and I'm sorry to say that it was no diferent than reading a rant by our very own Weazel. This guy is a respected journalist?
-
Eight hundred pages, prepared in just two weeks? No. That was planned well before the attacks. Congress, of course, passed it without even reading it.
Nope, definitely not a conspiracy theory at all. Hehe, what a dope.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Buchanan is absolutely right. This decision, both constitutionally and morally, rests with Congress, and Congress alone. If Putsch tries to launch an attack unilaterally, we should impeach him immediately, and invoke the 22nd amendment, declaring him unfit to fulfill the duties of his office. He is NOT going to cost us hundreds of billions and get tens of thousands of people killed, including Americans, without a good reason why.
Someone should show this guy a videotape of what happened at the WTC on 9-11 last year.
Anyway, whats with the impeachment stuff? You american guys correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the president allowed to take the country to war if there is a clear and present danger or something like that...but then he has to get approval from congress within 3 weeks?
Oh...is there another way to launch an attack but unilaterally?
-
Just to throw another twist into this:
Iraq, Russian sign 40 billion dollar economic pact[/size]
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020818_56.html
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Just to throw another twist into this:
Iraq, Russian sign 40 billion dollar economic pact[/size]
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020818_56.html
Looks like the Russians are exercising there rights as a soverign nation and doing whatever the fek they want, regardless of any diplomatic consequences...hmmm that sounds familiar.
-
What better way to find out what Iraq is really up to than to have the Russians meet with them and determine what products/arms they want and where they want things put or things constructed .... and then tell us. :)
It's like an onion, this recon game. Always another layer.
-
or mayby they think we are full of crap and the whole war thing is political manuvering by a guy with a i.q. of 70 who has made so many blunders that blind patriotism is the only chance he has for reelection. So they are throwing their weight behind the good guys in their eyes. You know like they publicly say they are doing.
just a thought.
-
Back up the I.Q. claim. Please. And feel free to link to the study made by the fictitious university a couple of the more liberal and less... thorough... magazines published.
SAT or ACT scores will do.
-
Heard it on Letterman, right?
Debunked here. :D
On G.W. Bush's IQ (or Lack Thereof) (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm)
If you're out of intellectual ammo, throw sh*t? ;)
-
We're goin' in!... I bet you my new Afterburner11 that came yesterday.
This guy Debka I usually don't trust but he has ties to Israeli military information. Toad may be right this could be a disinformation campaign to rattle Saddam but it is highly detailed
Keep in mind Israel is highly pro attack.
Debka report follows
=====================================
Report: US Military Operations Already Underway
in Iraq
US Iraq Campaign Has Its First Engagement
DEBKAfileSpecial Military Analysis
Saturday, 10 August, 2002
10 August: America's offensive against Saddam
Hussein's regime in Iraq has begun as an exercise in gradualism
rather than a D-Day drama. DEBKAfile's military sources report
that tens of thousands of US, British, French, Netherlands, Australian troops may take part in the campaign, openly or covertly, but not in massive waves that fling themselves telegenically on Baghdad.
The fact of the matter is that American
military concentrations are already unobtrusively present in
northern and southern Iraq. The US campaign to oust Saddam is
therefore unfolding already, albeit in salami-fashion, slice by
slice, under clouds of disinformation and diversionary ruses
like the latest statements by President George W. Bush (No date
set yet for the offensive) and British premier Tony Blair (Plenty
of time before the war begins),or the grave reservations issuing
from the Russian, French and German leaders. The peasoup of
deception isfurther thickened by utterances in the last 48 hours
from Turkish prime minister Bulent Ecevit, King Abdullah of
Jordan, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and the Saudi crown
prince Abdullah. They warn Washington that attacking Iraq would
be a terrible mistake, one which they want no part of.
DEBKAfile's military sources attempt here to
pierce some of the thickets of confusion with a few facts on the
ground:
A. Special US forces entered the Kurdish
regions of north Iraq towards the end of March nearly four months
ago, to set up local Kurdish militias and train them for battle.
