View Full Version : Saddam dead?
Anyone want to bet me (shits and giggles of course) that Saddam hit the big on in tonight's F-117a/Tomahawk surgical strike?
Because the first thing that comes to my mind is 'Why blow your cover a day early?' It's light in Baghdad, thus any Shock & Awe, highly synchonious type attack en masse is impossible due to the problems with... um.. the sun.
Thus, for then to blow their cover and allow Iraq to have a window of oppertunity of, say, 18 hours untill nightfall to blow some oil wells or dams or launch some SCUDs is insane.
So, the only conceivable reason to surgically strike right at day-break would be to assasinate Saddam.
If you guys can get your testosterone and adrenaline down for a moment you might be able to think a little about what Saddam was thinking when by refusing to account for some insignificant amounts of mediocre wmds he took on the most powerful nation on earth that had previously shown Iraq it has no qualms with taking them on and kicking their asses.
Saddam has either balls of steel. Or he should have been a professional Vegas gambler (missed his real calling). Or he has an ace up his sleeve we dont know about yet.
RussSchultz
20-Mar-2003, 04:06
Thus, for then to blow their cover and allow Iraq to have a window of oppertunity of, say, 18 hours untill nightfall to blow some oil wells or dams or launch some SCUDs is insane.
You think we'd suprise them, either way? (hint: they know its coming, they've probably done all their boobytrapping without waiting for us to start)
i don't think he refused exile because has an ace up his sleeve, just too much pride to bend over and take it. granted it is very disturbing to see a man who has committed so much atrocity with so much pride, but none the less that is what i see. as for if he is dead; i don't feel like i have enough information to make a reasonable speculation either way.
You think we'd suprise them, either way? (hint: they know its coming, they've probably done all their boobytrapping without waiting for us to start)
(hint: Lets think like big people, which appearently some of us can't)
Saddam, due to external political influences couldn't preemptivly attack the United States forces around him. But, once attacked he could embark on whatever he wishes short of WMD release.
With that in mind, realize that the underlying ideology of a Shock & Awe movement is it stresses the synchronization of thousands of concurrent precision attacks done by manned and unmanned vehicals. Thus, within the first few minutes, the sheer parrallelization of the attack removeds most offensive strategic, CCC, and tactical offensive power of the opponent. Thereby eliminating the ability for them to strike back upon your forces.
Thus, the American's surgically struck and played their hand. They used a handfull of F-117s and Tomahawaks. Yet, there has been no Iraq recourse, no oil fires, no dams bursted, no chem attack.
Thus, my origional question - which I was hoping you'd pick up on inferience as I didn't think I needed to exaplin all this - is why would the Americans have blown their phychological weapon of -nothing- (eg. a lapse between ultimatum and action)... as well as the crutial concurrency of attack spread across the entire spectrum of equiptment?
Answer: Saddam's dead.
Edit: You do realize, they can't attack for 18 hours and dusk... how is that not blowing a tactical advantage?
Edit 2: For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Kyle. Saddam's ideological and historical vision of himself over-rides any logical abstraction that we have of this situation. Another example would be Hitler and his invasion of the Soviet Union in '41 based on nothing but his deep ideological hatred of Communism and Stalin.
Hope your right Vince it might mean its over. But I wouldnt bet on that as they might keep what little they have militarily till the very last second when they have allied forces literally in range... I cant see those oil ditches burn forever... and they dont have an infinite amount of ammo... They shouldve launched those scuds by now tho if they dont want to lose them...
That is an indicator...
Hmm news in that Saddam will address his nation on tv soon... guess hes not dead... but what is he waiting for to use his scuds? He either has none or they have been compromised (thank god) or he cant communicate to who in charge to fire them... but then there should be protocols in case of communication breakdown...
Hmm news in that Saddam will address his nation on tv soon... guess hes not dead... but what is he waiting for to use his scuds? He either has none or they have been compromised (thank god) or he cant communicate to who in charge to fire them... but then there should be protocols in case of communication breakdown...
Huh, Yeah, I heard.
