(WAR) What happens to the weapons
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
Paul Watson wrote: Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. I doubt it, I believe the opposite. The population will do anything to please the new master. Revealing weapons location will make US happy and the population will want their support/protection. Military leaders will suggest 'I give locations, US doesn't try me for war crimes' deals. Of course, your theory is very possible too. But already now Iraq-Syria border is WMD smugling heaven, so the risk is the same.
-
Paul Watson wrote: So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? I suggest Tupperware®.
shog nine
Ever since i heard the voice i thought i had no choice...
Shog9 wrote: I suggest Tupperware®. Bush: Hmm, ok boys, we have to select the perfect Tupperware container for this damned war. Say 8pm my place tomorrow night, bring crumpets and crochet patterns! Oh and remember the container has to have breather holes, can't go killing all those Iraqis we just liberated. ;)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-
Paul Watson wrote: So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? I suggest Tupperware®.
shog nine
Ever since i heard the voice i thought i had no choice...
Is that really cost-effective? I say we use the new Ziploc disposable bowls. quorum pars magna fui
-
Paul Watson wrote: Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. I doubt it, I believe the opposite. The population will do anything to please the new master. Revealing weapons location will make US happy and the population will want their support/protection. Military leaders will suggest 'I give locations, US doesn't try me for war crimes' deals. Of course, your theory is very possible too. But already now Iraq-Syria border is WMD smugling heaven, so the risk is the same.
Felix Gartsman wrote: The population will do anything to please the new master. Revealing weapons location will make US happy and the population will want their support/protection. Military leaders will suggest 'I give locations, US doesn't try me for war crimes' deals. I did not realise the general populace was in with Saddam so tightly. I thought it was mainly his brothers and "loyal" generals who controlled the country and it's weapons. Felix Gartsman wrote: But already now Iraq-Syria border is WMD smugling heaven, so the risk is the same. Won't the war force the smugglers hand though? Make them step up their smuggling to get as much out before they can't anymore? I don't know the alternative solution to war. Just exploring what might happen with the war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
Paul Watson wrote: So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. I don't think they will seal off the Iraq borders, but I think they will definitely seal off the all the entrances to oil refineries, before anybody can torch them. They are more worried about saving the oil than WMD. Forget the war of words between the United States and Iraq. Whatthe United States wants is Iraq's oil, and Iraq has made the preparation, said a former Iraqi information official on Friday. He added if the United States launches a war against Iraq, Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire. There are some 1,500 oil wells in major oil fields in Iraq. 500 of them are near Kurkuk in the north while the other 1,000 wells near Rumalia and other fields in the south, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
-
Is that really cost-effective? I say we use the new Ziploc disposable bowls. quorum pars magna fui
Chris Austin wrote: I say we use the new Ziploc disposable bowls Naaaah, not good for the environment. Bush is already in the shitz with the environmentalists. Re-usable tupperware is best. Once Iraq is sorted they can move it over Iran and so forth.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-
Paul Watson wrote: So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. I don't think they will seal off the Iraq borders, but I think they will definitely seal off the all the entrances to oil refineries, before anybody can torch them. They are more worried about saving the oil than WMD. Forget the war of words between the United States and Iraq. Whatthe United States wants is Iraq's oil, and Iraq has made the preparation, said a former Iraqi information official on Friday. He added if the United States launches a war against Iraq, Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire. There are some 1,500 oil wells in major oil fields in Iraq. 500 of them are near Kurkuk in the north while the other 1,000 wells near Rumalia and other fields in the south, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: What the United States wants is Iraq's oil woo hoo!!! cheaper gas!!! I can't wait. Prices are up to 1.75USD :wtf: Let's get in there and get our oil! :-D Kant wrote: Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire :omg: At least the SUV's in the US have catalytic converters! We'll burn it for them! Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: The population will do anything to please the new master. Revealing weapons location will make US happy and the population will want their support/protection. Military leaders will suggest 'I give locations, US doesn't try me for war crimes' deals. I did not realise the general populace was in with Saddam so tightly. I thought it was mainly his brothers and "loyal" generals who controlled the country and it's weapons. Felix Gartsman wrote: But already now Iraq-Syria border is WMD smugling heaven, so the risk is the same. Won't the war force the smugglers hand though? Make them step up their smuggling to get as much out before they can't anymore? I don't know the alternative solution to war. Just exploring what might happen with the war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
Paul Watson wrote: I did not realise the general populace was in with Saddam so tightly. I thought it was mainly his brothers and "loyal" generals who controlled the country and it's weapons. Mostly they do, and to save them they'll tell everything. Without US protection Saddam's Tikritian tribe will be massacred to the last. They would buy safety/exile in the west for their knowledge. Iraq is a web of tribes, each control some other part. Their loyalty bought with money and terror, which means it buyable. Paul Watson wrote: Won't the war force the smugglers hand though? Make them step up their smuggling to get as much out before they can't anymore? That's why swift Turkey-Jordan cut-off will be done at start. Or finally US will tell Bashar Asad that enough is enough.
