US troops have entered Baghdad. Not much longer... U.S. Troops Roll Into Iraqi Capital 45 minutes ago By DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writer U.S. armored vehicles drove through Baghdad on Saturday, smashing through Iraq's Republican Guard to reach — at least briefly — the ultimate destination of their two-week surge across southern Iraq. In one skirmish, Marines with bayonets battled Arab fighters from abroad in a marsh on Baghdad's outskirts. The U.S. incursion was not an attempt to capture large sections of Baghdad, which remained under tenuous Iraqi government control. Rather, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Gene Renuart, "it was a clear statement of the ability of coalition forces to move into Baghdad at the time and place of their choosing." The intent, Renuart said in a briefing at Central Command in Qatar, was to show the Iraqi leadership "that they do not have the control they speak about on their television." Full story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_rdp&cid=716&ncid=716
The strategy was flexible, designed to take advantage of oppurtunities as they presented themselves. It appears as if the Iraqi army is simply melting away back into the populace. Baghdad's defenses are not what the Iraqi high command would have hoped... so they moved in. I can't tell yet if this really is a raid or something more permanent, but the ease with which the 3 ID moved in (no KIAs) does not bode well for the Iraqi leadership.
Cheaper. Faster. Easier to move one armored division than three. Doesn't matter, really. All it really did was prolong the war by a few days (if even that). They weren't kidding when they said that the outcome would be the same. Hey, he probably saved the US taxpayers $5 billion. In hindsight, maybe it wasn't a bad idea...
Iraqi info minister says Republican Guard destroyed all of the enemy at Saddam International airport. That is f*cking hilarious. This regime has to have the most lies under its belt in the history of the world. Did anyone also see in Aziziyah a local Iraqi who claims he used to be a special forces member claims the Iraqi government buried chemical and/or biological weapons at an Iraqi school and then covered it over with a concrete slab the size of two tennis courts. It will be interesting to see if they find anything underneath there. That's definitely a good method to hide these types of weapons. The Baghdad fight doesn't seem to have materialized, either. In short, nothing the Iraqi regime has said so far has any truth to it and is all propaganda spam. Our forces are rolling around inside Baghdad. This could be over soon even though their still saying it's a long way to go.
The regime has been telling its people for days that they have beaten back our assault and are chasing us back to Kuwait. Said they defeated us at the Baghdad airport (tough one, since we're supposed to be back in Kuwait right now). I wonder what's going through the average Baghdad resident's head right now? There have been persistent reports of huge underground bunker complexes/cities beneath Baghdad for some time. They are reportedly like small underground cities, where the regime can take refuge during hard times and still maintain control. I personally believe that there is truth to these reports (we have already found one such complex at the Baghdad airport and are battling Iraqis there right now), and I suspect that that's where we will find their WMD. Along with who knows what else...
If he has them...and I used to be pretty sure, now a little less so...but if he has them, and as you say is backed into an extreme corner, and is the lunatic threat we claim, won't we find out about them by his usage of them? I would think that even less 'insane' leaders than SH is portrayed as would use everything they've got were they only a day or two from extinction... Seriuos questions, tree: In your opinion:Why hasn't he used them yet, if he's got em? And if he's anywhere near the madman we say he is, and for some strange reason hasn't used them yet, isn't it a given that he will use everything he's got, and soon?
All this talk about him being an insane madman...? I don't think I would go that far. He is fearless, domineering, controlling, suppressing, deceiving, threatening, proliferating, and whatever else. He obviously sees violence as a means to remain in power through a campaign of fear and infliction on his own people. He's guided by his own agenda to remain in power and inflict his will. He thinks he is from a royal line of ancestry. He is no more insane that Hitler was. Their delusional and shaped by their own reality as they chose to make it. That said...I don't think he is exactly bonkers like your saying. He knows if he uses chemical or biological weapons...then he has exposed his true hand to the world. No amount of lying will cover that up. He also knows that we have protective gear/medicines and the effects of such attack may do nothing more than create intense retaliation. Also, if they were to use artillery to shoot chemical weapon shells(which would likely be the delivery method considering his missiles are in short supply as is), then those would quickly be exposed and destroyed by our planes with bombs. This could create a plume of agent which works on their own people if some of that agent is not destroyed by the bomb. The end result is chemical/biological will not have an effect on the outcome of this war so for him to use them will only have a negative effect on how their country depicted themselves for 12 years as WoMD free. I think he also worries about inviting a WoMD response. He obviously thought about this when he did not use chemical weapons when he launched SCUDs at Israel in the 1991 Gulf War.
