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.

 

how should Iraq be taken out?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2003 @ 06:39 PM
link   
since we all know it's coming, how do you think we should take them out? my personal fave is the neutron bomb, i've dones some reading on this device and basically it's a radiation bomb that is very intense but disipates fast. so you got a bomb that kills all living things and doesn't damage infrastructure. we've had these since the 60's why haven't they been used? these would of been bad in Afghanistan and even Vietnam.




posted on Mar, 5 2003 @ 06:48 PM
link   
They shouldn't be taken out! LOL



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 09:45 AM
link   
1) Combination of long range missiles and Stealth Fighter/Bombers to take out Command and Control Centers, and Anti-Aircraft Defenses...at night.

2) Then the bombers come in, carpet bombing major sites away from civilian populations, and surgical bombing strikes against other military/political targets.

3) Fighters will escort the bombers to shoot down any surviving aircraft. (likely fighter/bombers, so they have something to do besides shooting down the few MIGs that get airborne...)

4) During the same time as step 1, covert ops are going to try and find and contain Saddam, then airlift him out if successful, for future exile.

5) After the skies are secure, aircraft and long range missiles will then take out armored divisions, artillery, infantry, etc. Note: Steps 1-5 will likely be complete only a week or two into the war

6) Ground troops then go in to mop up, and secure the country. Unlike last time, troops will be brought in more from airdrops, and landing of troop carrying C130's...Surgical Bombing would continue, and WOMD sites will be taken out easier thanks to painting by ground troops, while some are displayed to show why we went in in the first place...Get the boys back in time for fireworks on the fourth, and we're good to go...

That's about it...


[Edited on 6-3-2003 by Gazrok]

[Edited on 6-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 10:00 AM
link   
ok you are talking of killing innocent men women and children, therefore breeding fresh hatred for the west.......where is your brain? hav you got an ounce of decency left for human rights?

do you know what a nutron bomb is, how would you like it if one was dropped on your home town?

saddamm shud go to the international criminal court

the UN should go into Iraq and re-build and get an elected gov (elected by the ppl not mr bush) in to run the country with legal rules and democratic power.

the UN should pour hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of finance into Iraq to get it stable and functioning as a state get a good deal for the Kurds and get the ppl sorted rather than spending billions of 's and $'s on bloody bombs air craft and troops. therefore no saddamm, stable land for all to live in peace and a rebuilt Iraq with aid, food, housing and medi care for the ppl.

what wud you rather?



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 10:02 AM
link   
furthermore it wont ruin the environment, you pathetic little small minded idiot



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by barbie girl
furthermore it wont ruin the environment, you pathetic little small minded idiot



was that absolutely necessary? name calling never accomplished anything.

[Edited on 3/6/2003 by AegisFang]



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MKULTRA They shouldn't be taken out!

Right...It should be Sodamn Insane taken out, not Iraq itself...


Originally posted by Gazrok Get the boys back in time for fireworks on the fourth, and we're good to go...

Doncha' think that, by that time, our boys would've already seen more than enough fireworks to last them for quite awhile?...


Besides, I think Sodamn Insane should face *trial*, not exile.
...Hmmm...Catchy soundbite for the media: Trial, not exile! Trial, not exile!


[Edited on 7-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I read that email that Tony Blair brought up while speaking (I think) to the MP's - basically the email was from a 19 yr old female Iraqi student whose family escaped Iraq. She's all for the US overthrowing Saddam, speaks of Saddams tyranny, criticizes peace protesters, etc. She sees a war as the only hope for the people Iraq. When Iraq is taken out, I just hope that most of the Iraqis feel the way she does.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by barbie girl

saddamm shud go to the international criminal court




and just how the hell is that going to happen? go in there and knock on the door an pretend we are girl scouts selling cookies? come on. the only way to get saddam dead or alive... is by going in there like we are doing now.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
1) Combination of long range missiles and Stealth Fighter/Bombers to take out Command and Control Centers, and Anti-Aircraft Defenses...at night.

2) Then the bombers come in, carpet bombing major sites away from civilian populations, and surgical bombing strikes against other military/political targets.

3) Fighters will escort the bombers to shoot down any surviving aircraft. (likely fighter/bombers, so they have something to do besides shooting down the few MIGs that get airborne...)