Hey, I never said I was right... but the indications are there so I posted it. I question just whats going on as it seems... wierd. AP reporting artillery fire, ect.
I guess we'll know soon enough, huh? Hopefully they got someone in their first surgical strike - as like I mentioned earlier, there's going to be this wierd pause period untill the night I'd think.
What do you think? Ohh, and what station/news org. do you listen to Pax?
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 04:56
Yes, CNN was saying that Iraqi state media was going to broadcast a statement from Saddam Hussein soon. So it appears that if he was a target then he survived.
As for Saddam having "balls of steel" or overwe'ening pride, I suspect it is closer to the latter. If I had to attribute a single psychological motive to his political career, it would be a hunger for power above all else, and a willingless to do anything to retain that power. It is completely unsurprising that he did not accept the ultimatum. Any outcome that results in a loss of power for him is simply inconceivable to him.
Im thinking I dont know what Saddam is holding back with what few assets he has left in terms of scuds which are the only means for him to drag Israel in. Im betting they were taken out... If so the only other concern is him giving some shit to terrorist if he hasnt done so... I watch CBC Newsworld, BBC, CNN... we dont get msnbc... I wont bother with foxnews hhe... ;)
Im still trying to figure out what the fucker is thinking...
Yes, CNN was saying that Iraqi state media was going to broadcast a statement from Saddam Hussein soon. So it appears that if he was a target then he survived.
As for Saddam having "balls of steel" or overwe'ening pride, I suspect it is closer to the latter. If I had to attribute a single psychological motive to his political career, it would be a hunger for power above all else, and a willingless to do anything to retain that power. It is completely unsurprising that he did not accept the ultimatum. Any outcome that results in a loss of power for him is simply inconceivable to him.
But its a rock and hard place. The idea he didnt give up his few wmds cuz he feared some loss of power or pride is hard to accept. Hes losing power now... and hed have clearly known that... heck he was humble enough to allow inspectors back in after bragging they kicked out?... Wouldnt that humiliation have made him look weak in the eyes of his citizens?
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 05:08
Im still trying to figure out what the fucker is thinking...
One possible grim scenario has the Iraqi military deploying anti-aircraft, scuds, etc in civilian areas such as apartment buildings in Baghdad. That could force US and British forces to generate significant civilian casualties in order to take them out, and what's more, cause world opinion of the war to further degenerate. Basically force a pyrrhic victory upon the coalition.
Im still trying to figure out what the fucker is thinking...
One possible grim scenario has the Iraqi military deploying anti-aircraft, scuds, etc in civilian areas such as apartment buildings in Baghdad. That could force US and British forces to generate significant civilian casualties in order to take them out, and what's more, cause world opinion of the war to further degenerate. Basically force a pyrrhic victory upon the coalition.
Could the US afford to take out scuds in civie areas if they are loaded up with a ton of sarin or other bio\chems each??
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 05:30
But its a rock and hard place. The idea he didnt give up his few wmds cuz he feared some loss of power or pride is hard to accept. Hes losing power now... and hed have clearly known that... heck he was humble enough to allow inspectors back in after bragging they kicked out?... Wouldnt that humiliation have made him look weak in the eyes of his citizens?
I think allowing the weapons inspections was simply political maneouvring on his part. The US could have used a refusal of inspections as an excuse to immediately start a war.
As for why he did not give up his remaining WMD in order to avoid this conflict in the end. Well, I suppose it is possible that he misjudged the endgame, where a final UN resolution was not voted on and where the US ultimatum boiled down to him accepting exile (and not just disarming).
Frankly, I suspect the true intent of the US was to remove Saddam from power all along. If he really does have WMD, then just disarming would not be sufficient since it would be easy to restart those weapons programs. And I suspect Saddam thinks the same thing -- that the real goal is to get rid of him and his sons; so perhaps he accepts the war as inevitable. In this situation, it would be in his interest to hide his WMD, if he has any, from inspectors.
And I don't think any of his citizens think of Saddam as weak -- no one is more aware of his ruthlessness than the people of Iraq, I'm sure.