B. At around the same time, Turkish special
forces went into northern Iraq in waves that continued through
April, fetching up in Turkmen regions around the big oil towns of
Mosul and Kirkuk.
C. Meanwhile, the Americans threw a ring of
bases using existing facilities and adding new ones around
Iraq. They have since been pouring into those bases US armored
ground units, tanks, air, navy and missile forces, as well as
combat medical units and special contingents for anti-nuclear,
biological and chemical warfare.
According to our sources, the noose around Iraq
extends from Georgia and Turkey in the north, Israel, Egypt and
Jordan to the west, Eritrea and Kenya in the southwest, and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain to the south.
Furthermore, a large US armada, including aircraft carriers, has assembled at three points: the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.
D. Since June, American and Turkish
construction engineers have been working in northern Iraq,
building and expanding airfields and air strips to make them fit
for military use.
First US Military Steps
In the past week, once those preparations were
in place, the United States carried out two military operations:
1. Tuesday August 6, at 0800 hours Middle East
time, US and British air bombers went into action and destroyed
the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the
desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The center contained advanced fiber optic networks
recently installed by Chinese companies. DEBKA-Net-Weekly's
military sources say the raid made military history. For the
first time, the US air force used new precision-guided bombs
capable of locating and destroying fiber optic systems. The
existence of such weaponry was hitherto unknown.
Following the destruction of the facility,about 260 miles (415 kilometers), southwest of Baghdad, waves of US warplanes swept in from the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia and from US aircraft carriers in the Gulf and flew over
the Iraqi capital.
The Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft system held their fire on orders from above. This deep air penetration told the Americans that the early warning radar system protecting
Baghdad and its environs from intrusion by enemy aircraft and
missiles was inactive.
[/color]
-
2. Two days later, on Wednesday night, August
8, Turkey executed its first major military assault inside Iraq.
DEBKAfile's military sources learn from Turkish and Kurdish
informants that helicopters under US, British and Turkish
warplane escort flew Turkish commandos to an operation for
seizing the critical Bamerni airport in northern Iraq. This
airport, just outside the Kurdish region, lies 50 miles north of
the big Iraqi oil cities of the north, Kirkuk and Mosul. With the
Turkish commandos was a group of US special forces officers and
men. Bamerni airport was captured after a brief battle
in which a unit of Iraqi armored defenders was destroyed, opening
the airport for giant American and Turkish transports to deliver
engineering units, heavy machinery and electronic support
equipment, which were put to work at once on enlarging the field
and widening its landing strips. The American unit, reinforced, went on to capture two small Iraqi military airfields nearby.
The Turkish expeditionary force in northern
Iraq now numbers some 5,000 men, in addition to Turkish air force
contingents.
DEBKAfile's military experts explain that with Bamerni airport and the two additional airfields the Americans have acquired full control of the skies over the two oil cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as over the Syrian-Iraqi railroad, which they can now cut off by aerial bombardment. A prime strategic asset, this railroad is Saddam's back door for taking delivery of his illegal overseas arms purchases, which are ferried from Syrian ports to Baghdad by the Syrian-Iraqi railway.
On the return journey, the same railway carries illegal Iraqi oil
exports, over and above the quantities allowed under UN
sanctions, out to market. The Iraqi war effort and the Syrian
treasury depend heavily on the revenues accruing from these
smuggled oil sales.
The battle over this airfield was in fact the first important face-to-face engagement between a US-led invasion
force and Iraqi troops. It was carried out seven hours before the
Iraqi ruler delivered his televised speech to the nation, on the
14th anniversary of the bloody eight-year Iraq-Iran war. In that
speech, Saddam threatened American troops going to war against Iraq that they would return
home in coffins.
