From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 02:22:36 MDT
On 7 Aug 2002 at 1:59, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees] It's HammerTime!
> [Hermit] Indeed it may be.
>
> Conflict could soon be nuclear
>
> UN critic says attack decision has been made
>
> Source: The Times
> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376516,00.html) Authors:
> Roland Watson Dated: 2002-08-07
>
> THE US Congress has been warned that President Bush’s proposed attack
> on Iraq could escalate into a nuclear conflict.
>
> An assessment of Iraq’s capabilities says that the US is unlikely to
> knock out many, if any, of President Saddam Hussein’s mobile
> missile-launchers in a first wave of airstrikes. It raises the
> possibility of Baghdad hitting an Israeli city with a missile carrying
> biological agents, saying that Saddam is likely to use chemical and
> biological weapons.
>
> Israel’s likely reaction would be nuclear ground bursts against every
> Iraqi city not already occupied by US-led coalition forces. Senators
> were told that, unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when Washington urged Israel
> not to retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes, Israeli leaders have
> decided that their credibility would be hurt if they failed to react
> this time.
>
> The assessment was written by Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon and
> State Department official now with the Washington-based Centre for
> Strategic and International Studies. He was a witness before last
> week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and chosen to open a
> national debate on the looming Iraqi conflict. He queried the ability
> of US forces to use pre-emptive airstrikes to cripple Iraq’s mobile
> launchers, which would be used for chemical or biological weapons.
> Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has alluded to the problems
> of locating the launchers.
>
> Referring to the Gulf War, Mr Cordesman said that, despite contrary
> claims, the US had not detected most Iraqi chemical, biological,
> radiological and nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. US and
> British forces also had “no meaningful success” in finding Scud
> missile sites, nor were the airstrikes of Operation Desert Fox in
> 1998, after the departure of UN weapons inspectors, successful.
>
> “It’s likely, therefore, that Iraq could succeed in launching some
> CBRN strikes against US coalition forces, targets in neighbouring
> states, and / or Israel.”It could take days to characterise biological
> agents. “Even US forces would only be able to firmly characterise
> dissemination by observing the lethal effects,” he said.
>
>
> The United Nations secretary-general, Kofi Annan, rejected conditions
> set by Baghdad for new talks and told Iraq last night he was waiting
> for a “formal invitation” for UN weapons inspectors to return. Mr
> Annan said in a letter to Iraq’s foreign minister that new talks must
> focus on “practical arrangements” for the resumption of inspections.
>
It would be wimpily hypocritical of us if, having responded so decisively to attacks upon
our own homeland, we condemned proportional responses to attacks perpetrated upon
the homeland of a staunch ally that happens to be the only participatory democracy in
that benighted region (and considering the relative land masses and populations of the
countries in question, they would indeed be proportional). But I'm quite sure that, faced
with the proverbial, dreaded and evanescent rage of the legendary 'Arab Street", we will
somehow find a way.
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25974>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:51 MDT