"Some people gonna die"

[LaBrujita]

Sorry to make another thread on war, but here it is.

Why isn't anyone scared of Iraq/Hussein?

Now, I'm not saying everyone is wrong, but:
we all seem to be thinking that the US is simply going to stroll in there, bomb the fuck out of the place, neutralize all danger, and that's that.

What do we take Saddam for: a dubya?
No, he's a ****ing psychopath and cares about nothing but himself (opposed to fame, oil, daddy, and so on). It's not like he is sitting idly by, shaking in his boots; he's excited to have freedom to do whatever he wants to anyone he wants.

This could be the last week, month, year, or war of his life. Why hold anything back? He's not worried about the people or his country? No, he's worried about his legacy, his life, and his chance to release some serious energy (destructive energy)

They've disarmed how many (few) missles?
It's Iraq, the money goes to a) Saddam's palaces b) ????.
They must have chemical and biological weapons. They must have ties with groups around the world. Surely he's been on the phone with these friends, allies. Maybe that's all incorrect, maybe it's not.


I hope I am way off with this idea, but this is f-ing war, war tomorrow. If I were American: I'd have my bombshelter dug, my gas mask on, I would stay off of planes and away from city centers, and, american or not, my thoughts will be with the thousands and thousands that will start dying in 23 hours and 55 minutes.

Does anyone see it sick that we are actually having a "countdown to war"? What ever happened to good-old-fashioned suprise attacks?
Sorry, this really isn't a funny matter.


Iraq is backed into a corner, they aren't going down without a fucking vicious fight.

 

[Joe]

Re: "Some people gonna die"

Originally posted by LaBrujita


I hope I am way off with this idea, but this is f-ing war, war tomorrow. If I were American: I'd have my bombshelter dug, my gas mask on, I would stay off of planes and away from city centers, and, american or not, my thoughts will be with the thousands and thousands that will start dying in 23 hours and 55 minutes.

Does anyone see it sick that we are actually having a "countdown to war"? What ever happened to good-old-fashioned suprise attacks?
Sorry, this really isn't a funny matter.


Iraq is backed into a corner, they aren't going down without a fucking vicious fight.

Man, dude. Take it easy, what can we do man? We have to live our lives, like Israelis try to do everyday. If I die because I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, well--hell, then it was my time to die. I do feel that, this time around, we think it is going to be just like another Persian Gulf War, but Suddam is sitting there with something up his sleeve this time.

I agree that Americans need to be aware of the risks, but do not become paranoid. An example of people not aware would be my religion *cough* class. Today my friend and I just shook our heads with--almost--horror on how dumb and uninformed (mis-informed?) the kids in our class were. Even my teacher was said some ignorant things; although we do have a Saudi Muslim in our class, (funny, in a Christian school) who the teacher thinks is a voice for all of the Middle East. My friend shook his head, "Man, I hate ignorant conversations." I followed up saying (could be seen as arrogant I guess), "Can people be this dumb?"

Various kids in my class said, "I really liked President Bush's speech last night," though most said they didn't hear it. Once again my friend and I, and another history/current events guy like myself (I like to say I am "up on current events,"whether I am or not, you can decide) shook our heads in disgust. My teacher then briefed the kids who didn't see or hear it, "He basically told the Iraqis to give up and disobey orders, like not start fires on oil," the "informed" among us chuckled at the hidden agenda there. "They should also not fight for a regime that is dying," I hate that line. I agree with Bush in some regards, but he just can't say anything right. What if everyone in history followed that statement? The world would be completely different; propaganda I'm sure.

Anyway, yes, Countdown to War is stupid. First it was Showdown with Iraq, then Conflict in Iraq, etc. Just a way for graphic artists on television to get a little money?

 

[-William-]

Yeah thats true...

 

[::shinji::]

"this time, it's biblical"

 

[LOVE_BUZZ]

saddams a joke to be honest if he was gonna do anything he would have done it by now. He's been quoted saying 'i will fight on land air and sea' the iraq navy is little to none their airforce is laughable and he hasn't got 50,000 troops that would fight to the end for him, Bush and Blair will call his bluff and i expect he'll be dead within a month.

 

[zul-aid]

Originally posted by LOVE_BUZZ
saddams a joke to be honest if he was gonna do anything he would have done it by now. He's been quoted saying 'i will fight on land air and sea' the iraq navy is little to none their airforce is laughable and he hasn't got 50,000 troops that would fight to the end for him, Bush and Blair will call his bluff and i expect he'll be dead within a month.

Then if thats the case Bush and Co have no reason for war now do they?

They say he has chemical weapson stockpile etc etc.

Notice the contradiction.