Its just that the wmds he was asked to account for arent really the kind he should bother protecting. He couldve gained valuable time in giving up his cheap wmds... Unless he feared the inspection system was in fact getting really close so he simply maneuvered the endgame as you say. In that case giving up on inspections mightve been a much worse thing than most feared.
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 05:39
I'm listening to the live translation of Saddam's Hussein speech on CNN, and damn if I don't feel like I am listening to some weird David Lynch stream-of-consciousness version.
edit: decided I sounded a bit too flippant
he kind of stayed on the palestinian\zionism issue quite a bit... although the speech was basically all propaganda... but I think hes basically threatened Israel... maybe he still has some scuds...
Joe DeFuria
20-Mar-2003, 12:00
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81625,00.html
IN THE KUWAITI DESERT — Iraq fired missiles across the Kuwaiti border toward U.S. troops Thursday, prompting soldiers to don gas masks and chemical protective gear. At least one of the rockets has been confirmed as a Scud missile, and was intercepted by a Patriot missile, Coalition Defense officials tell Fox News.
Sabastian
20-Mar-2003, 12:08
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81625,00.html
IN THE KUWAITI DESERT — Iraq fired missiles across the Kuwaiti border toward U.S. troops Thursday, prompting soldiers to don gas masks and chemical protective gear. At least one of the rockets has been confirmed as a Scud missile, and was intercepted by a Patriot missile, Coalition Defense officials tell Fox News.
IIRC Iraq is not supposed to have any SCUD missiles. Of course that would be going by what Iraq claims. SCUD are considered WMD?
Trawler
20-Mar-2003, 12:20
I think Sadam know's he's not going to surive this. In fact, I think he's prepared for it.
I'm usually ot a gambling man, but right now I'd put down a fiver on no WMD being used to defend Iraq. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Sadam has actively destroyed all of his WMD in the run up to this (if, indeed, he had any left in the first case).
That way America rolls in, finds nothing, and looks like the bad guy. Sadam goes down as a martyr. Huge influx of instability within the region. Sadam wins (if you'd call getting done in winning! :? ).
Anyway, that's my take on what's going on in his head.
Sabastian
20-Mar-2003, 12:27
I just hear on the news that it was not a SCUD missile but some variety of surface to surface missile.
RussSchultz
20-Mar-2003, 14:00
(hint: Lets think like big people, which appearently some of us can't)
Gorsh. I feel like I've been admonished. Vince, do you have to be combative in every conversation you have?
Mariner
20-Mar-2003, 15:42
SCUD = Type of surface to surface missile.
Heathen
20-Mar-2003, 15:47
Al-Samooud (or some similar spelling) basically an Iraq derived scud.
Listening to that speech however I'm wondering if it's pre-recorded...
RussSchultz
20-Mar-2003, 15:48
SCUD is a particular type of surface to surface missile, but its becoming a "household name", like kleenex, or q-tips. Mostly because reporters are morons.
Iraq likely has very very few scuds, if any at all. Its likely all of their missiles are smaller missiles with shorter ranges and less payload. (Even the Al Samoud II missile that was recently in the news was smaller than a SCUD).
The ones launched at Kuwait last night were "Al Fatah" missiles, if CNN is to believed and my memory serves me well.
Joe DeFuria
20-Mar-2003, 15:53
SCUD is a particular type of surface to surface missile, but its becoming a "household name", like kleenex, or q-tips. Mostly because reporters are morons.
Amen to that.
epicstruggle
20-Mar-2003, 16:08
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I61122-2003Mar20
Alot of news sites are questioning whether or not sadam is really alive.
later,
nutball
20-Mar-2003, 16:13
The man just got bombed out of bed at four in the morning. You can forgive not having time to put his contact lenses in before going on national TV, can't you?
RussSchultz
20-Mar-2003, 16:14
As much as I'd prefer him to be dead, they look like the same person to me.
His lower lip in both pictures has an odd right to left downward slant, the skin on his neck follows the same folding pattern, also.
It looks like the person on the left is heavier, but depending on the difference of the lenses between the two shots, that's just an illusion.