Next Steps
Just before the Saddam address, US spy
satellites and planes detected unusual movements by elite
Republic Guard units in the capital. They appeared to be digging
positions below ground on the banks of the Tigris. Some military
commentators were convinced the Iraqi ruler had decided to bury
himself and his key associates in fortified bunker-type positions. He was said to be counting on American reluctance to engage in urban warfare in Iraqi towns for fear of large-scale-casualties that would force them to withdraw.
DEBKAfile's military experts see little sign of
this tactic aside from the initial report. In fact, the bulk of
the Iraqi army is concentrated in three regions outside Baghdad -
the Kurdish regions of the north, the H-3 and al Baghdadi air
bases opposite the Jordanian border in the center, and along the
Saudi and Kuwaiti frontiers, in the south.
In the north, the Iraqi armored divisions,
which are massed opposite the Turkish border along the Little and
Big Zeb Rivers, show now sign of movement in response to
US-Turkish activity.
Iraqi concentrations in the center and south
have been augmented somewhat but not substantially.
Iraq's military passivity in the face of US-led
advances and strikes is beginning to worry the American, Turkish
and Israeli high commands. They suspect that Saddam is playing
the same fog-of-war game as Washington, so as to put them to
sleep and then catch them unawares.
Such sudden action could take the form of an
Iraqi missile or bomber attack on Israel using warheads loaded
with radioactive, chemical or biological materials, a combined
missile-terrorist strike to sabotage Saudi oil fields, or a mass
terrorist attack in the United States.
The sharpest alert to a threat to Iraq's
southern neighbors came not from military intelligence but from
international oil dealers, who warned that Saddam Hussein if
attacked may well decide to set fire to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil
fields, sending oil prices skyrocketing above US$ 40 per barrel.
Israel's Concerns
Israel faces three threats, all of them in the
realm of the unknown:
a. An Iraqi missile attack, when the size of
Saddam's arsenal has not been reliably established. DEBKAfile's
military experts dispute the assessment heard this week from
retired Israeli military leaders that the Iraqis have only a few
missiles. The truth is that no one outside Iraq knows how many
Saddam has cached or what advanced missile technologies he has secretly developed. According to one estimate, Iraq may have
accumulated between 70 and 150 warheads, or maybe more.
b. A WMD threat, when no one knows what Saddam
has up his sleeve whether radiological bombs with a limited
radius, or a more highly developed type. The same questions apply
to Saddam's biological and chemical warfare capabilities.
c. Notwithstanding the presence of US forces in
Jordan and the strategic-defense relationship developed between
Jordan and Israel, the possibility of the old Eastern Arab Front
coming back to life against Israel, though unlikely, cannot be
entirely ruled out.
The gloomiest scenario envisages Iraqi units
surging through Jordan to attack Israeli from the east
concurrently with a Syrian-Hizballah strike from the north a
combined assault that may sweep King Abdullah into the fray
against Israel.
The Jordanian king is an unknown quantity,
untried in war situations. Therefore the odds on his executing an
about-face as radical as this cannot be estimated with certainty.
Israeli war planners, however, are not ignoring this possible
peril, however improbable.[/COLOR]
=============================================
Lock n' load this looks like a real report!
-
By Toad:
"It's like an onion, this recon game."
Or maybe a parfait? A lotta people don't like onions, ya know.
(Just trying to inject a little humor while checking the inventory of bottled water and dried and canned food, hehe)
-
I've read the Debka site a few times... somewhat sceptical still.
Found this about the editor:
"Giora Shamis is editor in chief of the Jerusalem-based "Debka File," an electronic defense newsletter."
Thoughts that this report generated in my mind:
1."the US air force used new precision-guided bombs
capable of locating and destroying fiber optic systems"
Fiber optic sniffing bombs? We've got a bunch of savvy folks here. Anyone know if fiber optic cables radiate a "capturable" signal of some sort.
2. "opening the airport for giant American and Turkish transports to deliver engineering units, heavy machinery and electronic support equipment, which were put to work at once on enlarging the field and widening its landing strips. "
VERY easy to check this one, given the availability of commercial satellite imagery. One would think groups that oppose intervention would be all over this and pointing fingers.
