Saddam’s Pre-War Feints and Maneuvers
January 18, 2003 3:27 PM   Subscribe

Saddam’s Pre-War Feints and Maneuvers I know, I know: you can't trust DEBKA etc etc But in many instances in fact they have been right and this posting from that source (it is a private and not a governmental intel group) is interesting enough to bear reading. And then you as always can decide. But don't attack me. My wife says I am too fragile and overly sensitive and need support rather than condemnation.
posted by Postroad (49 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: blah blah blah debka blah blah blah iraq



 
"Games and deceit"

In other words "diplomacy"? There is no way Saddam can win a real war, so his only chance is diplomacy. What's wrong with that?

This is great PR for Saddam, 12 empty shells aren’t a threat to anyone and it's easy to claim that they were just forgotten. On the other hand, this is all making bush seem like an idiot. Not finding weapons is 'games and deceit', but finding weapons is war-time. Essentially bush is upset because saddam isn't being evil enough for him to attack. It makes him look like a mad man.
posted by delmoi at 3:40 PM on January 18, 2003


It's not "PR"; it it's disinformation: the Iraqis making themselves look bad via a credible source, but not so bad as to merit war in most people's eyes.

In all likelyhood, the danger posed by Iraq will not be revealed until after the US invasion. May it be swift and soon.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:05 PM on January 18, 2003


An interestinc fact: did you notice 122mm shells aren't so enormously big ? You don't need an ICBM missle to deploy chemicals, you can hide shells anywhere pretty easily, as well as a nuke. I think nobody believes USA/Russia/Any other country really will ever destroy ALL their nukes or ALL their chemicals agents, it's so damn easy to hide them and they're so incredibly useful for military purposes.

Of course no government is insane enough to even consider using them. Saddam maybe did against a limited group of people, but he's not insane enough not to understand he can't use them, unless he's suicidal.

So I guess that no matter how many real/fake empty/full shells will be found, war will happen, on the grounds that given that Saddam is a dictator , he's willing to give chemicals to terrorists. Terrorist can manufacture their own, they don't need Saddam (see UK Ricin "factory" in a pharmacy). So what's the point of this war, given that no matter how much money you spend, nobody will ever be able to stop the production of killer chemicals unless world chemicals production is stopped (which is obviously unlikely at best)
posted by elpapacito at 4:12 PM on January 18, 2003


Essentially bush is upset because saddam isn't being evil enough for him to attack. It makes him look like a mad man.

Again, like so many, you underestimate President Bush. The administration has big time, BIG TIME evidence against Iraq, but it's intelligently playing rope-a-dope with the woosy and/or corrupt world community: the big evidence will be revealled at the end of the month, when all the naysayers' arguments will have already run their course. This is exactly what the Administration did with the UN in the fall, and it worked.

In other words, the Left's hubris continues to be its downfall. Only when the Left realizes that it's not smarter than the Right (or at least the Right-of-Center, currently occupying the adminstration), can it begin to formulate arguments which will seriously oppose the Administration.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:14 PM on January 18, 2003


The administration has big time, BIG TIME evidence against Iraq, but it's intelligently playing rope-a-dope with the woosy and/or corrupt world community: the big evidence will be revealled at the end of the month

Okay, let's all bookmark this thread and check back on 2/18/03, since PP seems to have the inside scoop. Seriously: why would they sit on this alleged evidence? What would they possibly have to gain by doing so?

This is exactly what the Administration did with the UN in the fall

As in, they didn't have any evidence of wrongdoing then, either?
posted by ook at 4:24 PM on January 18, 2003


I know, I know: you can't trust DEBKA

Really? Well I'd give this one about as much credence as that old urban myth which says this is all about OIL.

In all likelyhood, the danger posed by Iraq will not be revealed until after the US invasion. May it be swift and soon

With that beautiful misspelling in the first clause, followed up by the pre-emptive non-logic of the second bit, I'd say, ParisParamus, we're looking at a lonely chicken hawk who fancies a beer on a Saturday afternoon but knows it's going to have to be a solitary one.
posted by skellum at 4:25 PM on January 18, 2003


ParisParamus: at the end of the month, huh.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 PM on January 18, 2003


On reflection, I'd like to apologize for bothering to comment in this pointless, NewsFi, nobody's-going-to-convince-anybody-of-anything-so-why-waste-our-collective-blood-pressure thread. The string I tied around my finger to remind me not to comment in, or for that matter bother to read, political threads must've come loose over the holidays.
posted by ook at 4:33 PM on January 18, 2003


the big evidence will be revealled at the end of the month, when all the naysayers' arguments will have already run their course.