But, you won't find me crying if I'm wrong. :)
BoardBonobo
20-Mar-2003, 16:40
I once to a bar in the middle of nowhere in Zimbabwe, that went by the name of SCUD, they also had a beer with the same name. Tasted like elephants ****. :?
epicstruggle
20-Mar-2003, 16:51
As much as I'd prefer him to be dead, they look like the same person to me.
His lower lip in both pictures has an odd right to left downward slant, the skin on his neck follows the same folding pattern, also.
It looks like the person on the left is heavier, but depending on the difference of the lenses between the two shots, that's just an illusion.
But, you won't find me crying if I'm wrong. :)
I notice alot of the features you mentioned, but wouldnt plastic surgery also explain the similarities. What will really tell whether or not this is really saddam will be analyzing the voice from the address against known saddam audio.
later,
but if they did that they would have the answer; then the topic would be outdated and they would have to find something else to talk about. :?
MrsSkywalker
20-Mar-2003, 18:53
I'm flipping between all the news cahannels, and CNN, FOXNews, and ABC are telling reports that senior members in Saddam's Republican Guard have made it known that they wish to surrender. Now, I have no idea if Saddam is still alive or not, but this may indicate that he is dead. I don't want to jump to conclusions or anything, but...... At any rate, it's an interesting development.
What do you all think?
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 19:08
Hopefully true, but who knows at this point. I would not be surprised if those reports were part of the psychological campaign, assuming that Iraqis still have access to various media. ie. if you were a soldier in the Iraqi army and you heard on the radio (say Voice of America, or whatever) that high ranking officials were surrendering, that might encourage you to do the same. Not a bad strategy if that is the case.
i disagree PurplePigeon, i have never considered deception to be a good strategy; it can be effective but i still do not consider it good.
PurplePigeon
20-Mar-2003, 19:27
Do you mean "good" in the sense of moral correctness? If so, fair enough. My comments were intended to convey the idea of "effectiveness" of the end result rather than a moral judgement.
understood, but i am under the impression that doing good leads us to good and doing otherwise only leads us further way; hence the "end result" of such things like deception is far from good. also i do know the old argument about the end justifying the means, but i do not find much truth in it.
Another example would be Hitler and his invasion of the Soviet Union in '41 based on nothing but his deep ideological hatred of Communism and Stalin.
actually... it has been claimed that Hitler under estimated the red army based on the results of war that went over during extremely cold winter 1939-1940 almost on the edge of the northern europe... but no one remembers that war... it has been ruled over by bigger ones with bigger players...
MrsSkywalker
20-Mar-2003, 22:27
I would not be surprised if those reports were part of the psychological campaign, assuming that Iraqis still have access to various media. ie. if you were a soldier in the Iraqi army and you heard on the radio (say Voice of America, or whatever) that high ranking officials were surrendering, that might encourage you to do the same.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I think that would be a good strategy, albeit a deceptive one. The more Iraqi soldiers that lay down their arms in surrender, the more will live to tell the tale. I don't see anything morally objectable in that. It would be a life saving strategy.
lying, that is what is morally objectionable to me. i don't care if it is done with the intent to save lives, ot fill a child's heart with anticipation of Santa Clause, or whatever; i still do not support such things.
Nagorak
21-Mar-2003, 05:51
Military intelligence: it's an oxymoron, right? These are the same geniuses who came up with moronic plans like Market Garden, and dozens of others that turned into a disaster. From the second I heard about this strike, I knew they wouldn't get Saddam.
I mean, that means they'd actually have to do something right? Which, of course, would mean the military would actually have to find some way to recruit people an IQ higher than 80.
Military intelligence: it's an oxymoron, right? These are the same geniuses who came up with moronic plans like Market Garden, and dozens of others that turned into a disaster. From the second I heard about this strike, I knew they wouldn't get Saddam.
Cute, but ultimatly wrong. I realize in many circles, attempting this dry humor like the above oxymoron is cool, or cute - it's hardly correct.