 

[sslazio121087]

Anyone remember the Gulf War?

Well there was always talk of the republican guard or something like that and that they're terrible and they'll eat our troops alive. Anyone remeber hearing what they did to our troops during the Gulf War, 'cause I sure don't.

I think this war will be the same.

 

[voetballiefhebb]

I'm not really scared of death to be honest If I die, I die. One thing will hurt me forever though, that is if my brother is killed and I survive.

It was always a lose-lose situation for Saddam. Admit he has WMD, bomb him on grounds of that, denies having WMD, bomb him saying he is lying.

One thing that has pissed me off is that our governments have not told us what to do in the event of an attack. I had to be taught from a bloody T.V documentary.

 

[Paul]

Having complacency that Saddam is not gonna do anything is not a good way of thinking.

Why do you think soldiers had vaccinations, etc.

That's why the Australian Army/Government wouldn't let soldiers go, unless they had vaccinations.

 

[Joe]

The United States also has indications of sabotage against oil fields in the southern Iraqi region of Rumailah, where at least one oil well has been spilling crude into the desert for over 24 hours. The United States believes the spill is deliberate, and that it is an effort to create a physical obstacle in the desert to hinder the movement of U.S. troops.

This from a CNN story. Yes, hinder the movement of troops my ass.

 

[hermolt]

Originally posted by Paul
That's why the Australian Army/Government wouldn't let soldiers go, unless they had vaccinations.

...because they care.

 

[Paul]

Originally posted by Joe
This from a CNN story. Yes, hinder the movement of troops my ass.

errr, how would you drive a car, let alone a tank through oil slick?

 

[Joe]

Originally posted by Paul
errr, how would you drive a car, let alone a tank through oil slick?

Very carefully.

 

[Paul]

really?

it's obvious you can't send an Army thought it, slowing them down and making them vunerable.

yeah, let's send our troops through oil

 

[zul-aid]

Most channels (news channels) have been reporting the burning of the oil

the problem lies in the bomber planes as visibility will be slim to none and most of the oil fields are in and around the capital baghdad itself

Fox did a good presentation on it even though I hate that right-wing **** they pull sometimes fair and balanced my ass.

 

[voetballiefhebb]

Well, if I was Saddam I would fill military buildings full of chemcial weapons and oil, and I mean pack it, flee the country, once a bomb is dropped on that, well, hes framed the USA. Saddam will have something up his sleeve.

Disclaimer:*
I'm a championship manager tactician, not a war tactician. I do not in any way condemn terrorism or war. I am not a follower of Saddam.
* = Rubbish

 

[KingPaulV]

Actually Zul-aid (sorry to seem to be on your case) but modern specially US bombers could care flip about vasts clouds of smoke even if it covered all of iraq.......its bad for the ground troops, not planes as new avionics and sensory systems can see right thru the smoke.....in fact the newer variations of the f-15, F-16, B-1B's, and B-2 even the old B-52's have no problem with the smoke...plus 90% of the ordenance to be used is guided by satellite/sensors/GPS so in-air targeting recognition is no longer necessary

 

[zul-aid]

WASHINGTON — Iraq is placing explosives at the Kirkuk oil fields in northern Iraq, Fox News has confirmed, raising new fears that Saddam Hussein may be planning to blow up its oil production facilities to prevent them from being taken over in a war with the U.S.





There are no specifics on the types or amounts of explosives the Iraqis are using, but U.S. officials say they are seeing new activity in the area.

Last week, the Pentagon cited reliable reports that Iraq planned to plant explosives at its oil wells, and that in some cases they "had already begun."

Iraq recently received twenty-four railroad boxcars filled with Pentolite explosives, Fox News learned.

In Baghdad, an oil ministry official denied the report.

"Iraq is keen to defend its oil wells and it is illogical that we burn our oil wells with our own hands," Oil Undersecretary Hussein Suleiman Al-Hadithi told Reuters.

U.S. officials have raised fears for several months that Iraq would employ a "scorched-earth" policy if it appears on the verge of losing a war, setting its oil wells on fire rather than see them fall into the hands of allied forces.

The Iraqis set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze when they retreated from their neighbor at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.


Part of anti-war-think is the possibility Saddam Hussein might set Iraq’s 1,500 oil wells ablaze. It’s not unlikely since Saddam did just that to 600 Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.





The anti-warriors forecast such sabotage would have catastrophic consequences.

"No one anticipated that Saddam Hussein would burn Kuwaiti oil fields, causing an epic health and environmental disaster. No one knows what he could do now," shrieked Physicians for Social Responsibility in a recent media release.