Frankly the naysayers have said every 'nay' possible, and the the administration thankfully remains as comitted to ousting Hussein as ever. The evidence is the main event, and is what everybody's waiting for.
posted by hama7 at 4:35 PM on January 18, 2003


Fair play to you ook but from where I'm coming from, central europe (call me bolshy but not bolshevik), I seldom have the chance to engage with such psychotic vacuuosness as:

Only when the Left realizes that it's not smarter than the Right (or at least the Right-of-Center, currently occupying the adminstration), can it begin to formulate arguments which will seriously oppose the Administration

When certain brains have obviously been washed so clean, is there anything which can be said in the hope of trying to meaningfully engage?
posted by skellum at 4:46 PM on January 18, 2003


Frankly the naysayers have said every 'nay' possible, and the the administration thankfully remains as comitted to ousting Hussein as ever. The evidence is the main event, and is what everybody's waiting for.

Actually, although the administration is as comitted as ever, the most recent polls reveal that they are not convincing the American public that a unilateral war is in the best interest of the United States.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:51 PM on January 18, 2003


end of the month

after they get done plastering over the mess that cheney and his boys: wolfowitz, rumsfeld and perle made in korea?
posted by specialk420 at 4:51 PM on January 18, 2003


> Of course no government is insane enough to even consider
> using them

elpapacito, I'm with you. I trust uncle Adolf. He's really very sensible. He'd never do anything insane.

" Vunce ze rockets go up, who cares where zey come down?
Zat's not my department" says Werner von Braun.

(Whoops, hello Godwin.)
posted by jfuller at 5:03 PM on January 18, 2003


Thanks specialk.

You ever hear the one about the link between Saddam Hussein and OBL? They both did business with Dick Cheney in the eighties.

Oh you did? sorry
posted by skellum at 5:05 PM on January 18, 2003


In all likelyhood, the danger posed by Iraq will not be revealed until after the US invasion.

Yes, history is written by the winners.
posted by moonbiter at 5:19 PM on January 18, 2003


I believe it!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:22 PM on January 18, 2003


DEBKAfile Ltd.
4, Hamaapilim St.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem 92545
IL
posted by moonbiter at 5:47 PM on January 18, 2003


I'm not opposed to the idea of ousting Saddam -- I was really hoping his Arab buddies would buy him a nice little house on the Gulf of Aqaba where he could live out his days in anonymous splendor -- but the idea of resorting to a shootin' war leaves me wondering where the hell the smoking-gun evidence is: something akin to the recon overheads of the missile emplacements during the Cuban crisis in October '62. Absent that, I keep having that Dire Straits lyric echoing in my head: "They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind/They wanna sap your energy, incarcerate your mind."

True, the winners usually get first crack at setting down the standard, accepted history, but after that the revisionists come up to bat to provide a critical reality check. It seems like the timeframe of event-standard history-revisionism has gotten compressed in recent times, so I hope we'll have a relatively short wait.
posted by alumshubby at 5:57 PM on January 18, 2003


See also Wired's article. Still, they mentioned that ...

Saddam has no intention of doing anyone the favor of voluntarily departing Iraq.

They're probably right on the dot there.
posted by moonbiter at 6:01 PM on January 18, 2003


Just a question to those who oppose the Bush administration's current tack in dealing with whatever threat Saddam's Iraq may pose.

How would you have the US and/or UN deal with the same threat? Or do you reject the idea that Iraq poses a threat at all?
posted by KiloHeavy at 6:14 PM on January 18, 2003


entirely off topic - and one of the best things ive ever seen via newstoday
posted by specialk420 at 6:16 PM on January 18, 2003


This is probably true. But this is the same DEBKA that reports Palestinians have toy plane bombs.
posted by Degaz at 6:32 PM on January 18, 2003


KiloHeavy, I dunno. Like I said, for me personally the jury is still out and the Administration needs to come on prime time and make an unassailable case. I'm too lazy to hunt for links, but ISTR some pundits here and there, from various political viewpoints, commenting much the same. Whatever MeFiers think of W, the Murkin people will still get behind him if he'll just do the requisite 'splainin'.

Also, it's kind of a binary situation: If the Iraqis might have some WMDs in some state of readiness or under development, you can't really invade them just a little bit, y'know?

This morning I looked at a picture of a Marine lance corporal kissing his baby son and thought, I sure as hell hope this trip is really necessary.
posted by alumshubby at 6:35 PM on January 18, 2003


How would you have the US and/or UN deal with the same threat? Or do you reject the idea that Iraq poses a threat at all?

Iraq may or may not pose a threat. Unfortunately, we have not been given sufficient evidence either way.

Were it up to me, I would make it the job of the US/UN to provide proof of any threat posed. I would not make it the job of Iraq to prove that it doesn't pose a threat. After all, how do you prove a negative like that?

If the administration has a case, they should make it with evidence, not with empty claims. If they have to sacrifice an intelligence source or two in Iraq -- well, hell, we're going to invade anyway.

I'm not against war, but I believe this whole exercise is an incredible waste or resources and a distraction from what the US should be doing: hunting down and bringing to justice the members of the Al Qaeda organization.

I also believe that this strategy will only increase the incidence of terrorism against US assets.

America should not behave like the imperial power that many claim it to be.