Infact, Market Garden (your example) was a brilliant plan which had the potential to end the war around 6 months sooner. If this would have happened, the post-war world would have been vastly diffrent. IIRC, the error - as what often happens with that whole fog-of-war thing (you know, the thing you've seen when playing on the computer) is that military concentrations are hard to locate with total definity. And in this case, the Allied forces landed right into the middle of two SS panzer divisions
I mean, that means they'd actually have to do something right? Which, of course, would mean the military would actually have to find some way to recruit people an IQ higher than 80.
This is classic. I'm sure you're IQ is just so amazingly superior to the men and women who've graduated in the top-10 from West Point or Annapolis. Ohh, wait... no.
Nothing like monday-morning quarterbacks who've last played in grade-school during lunch. :roll:
PS. I'm watching the Army's 7th cavlery (mechanized) fly across Iraq towards Basra unopposed right now on CNN. Ohh, and we're negotiating a surrender of the Republican Guard. If anything, this whole operation has been brilliantly planned and executed thus far, the phychological aspects (eg. Shock and Awe, et al) are sheer genious. I'm guessing there not so dumb, huh?
MrsSkywalker
21-Mar-2003, 20:03
...ot fill a child's heart with anticipation of Santa Clause, or whatever; i still do not support such things.
Well that certainly explains a lot!
yep, i would rather fill a childs heart with something real.
MrsSkywalker
22-Mar-2003, 01:20
yep, i would rather fill a childs heart with something real.
:roll:
Joe DeFuria
22-Mar-2003, 02:15
yep, i would rather fill a childs heart with something real.
Apparently, you don't have kids. Am I right?
nope no kids of my own yet. but from the ones i have seen raised without such deception, it looks like a good plan to me.
Heathen
22-Mar-2003, 08:15
nope no kids of my own yet. but from the ones i have seen raised without such deception, it looks like a good plan to me.
You really have no clue about kids do you?
you really have no clue that not everyone does things the way you learned do you?
DemoCoder
22-Mar-2003, 09:05
Have you ever thought that these fairy tales we tell our kids are a way of teaching them skepticism? If everything you ever tell your kid is the absolute truth, they will never learn to question authority. When they find out that Santa Claus isn't real, perhaps they'll start to question whether Jesus is real. I've been an atheist from a very young age because of this.
Moreover, myth serves other functions as well. If you attempt to deprive your child of myth, I think you are depriving them of one of the great human cultural gifts.
You need to spend some time reading Joseph Campbell.
Heathen
22-Mar-2003, 09:27
Kids grow and learn best by using the imaginary, that's not just opinion. They play with imaginary friends and events, it teaches them very useful social skills and helps builds their personality for the future. Fairy tales and other similar tales are more useful than pure fact as they understand them better.
Give a young child a load of toys and they will more than likely play with the boxes. why? Because by using their imagination (nutured as a result of exposure to events such as xmas etc) they learn better.
By denying them opportunites to express their imagination and deny them expectations such as Xmas, easter etc you are denying them a fundamental part of their growing process. In effect they lose out by a significant amount.
Then there's Democoders' religion aspect, through imagination they learn to question the world about them from a much more balanced perspective.
As I said you don't really understand kids.
epicstruggle
22-Mar-2003, 11:28
wasnt sure where to post this image, you might see it in one or two other threads. :)
http://www.o-t.us/upload/guest/liberate4.jpg
and dancing in the street.
http://www.o-t.us/upload/guest/liberate3.jpg
I guess the Iraqi people really hate the US invaders.
I guess the Iraqi people really are scared of us.
I guess the millions of Iraqi people are dead from all the bombing.
I might start a thread with all the wild predictions from the antiwar posters here.
later,
DemoCoder, i have seen that it is better to teach kids that myth is just what it is, and there is plenty of authority for them to question without their parents behaving questionably. also, Heathen, i know imagination is an important part of a child life, but they have those things on their own; there is no need to trick them into such things. also, i was never suggesting depriving a child of Christmas, Easter or anything but being deceived by their own blood. also, while i have not had children of my own; i have played a part in the lives of many though out my adulthood and i have seen much good come out of the ones raised with the methods i outlined above. as i said, you don't really understand that world does not revolve just how you think it should. the concept of "more than one way" applies to more than just skinning cats. :wink:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.