Greenpeace claims, "Fires from 600 deliberately damaged Kuwaiti oil wells … created a blanket of soot, gases and aggressive chemicals [that] led to immediate respiratory problems in local populations and generated serious long-term risks of birth defects and cancer in exposed people."

The media have also jumped on the oil fire-scare bandwagon.

The Associated Press reported, "The wind-borne pollution [from Kuwait] touched off health and environmental problems far beyond the Gulf." The AP failed to elaborate further on what the health problems were.

Agence France-Presse reported, "The release of oil and smoke from [Iraqi] fires would likely have long-term health effects." Again, the alleged health effects were unspecified.

A Missouri newspaper even found a Gulf War vet who "suspects his exposure to fuel and chemicals from the burning oil wells may have contributed to his memory loss, blurred vision, throat problems, nerve damage and muscle damage."

Would burning oil wells cause health calamities?

First, there’s no question the Kuwaiti oil well fires produced much pollution.

Peak soot emissions were equivalent to 3 million heavy-duty diesel trucks being driven at 30 miles per hour, according to a 1992 study in the journal Science. A May 1991 report estimated the then-526 burning wells emitted 3.8 million pounds of particles into the atmosphere per hour.

That said, virtually all published studies of people exposed to those emissions haven’t reported significant health effects.

A U.S. Army health risk assessment in December 1991 characterized the long-term health effects for exposed troops and civilian employees as "minimal."

The risk of cancer — based on many worst-case assumptions — was estimated to be about 3 "extra" cancers per 1,000,000 people exposed to the emissions. Even if true, this "extra" risk would not be detectable given about 300,000 to 400,000 of those people will develop cancer anyway.

The Army reported the risk of health effects other than cancer to be above levels considered acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA standards, however, are set far below levels known to cause health effects.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted surveys of workers in Kuwait City and firefighters in the oil fields in October 1991. Blood samples were tested and compared with a group of people living in the U.S. Although the median concentration of certain substances (volatile organic compounds or VOCs) was quite elevated among firefighters, VOC concentrations in non-firefighting personnel were equal or lower than levels found among people in the U.S. survey.

A May 2002 study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology compared postwar disease incidence between veterans exposed to the oil well fires and veterans not exposed — a total of 405,142 study subjects. "These data do not support the hypothesis that Gulf War veterans have an increased risk of postwar morbidity from exposure to Kuwaiti oil well fire smoke," concluded U.S. Navy researchers.

A November 2002 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives considered 1,560 Gulf War veterans, 94 percent of whom were in the Gulf theater during the oil well fires and 21 percent who remained for more than 100 days during the fires. "These findings do not support speculation that exposures to oil fire smoke caused respiratory symptoms among veterans," concluded the University of Iowa researchers.

Harvard School of Public Health researchers reported in 1999 the acute toxicity of particles from the Kuwaiti fires were no more "toxic" than particles collected from the air of St. Louis, Mo., or Washington, D.C.

A postwar survey conducted in Kuwaiti clinics and emergency rooms reported an increase in visits for upper respiratory irritation, but there was no documented evidence of an increase in visits for acute upper and lower respiratory infections or asthma, reported the World Federation of Public Health Associations in 1997.

Faced with the lack of evidence of health effects, anti-warriors might counter that it has only been 12 years since the Kuwaiti oil well fires and health effects like cancer may take 20 or more years to develop.

Perhaps. On the other hand, there’s no persuasive evidence that air pollution — regardless of its magnitude — has ever caused a single case of cancer.

It’s no wonder the anti-warriors attempt to alarm the public with vague warnings of health effects from potential oil well fires — one look at the Kuwaiti evidence and their scare goes up in smoke.

___________

These are from Fox News I did see a report about the visibility would be lacking with aircraft flying over Iraq (it was on Fox News an hour ago but they dont have it on their website for some reason.

Any way the stories above are about the oil fires injoy.

 

[monkee]

I remember the last Gulf War and how at the start Saddam was saying that he would cruise to victory when in the end the Iraqi army, upon seeing allied troops basically gave themselves up.

This time I don't think it will be so easy. Last Gulf War the allies basically deserted the Iraqi people when they needed us most and I don't think they are going to forget that. On one hand they have an oppressive dictator which, I'm sure, they'll be glad to see the back of, but on the other I can't see them welcoming the allies with open arms.

In my opinion there'll be more of a fight this time around and, as LaBrujita said, lives will be lost on both sides.

I don't think it's going to be quite as easy as the media, who have gone into propaganda overdrive now that the war is under starter's orders, are painting it.

 

[Seán D]

Iraq obviously has something up their sleeves, and unfortunately it will probably be the innocent people to die. Sadam is a bit too cocky IMO not to have WMD.