| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| First Strike? |
| 2003-03-14 |
| Is Sammy this stupid? Last time he did everything wrong. U.S. Military Concerned Saddam Hussein May Launch First Attack U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS. But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself. Weren't we going to do that anyway? This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas: Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war. But Blixie says... oh, never mind. Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze. So if you take out the central CP nothing gets blown up, right? That's dumb. Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas. What't the lifespan of an Iraqi artilleryman expected to be in this thing? About 15 minutes? Less? The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first, sources told ABCNEWS. I would think if you make your move on any of these things, the war will be considered "started". |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #5 But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself. Who the hell cares who starts it? Our aim should be to FINISH it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-03-14 21:29:55 |
| #4 In August 1944, when the Allied armies raced towards Paris, Hitler gave secret orders to his newly appointed Commander of Paris, General Dietrich von Choltitz, to reduce this most beautiful of all cities to 'a field of rubble'. To refuse the order was to risk his own life and put his family at risk of gruesome death at the hands of the Gestapo. The general did not carry out the order. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-14 20:39:32 |
| #3 I think, sadly, the only way to stop the wells from getting torched is to pray that the guys in charge opt to disobey orders and leave the facilities intact. Hopefully they'll have their own, their families', and their countrymen's futures in mind and hold those more precious than obeying a tyrant's scorched earth orders. That last sentence applies to the guys in charge of the chemical and biological weapons, as well. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-14 17:41:32 |
| #2 I thought of negative control too, but that's kind of risky. If for some reason the power goes out then "BOOM". "Achmed, why did the oil well blow up? All I did was turn off this computer..." |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-03-14 16:54:30 |
| #1 "So if you take out the central CP nothing gets blown up, right? That's dumb." It works with a negative control system. As long as the bombs keep getting a signal from the CP, all's ok. Take out the CP, signal dies, boom... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-14 16:02:59 |