-
Paul Watson wrote: So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. I don't think they will seal off the Iraq borders, but I think they will definitely seal off the all the entrances to oil refineries, before anybody can torch them. They are more worried about saving the oil than WMD. Forget the war of words between the United States and Iraq. Whatthe United States wants is Iraq's oil, and Iraq has made the preparation, said a former Iraqi information official on Friday. He added if the United States launches a war against Iraq, Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire. There are some 1,500 oil wells in major oil fields in Iraq. 500 of them are near Kurkuk in the north while the other 1,000 wells near Rumalia and other fields in the south, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: They are more worried about saving the oil than WMD. While I don't agree with a war, I really don't believe that. I think W has more of a Regan type of approach where he really believes that the US's might should be used to influence the world for what he sees a right and just. I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. Hoping that it will influence reforms in Iraq's neighboring countries. I think he is mostly sincere in his beliefs, but I also think he is dead wrong. quorum pars magna fui
-
Kant wrote: What the United States wants is Iraq's oil woo hoo!!! cheaper gas!!! I can't wait. Prices are up to 1.75USD :wtf: Let's get in there and get our oil! :-D Kant wrote: Iraq will turn oil wells and oil fields into a sea of fire :omg: At least the SUV's in the US have catalytic converters! We'll burn it for them! Disclaimer: The above statements are thick with sarcasm. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Well, those were not my comments. Read it here.. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200302/02/eng20030202_111054.shtml[^] Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
-
Kant wrote: They are more worried about saving the oil than WMD. While I don't agree with a war, I really don't believe that. I think W has more of a Regan type of approach where he really believes that the US's might should be used to influence the world for what he sees a right and just. I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. Hoping that it will influence reforms in Iraq's neighboring countries. I think he is mostly sincere in his beliefs, but I also think he is dead wrong. quorum pars magna fui
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: Even Clinton could not finish that Sadly, I don't think anyone from outside the conflict will solve this. Both sides seem un-willing to bargain in good faith or give any concessions. quorum pars magna fui
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. He isn't a magician. Solving the conflict is beyong his powers, and he should focus on doable things - like saving the Iraqi people. Kant wrote: But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. The european attitude is what stops peace. Their support for terror by Arafat strengtens him, and prevents new leaders. Until Hamas/Jihad/Tanzim crushed, no palestinian leader will give peace. Where moderate leaders today? London, Paris, Abu-Dabi. They afraid to act. Europe should support them, not Arafat. Only Europe can bring peace, not Bush.
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
One clean clear solution. GWB will start a WMD for food program. :-D
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: ...he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. But that is impossible. They don;t want it solved. Each wants the other out of the way so they can move in.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Chris Austin wrote: I am begging to think that he is going after Iraq to try for long-term stabilization in the region via installing a democracy. I agree may be his intents are in installing true democracy. But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. That's the focal point in Middle-East conflict. Even Clinton could not finish that. If Bush could solve that problem, then I agree he is the champion of peace. But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict Sod that, before they even try and mess up another country they need to sort out the last one they, er, liberated. What was it called again? Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, I can remember all the colourful maps on CNN. Sadly I don't have an irony or a sarcasm rating in my sig.
David Wulff
-
Ok just had a thought. Currently we know Saddam has WMDs, even the peacenicks know this. But we don't know where they are or what his plans for them are. Saddam though does hold sway over his minions and all the factions. They fear him enough not to do stupid stuff without his OK (they haven't so far.) Now the US comes in guns blazing, takes out Saddam. The various brothers and factions and what not know they are next so they are not going to just give up to the US once Saddam is gone. They know where the weapons are. They are going to be desperate to get rid of them. The country will be in chaos and not every truck or jeep is going to be able to be accounted for and tracked by the US. In comes some terrorist nut and takes it off their hands quite easily, with less fuss than Saddam would have demanded (because he has a nice big ego.) So does the US have some kind of plan to seal off Iraq? Prevent anything getting out of the borders which become very permeable during war (as was seen with Afghanistan.) I don't think Iran is going to let US troops come charging into Iran after terrorists from Iraq get in. It all sounds very iffy and dangerous. Once those weapons get out of Iraq we have much less chance of tracking or finding them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er
I think we're going to build an enormous oil moat around the country.:rolleyes: BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict. He isn't a magician. Solving the conflict is beyong his powers, and he should focus on doable things - like saving the Iraqi people. Kant wrote: But the way Bush is handling now, you can forget the peace in Middle-East for atleast a decade. The european attitude is what stops peace. Their support for terror by Arafat strengtens him, and prevents new leaders. Until Hamas/Jihad/Tanzim crushed, no palestinian leader will give peace. Where moderate leaders today? London, Paris, Abu-Dabi. They afraid to act. Europe should support them, not Arafat. Only Europe can bring peace, not Bush.
But, Felix, if EU acts to try and solve the Palestine-Israel conflict, people can't point the finger back at the US for screwing it up.. :rolleyes: BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Kant wrote: But before go after solving problems in Iraq, he should solve the Palestine-Isreal conflict Sod that, before they even try and mess up another country they need to sort out the last one they, er, liberated. What was it called again? Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, I can remember all the colourful maps on CNN. Sadly I don't have an irony or a sarcasm rating in my sig.
David Wulff
David Wulff wrote: Alph... Ante... Alpy... well it was 'A' something, Africa ?? Andaman ?? Oh..may be Antartica... ;P One thing I really give hats off to GWB is, the way he turned people attention from Bin Laden to Saddam. That's a classic PR act. It should be for the books. :suss: Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]