| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Saddam to flood Baghdad |
| 2003-03-24 |
| caution: This could be propaganda/disinformation or just plain wrong. It is from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting site. 12:54:17 PM Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered his forces to break Darbandikhan dam, in northern Iraq, as soon as they see US and British forces moving into Baghdad, according to Iraqi dissidents in the southwestern Iranian city of Khorramshahr. In the event the dam is opened, most parts of Iraq would be engulfed in water and, it is feared, Iranian border areas would also face a disaster. |
| Posted by:Anon1 |
| #8 If the dam is blown by the Iraqi Regime, it (the dam) will be pretty bombed oops, I mean Bummed out; it would be a "Sad Dam" |
| Posted by: Bodyguard 2003-03-25 00:57:48 |
| #7 the area south-west of the Euphrates is desert - that where the 3rd ID mades its lightning advance. The 1st marine div, is apparently trying to go north from Nasariyah, and head between the Euphrates and the Tigris (this, IIUC, is the fertile area, though even here there are swaths of desert amidst the farmland). This would bring them toward Bagdad from the South, while 3rd ID comes from the west/southwest (karbala). It is also possible a unit will be sent up the Tigris to attack from the east. Talk has been that exploding a dam would make it more difficult to cross the Tigris, which would make this operation more difficult. You are correct that the IRNA report seems highly exagerated. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-24 16:21:01 |
| #6 There's a vast difference between the fertile crescent and the referenced "most parts of Iraq would be engulfed in water" that I was commenting on. The article made it sound like losing one dam out of many would unleash a flood of biblical proportions. All of the irrigated portions of Iraq were and still are a very small percentage of Iraq, and much of the rest to the south is a big sand pit so unfertile that water alone won't help. I suspect that the pre-mongol "paradise" is almost as mythic as the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon." Everybody likes to hype up "the good old days." That said, there are enough canals in Baghdad to cause us plenty of problems in the days ahead, whether they are flooded or not. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-24 15:43:49 |
| #5 chuck in fact it was already in decline before the mongols, due to increasing soil salinity/runoof problems(?) associated with thousands of years of intensive irrigation. Nonetheless the notion that the entire country is desert (despite low rainfall) is false. The Tigris and Euphrates still carry lots of freshwater, and it is still used for irrigation. Much of the south was marshland, before Saddam pursued a deliberate policy of changing hydraulic flows to destroy the marsh Arabs. Much is still farmland. I dont know the precise uses of the dams, but Toms implication that this is desert where using dams makes no sense reveals a serious misunderstanding of the local geography. I would hope that all of us who post here (myself included) continue to work on our background knowledge. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-24 11:42:43 |
| #4 The region was among the most fertile on earth due to an extensive system of canals and irrigation. When the Mongols conquored the region, the annual maintenance could not be performed and in a matter of a couple of years the desert moved in. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-03-24 11:31:17 |
| #3 tom, theres a reason its called the "fertile crescent" |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-24 11:07:02 |
| #2 "most parts of Iraq would be engulfed in water" If that was true, they shouldn't even have a dam. The place could be a paradise instead of the sand pit that it is. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-24 09:14:50 |
| #1 click the bottom link of 'saddam breaks dam' because i can't link the title properly due to being a bit thick. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-03-24 07:11:28 |