3. Iraq's sovereignity has been violated, actual combat has taken place and NO WORD of this outrage from Baghdad? No appeal to the UN to stop the aggression? Christian Amanpour is having her nails done and can't get to the scene?
I'm having trouble with this.
Once again, I'll wait and see. As I said, I'll be pretty disappointed if this is going on without Congress having a roll call vote.
-
I find it hard to believe that the peanut farmer has the highest IQ out of those shown in the article that Toad linked to. I reckon its possible, but I think it’s unlikely.
As far as the whining bellybutton liberals, they oppose war until that position is proven unacceptable, then they pretend they are pro-war but it was just handled improperly in the past. Maybe they would prefer to use cruise missile strikes to draw the public attention away from their immoral leaders...uh...sorry that already happened. HEHE
I know this. The only people in the European area with the gonads to fight are the brits. They see the lessons learned about trying to appease evil tyrants, and are willing to freely apply those lessons. It appears the rest of Europe would rather sit on their tulips and speculate about nuclear and biological weapons. But then again, if my little country was not on the target list, I might be complacent too.
I don’t really think Europe has much say in any of this. They have proven their lack of foresight in the realm of dealing with insane whackos, and since they still have this pacifist, walk all over us while we paint and dance attitude, the United States and the United Kingdom will be forced to do the hard work required to help secure the lives of THEIR citizens.
All I know is this. I am for the destruction of any country on this planet that threatens the United States and the United Kingdom.
My children have to grow up here, and I don’t give a rats bellybutton if we have to whoop every too bit toejam hole country on the planet to increase our national security. I say.... roll out the cruise missiles baby...
-
The top half of the page merely reprints the totally bogus article that went around.
The bottom of the page has the debunking.
-
You guys are missing the most important part of this whole post.
Was a bit concerned about my draft age daughter
Soooooooooo, umm is she single?
-
From Janes Defense Weekly:
After Saddam is defeated: a confidential American projection of a new Middle East
If the Western media and armchair generals are to be believed, the impending war against Iraq will be disastrous. The world oil price will rise and financial markets will remain wobbly. The backlash against the US and its allies will be huge, perhaps toppling pro-Western monarchies and governments in the Gulf and Middle East.
This is the received wisdom of the critics. Foreign Report has had access to the thinking of advocates in the Bush administration about the US intervention in Iraq. Although the risks inherent in any war cannot be overlooked, the critics may exaggerate the dangers and underestimate the advantages for the entire Middle East should the operation go well.
At the outset, remember who the critics are. They are the people who predicted Armageddon in all recent conflicts. The critics claimed a decade ago that the war to remove Saddam from Kuwait would last 'for decades'; its most intensive phase lasted less than a month. They also said that 'huge numbers' of Western soldiers would be killed. In fact, hundreds died. They predicted that Saddam's Republican Guards would 'fight to the end'; in fact, they ran away.
Could the critics be wrong again?
Saddam Hussein is not Bin Laden. He is a classic dictator, dependent on the apparatus of a state, a disciplined security service and a small clan of his own people, the Takritis, who are despised by most ordinary Iraqis, not to speak of other Arabs in the Middle East. When his regime begins to collapse, he will be finished.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thoughts that this report generated in my mind:
1."the US air force used new precision-guided bombs
capable of locating and destroying fiber optic systems"
Fiber optic sniffing bombs? We've got a bunch of savvy folks here. Anyone know if fiber optic cables radiate a "capturable" signal of some sort.
Toad, a friend of mine worked a major fiber optics company, that is based locally. His job was to put these things together.
Apparently, the heart of a fiber optic cable is a a tiny transpartent medium that is "painted" with a reflective substance. The light goes down the center of this transparent medium, bouncing off the reflective "paint". I imagine the only signiture it would have is very very very low heat signature as some of the energy fromthe the light is lost in the imperfections in the medium and the "paint".
Unlike electical mediums, you can not detect the signal going through a fiber optic cable at all.