4) During the same time as step 1, covert ops are going to try and find and contain Saddam, then airlift him out if successful, for future exile.

5) After the skies are secure, aircraft and long range missiles will then take out armored divisions, artillery, infantry, etc. Note: Steps 1-5 will likely be complete only a week or two into the war

6) Ground troops then go in to mop up, and secure the country. Unlike last time, troops will be brought in more from airdrops, and landing of troop carrying C130's...Surgical Bombing would continue, and WOMD sites will be taken out easier thanks to painting by ground troops, while some are displayed to show why we went in in the first place...Get the boys back in time for fireworks on the fourth, and we're good to go...

That's about it...


[Edited on 6-3-2003 by Gazrok]

[Edited on 6-3-2003 by Gazrok]




were you in the military or do you just know a lot about logistics?

also how easy is this war going to be for the american military? any comparisions? is it going to be a "turkey shoot"? what would the hardest obstacle for our military? any advice or even a good analogy would help.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by barbie girl
ok you are talking of killing innocent men women and children, therefore breeding fresh hatred for the west.......where is your brain? hav you got an ounce of decency left for human rights?



look... war is not pretty. innocent people dying is INEVITABLE... which is why we are trying harder then petrified s h i t to diminish the numbers of innocent lives lost in this war. in war innocent life is ALWAYS lost.... which is partly why war is the last resort. again war is not pretty.



Originally posted by barbie girl
do you know what a nutron bomb is, how would you like it if one was dropped on your home town?



no one likes it. who would? of course he wouldnt like it. however im not sure if a nutron bomb would be actually that nesacarry but i could be wrong. if the u.s. military finds a nutron bomb to be the best option in weighing in the concern for the loss of innocent life etc then why shouldnt they do it? they are not going to be dropping big bombs capriciously. its a targeted effort taking into consideration to protect the people of iraq but kill off those who we are going for ... the iraq regime. again its not pretty.



Originally posted by barbie girl
the UN should go into Iraq and re-build and get an elected gov (elected by the ppl not mr bush) in to run the country with legal rules and democratic power.


right... right after the iraq regime is over thrown.. because it cannot happen while they are there. also... Bush is NOT going to elect a leader.. that was never his intention.. he said over and over and over again... the people of iraq will.




Originally posted by barbie girl
the UN should pour hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of finance into Iraq to get it stable and functioning as a state get a good deal for the Kurds and get the ppl sorted rather than spending billions of 's and $'s on bloody bombs air craft and troops. therefore no saddamm, stable land for all to live in peace and a rebuilt Iraq with aid, food, housing and medi care for the ppl.


im not too sure what you are advocating here. are you saying we shouldnt spend money on any war.. but rather use that money to help Iraqis citizens financially? if so... how the hell can we do that when the money we do send if its sent saddam takes if for himself? and he wont leave unless someone takes him out.. and the only way to do that now it seems is through war. again.. im not sure what you are advocating so if you could be more clear then i could responde more appropriatley.


[Edited on 7-3-2003 by krossfyter]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 09:44 AM
link   
More from a knowledge of logistics, and growing up around the military, government contractors, etc. all my life. I was comparing the tactics used in the Gulf War, and then factoring in the added objectives of regime change and discovery of womd...

The biggest obstacle is going to be getting Saddam. High-ranking members of his regime, including himself, have body doubles all over the place, including some who have had plastic surgery to resemble their assignment. (Sounds far-fetched, but this is a fact...there was an excellent documentary about 2 weeks back...the resemblances are uncanny, like twins). Add to this the extensive bunker complexes, and Presidential sites, and it becomes an elusive manhunt.

The other main obstacle is the location and destruction/exhibition of WOMD. Many of these are extremely mobile, imposing the same difficulty we had searching for SCUD launchers during the Gulf War, with the added fact that they can easily be disguised as semi trucks, tanker trucks, RVs, etc., unlike SCUD launchers. Other WOMD are buried in the middle of nowhere, or interdispersed amongst civilian areas, requiring ground troop door-to-door style search tactics.

