It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pending Iraqi Genocide

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The topic of death has been conspicuously absent from the discussion on an Iraqi offensive. My stance has been that nothing to date has warranted the loss of American military lives in support of this campaign and I am greatly troubled by the flip nature of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team, acting as if braggadocio fueled imperialism is an apt excuse for the lives of my family members service to our country.
As is so often the case when speaking about this Bush Administration, they ram the rhetoric while shunning the numbers. Case in point, the stated plan for the first two days of engagement which borrows from Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' called "Shock & Awe":
The US is planning to demolish Bagdhad with 800 missiles within the first 48 hours.


.......Now do the math


Bagdhad: Secular, key city....not a military target.....home to FIVE MILLION Iraqi men/women/children in an area smaller than most US hubs.

ADD

800 missiles in 48 hours - 16 missiles an hour for two days straight, in that small an area, aimed at people that don't exactly have two car garages filled for a quick get away....where are they going to go except to meet their Maker?

= GENOCIDE

"800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours
By Andrew West and agencies
January 26 2003
The Sun-Herald

The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar."

www.smh.com.au...

My first, selfish concern, however, is the US Military. Given an act of genocide as above, what nation would not respond with everything they have....since those who are around to fire would be burning with the loss of their homes/people?

"Pentagon's quietest calculation: the casualty count

War planners' estimate of battle losses may factor in an American expectation for 'sterile warfare.'

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, war planners are searching for answers to the ultimate questions about armed conflict with Iraq: Will it be worth it? Even assuming Saddam Hussein is toppled, will the likely loss of US servicemen and women be "acceptable"? "

www.csmonitor.com...


Pulitzer Prize winner Jimmy Breslin: "The government talks about a war in terms of personal insults, deliberately keeping us waiting, by Saddam Hussein, of whom we're all sick and tired.

No one so far has talked about the number of people who will be killed in Iraq. We will lose great young people. Oh, there has to be tens of thousands of Iraq civilians killed. How can they bomb and invade without killing tens of thousands? Particularly those school children whose mothers dress them for the day and send them off to be blown apart by a smart bomb that turns dumb on the way down and hits a schoolhouse."

www.newsday.com...




posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Bout Time - Get a clue. Anti-War clowns are going to tell you the US will attack Iraqis with everything in our inventory. Coming here stating their BS lies as fact makes you look like Lupe.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Do you always, by default, look to say the most annoying things while applying the least amount of thought possible?
Granted, you've proven your Ultra Right Wing stripe, but listing a news article that directly quotes the Pentagon's stated design qualifing as 'anti-war clown' material, is just plain ignorant.
800 missiles in two days is far from everything we got, but as the post intended to illustrate to all those not suffering the effects of a closed mind, it's more than enough to render an urban hub a cemetary for all the resident civilians.
Read the article again for the first time and maybe you'll catch this quote: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Yeah, those quotes are legit. (rolling eyes)

Nobody in the Pentagon is going to threaten the entire people of Iraq. This war is on Saddam and his military, not the Iraqi people. The US military will AVOID hitting by-standers in this war. The worst thing that could happen would be to kill innocent people and then lose the support back home for the war.

You can go on believing this BS just like you believe Saddam's BS. It just proves how stupid you really are...



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Stupid? Me? Imagine that!


Please educate me as to how 800 missiles launched at an urban ( urban = buildings/schools/playgrounds/restaurants/place of worship; not sprawling open spaces) city with folks not owning any personal transportation is going to "The US military will AVOID hitting by-standers in this war." ?

They must be some-fleet-of-foot-folks, them Iraqis. They could run to the city outskirts faster than a cruise missile can get there!!! Especially since Gen. Thompson is foregoing the obligatory "ready, set, go!" announcement!

I have kid brothers and I admit to the guilty pleasure of teasing the young & stupid....but come on already, add something to some post some where instead of blind Right Wing manifesto, ok? There are some articulate folks who hold a pro-war position....plagiarize their stuff.


[Edited on 30-1-2003 by Bout Time]



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The weapons we will MOSTLY use are JDAMs dropped by AIRPLANES, not 800 missiles made up by peaceniks in an article. Keep on believing the lies, you're just another clueless liberal living in NY.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The easiest way for the US to wage war would be to have no limitations in attacking targets regardless of civilian casualties. The US proved this with the massive bombing of cities during WWII, the destruction so great that the exact number of dead will never be known.

However in this day and age, those type of attacks and death tolls would never be accepted by the rest of the world and for that matter many American people.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Stupid? Me? Imagine that!


Please educate me as to how 800 missiles launched at an urban ( urban = buildings/schools/playgrounds/restaurants/place of worship; not sprawling open spaces) city with folks not owning any personal transportation is going to "The US military will AVOID hitting by-standers in this war." ?

[Edited on 30-1-2003 by Bout Time]


US guided weapons used now are an order of magnitude more advanced than the one's used in '91. Undoubtedly, some civilians will be killed if they are in close proximity to military targets. But, what can you do just leave them untouched, it just isn't possible to wage effective warfare.

I have posted a fair bit of inforamtion in the Government/Military Programs Forum if you want to read up on the latest advancements.

These are the relevant threads :

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

A good general information site is FAS:US Smart Weapons

Check out the JASSM and JSOW missiles at www.fas.org...



[Edited on 30-1-2003 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:47 PM
link   
mad scientist - The anti-war people actually believe that the White House and Pentagon WANT to kill millions of innocent people in Iraq.

The quickest way for the war to end would be to make mistakes killing innocent people left and right by being careless with weapons.