Couple of things to think about: 1) Saddam may no longer be in charge. There are reports that the high command is getting the f* out of dodge, and that Saddam has wisked away his family to Syria. He has yet to make a live appearance anywhere, and every single video released to this point "proving" his continued health and rule has been doubtful, to say the least... Just a possibility at this point. 2) Remember the psyops campaign before the war? One of the cornerstones of that campaign was to communicate two things to the Iraqi military: A) that if they sat out the war, stayed where they were, and didn't oppose us, then they would not be killed. In all the hubbub about the nuisance attacks by the Fedayeen Saddam, the media has failed to report that the vast majority of Saddam's regular army (and a large chunk of Republican Guard) has simply disappeared or stayed put during this war. Eight whole divisions took no discernable action during the war, and have since just disappeared. An entire Corps to the east of the right flank just sat there, refusing orders from Baghdad to attack us (we heard the orders over radio). The III Corps that stood in our way pretty much dissolved after the first two days - everyone just put on civies and went home. B) the Iraqi military was warned that if they were to use chemical weapons against us, they would "be treated as war criminals". What every military person knows is that what this really means is "if you use it, we will be extremely pissed off and will kill you, 100% fer sure"... They know that using it would in effect sign their own death warrants. What incentive do they have to actually use chemical weapons against us at this point? We are well protected against them, and the effect upon our forces would be minimal militarily. It would prompt world outrage. It would expose the regime as full of sh*t where the inspections were concerned. It would mean a death sentence to those commanders who would order its use - people who might otherwise have a decent chance of surrendering and living for a long time yet. What incentive do they have to use such weapons? And even given that the regime's headquarters orders their use, what incentive does the ground commander have to carry out those orders? Should he, A) lob some VX-filled artillery shells at the oncoming US troops and ensure his own death, or B) ignore the orders and wait for the Americans to get close enough to surrender? There's pleny of good reasons why they shouldn't use chemical weapons at this point, and very few why anyone should. Personally, I think people are just refusing orders right now.
1) I made the point before that I saw no evidence that he was insane, just immoral by ourstandards, ruthless, and completely consumed with maintaining personal power...I said this, and cited his non-use of WMD during the 1st Gulf War, as a refutation of our stance that his existence was an immediate threat worthy of invasion, due to his WMD...and was ridiculed, called biased, and told that anyone who didn't think that he was a raving lunatic was a Saddam Lover...seriously. Now those who defend the war, which was at least partly premised on the imminent threat of SH's WMD are going to defend his not having used them yet on the basis that he understands that that would ensure his end...the very same argument I used for why he wouldn't use them before we invaded... now, when his end seesm assured anyways!?!? I really don't get this. This seems like another circular logic thing like the "wer're going in to uphold the UN secirity council resolution, which we interpret to mean X, despite the UN security council saying that it doesn;t mean X, and that we have no right to go in...and by the way, we think that the UN security council is irrelevent." 2) Why would he be worried about 'exposing his true hand' when that hand, and everything else, is about to be blown to pieces? What would he care about how the country is depicted if he won't live to see it? I think we can say one thing about SH for sure...sane or not, he cares about himself and his own power more than he cares about the image Iraq will have after he's gone...
tree...that would make sense, if they were refusing to follow his orders in a conventional sense too...But if they are wiling to stand up to our bullets, missiles, and tanks, why would they refuse to stand up to our threats? Can we kill them better after we've killed them in the usual way if they do something we're against? If you'll recall, the psyops campaign also called for them to not support SH at all...why would these Iraqis, who you yourself have called 'brainwashed' when explaining why they are fighting back against their freedom, be able to overcome their years of following SH, in the midst of fighting/being killed for fighting, andselectively fight off the brainwashing with regards to following one aspect of our 'warnings' while we are trying to kill them? Isn't there a simpler explanation or 2? As in...either he doesn't have them, or was never really insane enough to use them agaisnt us/our allies unless he was about to die anyways? Wouldn't either of those make a little more sense?