Another problem will be oil well fires. In addition to the environmental problem, oil smoke is thick, and will not be good for laser-guided bombs. This is really more of a problem in the later phases of the bombing though, and shouldn't hamper the initial attack and securing of the skies...

Lastly, the only other problem is if Saddam decides to actually use the WOMD he has. This would truly be a last ditch effort, but is a likely scenario. Luckily, our troops are prepared for this, but it will still cause more casualties then planned. Thing is though, most gas-based attacks pose little threat to prepared soldiers. The more impending threat is the use of viruses and other biologics... Also, the use of so-called "dirty" bombs are also likely (radioactive, but not nuclear, or as GW puts it "nukular").

The initial attack and securing of the country will go pretty smoothly...the mop up is where the potential lies for trouble (finding Saddam, finding WOMD, and the use of WOMD by Saddam in a last ditch effort).

Hope that helps....


Back before the Gulf War, you should have seen some of my friends faces when I described to them how an "air war" would be waged, hehe...they thought I was off my rocker, lol!


[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Personally , I would go with the same approach as we took in the first war with Iraq .... just with twice the effort .



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:33 PM
link   
There is one slight problem with fighting Gulf War II the same as Gulf War I.... Saddam took notes the first time around, and we were stupid enough to leave him alone for the last 12 years to brainstorm and find counters to our technology.

Saddam knows that the only way to win against our technology is to put us in a situation that inherently negates the technologies effectiveness.... What was GWI famous for? It was called the "Nintendo War" because we blew the enemy up by remote control. Saddams not going to allow that to happen again.

Saddam fully intends to bunker down inside Bagdad, dug in with the best of his troops and weapons that he has, and make sure he is surrounded by hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians... He intends to pull US troops into an urban warfare setting (the most dangerous combat environment there is, ask anyone who survived in Bosnia), which will instantly negate about 85% of our weapons technology due to close range, lack of maneuvering room, and close quarters in which to set multiple boobytraps/ambushes.

Once US forces are pulled in and engaged at close quarters, Republican Guard forces will likely close ranks behind them, cutting them off. This is likely when we will find out for sure what kind of chem/bioweapons he has, as he will likely release everything he has, with no concern for civilian causualties (the only reason he is interested in civilian losses is because he knows US forces will attempt to avoid them, which gives Iraqui forces the upper hand).

If and when chem/bio weapons are deployed, our only realistic response will be to withdraw our forces and obliterate the entire area, likely with low yeild tactical nukes or FAE (Fuel Air Explosive, very similar to a tactical nuke). This will likely decimate any organized Iraqui resistance, but will also result in massive civilian causualties, and likely turn the entire world opinion against the US.

Even if Saddam dies at this point, he will have succeeded in making the US an international pariah.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Something I was discussing with some colleagues.... what happens if Saddam does release a massive bio weapon??? What do we do with our dead? Do we ship them back to the US, knowing they are contaminated, and likely cause a massive outbreak stateside?



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 01:07 AM
link   
What if sending a mass number of U.S. troops is what they actually want ? When the war starts they (Iraq ) can easily just wipe our forces out with one massive nuclear atomic bomb , killing everyone in sight. Leaving those at the home front kind of weaken . Knowing that our arm forces just suffered a massive loss in numbers .



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I believe that is thier objective... they know they are going to loose, they want to take as many US forces with them that they can



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Saddam has three sisters (I for got their names). It's Irrelevant. Can someone find out their names.

1. Married. Husband fled to Jordan. After being convinced to come back, convinced that Saddam had forgiven him.
Husband ASSASINATED.

2. Married. Husband fled to the West. Same story, after being convinced that Saddam had forgiven him he is also ASSASINATED.

3. Married. Freshly married. What happens next?

Does this man sound normal?
You know what scares me the most for the Iraqi people, Saddam's son Uddei.
He is the one who carried out the assassinations.




posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I still say the war could have easily been avoided some time ago (though probably too late to do this now):

1 USMC Force Recon Platoon
1 USMC Scout Sniper
1 Barrett M-82
Supply of AMAX .50 match ammo
get within 2 miles of Saddam, and watch his head explode....



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 01:47 AM
link   
amen dragonrider. them marines are a force to be reckoned with. not to discount the barret rifle with a range of 2 miles.




top topics



 
0

log in

join