Saddam wouldn't mind his own people getting killed, since it would help keep him in power. I wouldn't put it past him to use a WMD on Baghdad, then tell the world the US used it on them.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Now something against New Yorkers? geez

As a reference, look at MS post, junior, that's ATS quality. I disagree, but I'll go to the referenced material and retort in kind.
The 'trump' is that it's still a preemptive strike that will result in a large loss of life based on zero justification to this point.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   
"I wouldn't put it past him to use a WMD on Baghdad, then tell the world the US used it on them."

Change out Bush for Sadaam & I agree with you!
Face it, it's a failed presidency hobbling on the legs given it by 9/11 that will wage some war some where in order to get re-elected: or get elected for the first time in actuality.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Zero justification???

So you believe Saddam doesn't have WMDs that the UN said he had since the 1991 declaration???

Why would he get rid of WMDs, then play games with the UN by not proving that he doesn't have them anymore??

Explain away the Al Qai'da groups found in Baghdad and northern Iraq. Do you believe Saddam didn't handover WMDs to Al Qai'da??? Are you that slow???

Let's see...Al Qai'da and Saddam hate Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US...but you believe they haven't brought their fight together against common foes??? You're clueless...



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:05 PM
link   
So the CIA, Russian, British, World intelligence communities have said that's not the case. Tell me any good reason why, if that evidence exists beyond Cheney's wet dream, it has not been given to the American people OR the UN!?!?

OBL & Sadaam - they hate each other! One is a religious zealot fundamentalist who wants the Middle East to be all a stone ages Taliban; he's on record calling Sadaam a bad Muslim ( te kind they kill whereever they take hold, by the way). Sadaam is a secular fascist who wants all the Western glitz without the Western companies.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
"I wouldn't put it past him to use a WMD on Baghdad, then tell the world the US used it on them."

Change out Bush for Sadaam & I agree with you!
Face it, it's a failed presidency hobbling on the legs given it by 9/11 that will wage some war some where in order to get re-elected: or get elected for the first time in actuality.


You're sick in the head to believe Bush is worse than Saddam,

Oh, if Bush is doing so poorly....then explain the last election where Republicans kicked Democrats out of Congress seats. You're living in fantasyworld most likely because of drugs.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Saddam routinely positions military targets in civilian areas, ON PURPOSE. While this 800 missiles figure may be cited, you can bet that any such details are unreliable at best, as such information is departmentalized, with only so many people knowing such figures, and doubtful that it was leaked correctly to a reporter. I have no doubt that a US attack will be aimed at military and command targets. Will some civilians also be killed? Of course. But it is hardly the Genocide you're imagining, as they will not be specifically targetted. Personally, if I was an Iraqi in Baghdad, I'd be taking a vacation, or visiting a relative out in the boonies for February. But, if they elect instead to all hold hands around an airfield, then so be it...they made their choice, and will be seeing their maker very soon. Will US forces have casualties? Sure, but every attempt will be made to ensure the losses are as few as possible. Do I think this is a just war? Well, let's just say that this should have been done back in Desert Storm, and leave it at that. Regardless, you have my wishes that your family members and loved ones return safe and sound. I too have friends and family that are already over there (or heading over soon), so I know the feeling.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
So the CIA, Russian, British, World intelligence communities have said that's not the case. Tell me any good reason why, if that evidence exists beyond Cheney's wet dream, it has not been given to the American people OR the UN!?!?

OBL & Sadaam - they hate each other! One is a religious zealot fundamentalist who wants the Middle East to be all a stone ages Taliban; he's on record calling Sadaam a bad Muslim ( te kind they kill whereever they take hold, by the way). Sadaam is a secular fascist who wants all the Western glitz without the Western companies.


Making up lies about the CIA is pathetic. Nobody in the CIA has refuted that Saddam has WMDs.

As for the Bush admin not coming out with their intel sources....are you that dumb??? Yeah, let's get the Iraqis on the ground digging up dirt on Saddam killed just so that you can feel good about killing Saddam.

FYI...I know more about Iraq and Al Qai'da than you, so just shut-up.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The main problem here is that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are ruling a brutal regime. If he and most of his upper echelon were removed then we would be well on the way to solving the problem. The only problem is they haven't figured out a way to do it without a massive military expedition into Iraq. Now, surely there must be a way to do this, without a major war ? I wonder if there is an air offensive how much effort will be targetted at Saddam Hussein ?

As for the 800 missiles figure, that is just a wild guess. In war the situation dictates how many missiles will be fired and bombs dropped. That is the unpredictability of war; just as know one knows who will be killed wounded ar untouched during war.



[Edited on 30-1-2003 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The joke about people like Bout Time is that they talk about how bad Saddam is, but don't want to do anything about him.

They also say he doesn't have WMDs, but then say many Americans will die once Saddam unleashes his WMDs on them.

One more, the anti-war crowd is the vocal "human rights" activists in your town....yet they don't seem to care what Saddam has done to millions in Iraq.




posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The only way you'll get Saddam is with ground troop extracation. And even that won't work, because the system of bunkers is so deep, and so wide, that he'll likely be long gone before the troops get to that particular one, and sipping Mai-Tai's on the Riviera... For the duration of the air offensive, you'll see him in the bunkers, just like in Desert Storm, but when the troops come in, he'll be smuggled out asap, with our only hope of capture at the borders. But, borders are large, and Osama got out, so....


The best you can realisticly hope for is to topple the regime. But, that's enough for me....



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:26 PM
link   
If Saddam is forced out of Iraq, he won't be safe any longer. No country would harbour him for fear of incurring US anger. Without his powerbase in Iraq he is nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join