Macbeth: Is he a lunatic? Would I diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic? A delusional psychotic? No. Is he prone to grand miscalculations? Yes, by all means. His history of dealing with his neighbors and the West is one long string of miscalculations that have led us to this point. A man in possession of WMD who is prone to grand miscalculations is certainly a threat, so your argument doesn't wash. He does not need to be diagnosed as clinically insane to be a threat. Being a violent, greedy, megalomaniacal ******* with no respect for human life and no compunctions about committing mass murder, combined with a deep hatred of the US, will suffice. It is not circular logic, either. And I have just given you several reasons, which I'm sure you won't believe, why no WMD have been used to this point (keep in mind that it is not over yet). I have also given you a very plausible explanation for your second question as well, if you choose to believe its plausibility...
Macbeth: I don't think you're getting me... Use of such weapons is only authorized by division commanders and above. The Iraqi army is not fighting in organized divisions anymore - they haven't been since the beginning of the war. The vast majority of the combat we've seen has been against irregulars, not Iraqi army units with authorization to use chemical weapons. The Iraqi army has yet to send more than a single tank battalion at a time against us as a cohesive unit, much less a division force. Those fighting us are the Fedayeen Saddam, Al Quds, and small pockets of Iraqi military loyal to Saddam - none of whom have chemical weapons or are authorized to use them when they see fit. I called the Fedayeen Saddam brainwashed - and they are. They also have no chemical weapons. The Iraqi army is not brainwashed, has chemical weapons, and is apparently not altogether too loyal to Saddam anymore. Including the Republican Guard. There is no inconistency here, Macbeth, you're just forgetting the fact that the guys wgho can/could actually use such weapons are pretty much already out of the fight. I would say that 12 years' worth of evidence points in another direction... How is this more likely than what I have proposed? I don't see it. Well, his past history tells us that he is not afraid to use such weapons, and the very fact that he refused to take exile tells us that he is either somewhat unbalanced, detached from reality, a pitifully stupid man, or something along those lines, because he either a) thought he could actually beat us, or b) wanted to die rather than leave power. Now you tell me, are either one of those options the decisions of an entirely rational and right-thinking man? Or another huge miscalculation? It's one or the other. Personally, I think it's likely that he is no longer fully in charge. There is evidence to support that... So how is that less likely than the "he's a sane man and therefore not a danger" argument?
Here's another take on the chemical weapons questions: Rumsfeld says Iraq mulls chemical arms 'dilemma' http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030403-chemical-dilemma01.htm
I'm for this war for some reasons, and against it for other reasons. Either way, I have no idea how there couldn't be WMD in Iraq. It makes absolutley no sense to me. All Saddam had to do to lift the massive sanctions against him and lose some of his international a**hole status was to allow unfettered inspections to prove it, but he kicked them out before they were finished and didn't let them back in again. He didn't agree to them until the UN passed a new resolution authorizing serious consequences- and then we commence on the wild goose chase again. Even the most fervent anti-war (anti-US) diplomats in the security council knew that the regime wasn't being forthcoming. Not to mention Iraq said it had absolutely no WMD back in the 90's, and almost got away with it, until his son defected and spilled the beans. There have been no actions of any kind at all to show that Iraq doesn't have them anymore. What, they kicked out the inspectors, destroyed the rest of their WMD on their own, but still didn't let inspectors back in to prove it even though it would lift the massively crippling sanctions on them? Why? Just out of spite? Come on. I don't see how anyone could buy the idea that Iraq destroyed the rest of their own WMD out of the goodness in their hearts, other than they badly want to see some egg on Washinton's face. You're hoping against logic. Everyone always asks why we aren't going to war with N. Korea instead- because they have mid-range nukes, that's why! You don't f*ck with someone of that capability. Kim Jong Il must be dealt with kid gloves, even though he is one of the few human beings on the planet as despicable as Saddam. You think this lesson is lost on Saddam? He knows WMD is the true path to international power, and forcing/blackmailing others to do as you wish. He was never going to relenquish that power.
