It could be. But I'm doubtful.

Post #90,660 by Brandioch 3/23/03 11:45:30 AM Reply	It could be. But I'm doubtful. It isn't like this attack was a surprise. If the SCUDs hadn't been deployed during the US build-up..... Or immediately AFTER the missile strikes on the palace.....
Post #90,692 by gdaustin 3/23/03 12:44:09 PM Reply	Third Possibility One of the provisions of the agreements Iraq reached with the UN at the end of the Gulf War was no missiles with > 95 mile range. If they launch SCUDs on Israel, then it is clear they had the weapons they claim not to have. They lose their credibility in the International Community. Iraq wins this conflict (even if Saddam loses), if the U.S. doesn't find WMD (or blows up the evidence during the conflict). The U.S. credibility with the UN and the International Community will be completely shot, even worse than the fact that we went without a second resolution. So, no launches. In fact, as the U.S. built up an armada in the Gulf, I'm sure that Saddam was either hiding or destroying lots of stuff. I really would have rather given Hans Blix about 100,000 troops to secure all facilities considered to possibly be WMD sites simulatneously, and have the security forces monitor every load/unload of trucks from those facilities. The U.S. will probably destroy most the WMD as they bomb facilities. Iraqi leadership may even "lead" U.S. bombs to those facilities through false intelligence. Saddam's best gambit would be to ensure everything gets destroyed, get deposed, then as the inspections fail to find WMD, build his case with the UN to support sanctions against the "bully" United States. Saddam lives, he gets a shot to be returned to power in his country, he obtains the support of the international community, and he makes the U.S. out to be fools with guns. That is the scenario I'm second most afraid of.
Post #90,702 by Brandioch 3/23/03 1:08:40 PM Reply	Now switch that around a bit. Remember, Saddam is the BAD GUY!!! Would Bush refuse to launch whatever weapons he had if the US was facing an invasion (use the same relative power levels, we'd have to find an enemy MUCH more powerful than the US). I don't think Bush would stop at anything. Nukes would be going off left and right. Saddam is SUPPOSED to be worse than Bush. Yet, in this scenario, Saddam is exercising MORE restraint while KNOWING that he will be dead in the very near future. In your scenario, Saddam is NOT a threat. He would not use his weapons EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE. Which makes the US's position even WORSE.
Post #90,715 by rcareaga 3/23/03 2:01:47 PM Reply	given what's at stake ...geopolitically speaking, I'm fairly confident we'll be able to produce the dreaded Iraqi WMDs, even if we have to provide these ourselves. Does anyone think that after making away with a national election in broad daylight this outfit would shrink from planting evidence at night? cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #90,718 by Brandioch 3/23/03 2:25:57 PM Reply	mega-dittoes. Which is why I'm hammering on the subject NOW. If Saddam has them, why isn't he using them. If he is NOT using them because he wants to make some point, then he's not the threat we claimed he was. His life is in danger and his government is going to be overthrown. Reverse the positions and Bush would be tossing nukes left and right. Once the "war" is over, we'll probably "find" lots of "WMD's" that, somehow, just never got used. It isn't because we moved to quickly. We were setup in Kuwait. It isn't because this was a surprise. Well, not after the 48 hour speech and the missile attack on the palace. It isn't because all the Iraqis surrendered. I'm noticing a LOT of silence on this subject from Marlowe. The one who claimed that the current regime had information about the existance of those weapons. But somehow we wouldn't provide such to the inspectors. And so forth.
Post #90,720 by Brandioch 3/23/03 2:38:08 PM Reply	More on that subject. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13989-2003Mar23.html\|Rumsfeld Acknowledges Missing U.S. Soldiers] The Pentagon said U.S. troops hunting for banned chemical and biological weapons and Scud missiles have so far come up empty. Rumsfeld said allied forces so far are "not in that business" of searching for weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq because they have been "on the ground 72 hours fighting a war." The CIA has gathered "massive amounts of information" on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq, Rumsfeld said. Iraq denies U.S. assertions it has any chemical or biological weapons. Myers said war planners "have to be prepared for the worst case" - that Iraqi troops will use such weapons. "The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is focused looking for those delivery means, the best we can," Myer said. "It's very hard to see where some of these things are stored, but the delivery means a little more obvious. And so we're going after those delivery means."
Post #90,792 by Simon_Jester 3/23/03 6:20:55 PM Reply	You'll note that while the US has allowed reporters to tag along with the troops...UN weapon inspectors are NOT allowed along.
Post #90,793 by deSitter 3/23/03 6:22:55 PM Reply	Hey! They would come in handy! Maybe you should suggest this to Gen'l Tom. -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!