I personally hope that ParisParamus is right, that the current administration is incredibly wise, all-seeing, all-knowing, and that they have a large number of us completely hoodwinked. I hope that the administration is correct in it's approach, and that only good things will come out of this.

Unfortunately, I have seen no reasons to believe this to be the case.
posted by moonbiter at 6:36 PM on January 18, 2003


In other words, the Left's hubris continues to be its downfall.

Given your tone in this and other threads, ParisParamus, one might suggest you take your own words to heart.
posted by Mars Saxman at 6:42 PM on January 18, 2003


Does anyone here even remotely believe that we are that much safer even without Saddam? Yes he poses some sort of threat....but he is by far not the only one. From here on out we live in a much more dangerous world bottom line. There just isn't a whole lot we can do about it. People are so desperate to feel safer they are willing to believe anything anything at all will make it go away. Sorry but it just will not. If not Saddam somebody else. We are the only superpower and we are hated sometimes simply for that alone. If one of those who hates us catches us with our guards down they are going to strike. That's just how it is and how we will have to learn to cope and and continue to live. I don't like it either. Its just like the 50's drills having us hide under the desk and digging bomb shelters in the back yard. The government told us those things would help in the event of nuclear disaster, just so we would feel better, safer and now they want us to believe that forcing out Saddam will do the same. Sorry I just do not buy it.
posted by SweetIceT at 6:59 PM on January 18, 2003


To elaborate on my view, the Congressman for my district, Rep. John Hoestettler (R- IN) made what I believe to be a valid case against going to war.

I disagree with just about everything else Rep. Hoestettler stands for, but I think he is right about this.
posted by moonbiter at 7:22 PM on January 18, 2003


You can talk about weapons, or oil, or terrorism, or national security, but I'd put my money on the reason Dubya is so keen on invading Iraq being: "...this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

My take is that he's always seen himself as a failure in his father's eyes, and sees this as the chance to show that he's a man.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:25 PM on January 18, 2003


Hostettler. Damn those vowels! Damn those European names! Damn them all!
posted by moonbiter at 7:28 PM on January 18, 2003


After all, how do you prove a negative like that?

That might have been the burden pre-WMD usage, pre-invasion of Kuwait, pre-violation of numerous UN resolutions, and pre-locating and discovery of biological and chemical weapons by UN inspectors in and before 1998. But of all that has happened. And most of the world doesn't give a shit. Except the United States and the UK.

Rest of the World: take a good look in the mirror. Its time to examine why YOU don't get it.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:34 PM on January 18, 2003


After all, how do you prove a negative like that?

That might have been the burden pre-WMD usage, pre-invasion of Kuwait, pre-violation of numerous UN resolutions, and pre-locating and discovery of biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear weapon parts by UN inspectors in and before 1998, and deranged "destroy Israel" rhetoric. But of all that has happened. And most of the world doesn't give a shit. Except, thankfully, the United States and the UK.

Rest of the World: take a good look in the mirror. Its time to examine why YOU don't get it.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 PM on January 18, 2003


"So what's the point of this war, given that no matter how much money you spend, nobody will ever be able to stop the production of killer chemicals..."

The point of the war, given how much will be spent is...

...well, just follow the money. It always leads somewhere interesting.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:44 PM on January 18, 2003


To elaborate on my view, the Congressman for my district, Rep. John Hoestettler (R- IN) made what I believe to be a valid case against going to war.

moonbiter, that was beautiful.

How many dead Iraqis is it worth to see Bush impeached? Probably quite a few.
posted by rushmc at 7:45 PM on January 18, 2003


"We are the only superpower and we are hated sometimes simply for that alone."

[rolls eyes skyward]

There's medication that can help you with that paranoid shizophrenia, you know.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:45 PM on January 18, 2003


Well, let's all rush to get our front row seats to World War 2003, (version 3.0). We DO get it PP, or we're all gonna get it. sigh...
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:48 PM on January 18, 2003


hold on a sec...

the united states has nuclear weapons...
the united states has bio weapons...
the united states has supported dictators in the past...
the united states has wanted a lot of nations to be destroyed...
the united states supported the sterilization of its own citizens for years...
the united states has supported terrorists...

hmmm...we might be different from saddam, but we sure do a lot of similiar things...
posted by Stynxno at 7:53 PM on January 18, 2003


Word Stynxno.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:56 PM on January 18, 2003


I agree to all the things you said Stynxno, but I'm a little stumped on this one:

the united states supported the sterilization of its own citizens for years...

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Flouride in the water? Flu shots? Coca-Cola?
You aren't going to break out into a rant about the "purity of the bodily fluids" or something, are you?
Or is this about some single experiment performed by a wacko group of government scientists back in the 30s? I honestly can't think of anything except maybe the Tuskegee thing, and that really wasn't about "sterilization", was it?
posted by grum@work at 8:15 PM on January 18, 2003


hold on a sec...

Iraq is forbidden from having or making wmd's by the U.N. ...
We might do a lot of similar things, but we aren't forbidden like Iraq is from having weapons of mass destruction. To try to ignore this and try to equivocate Iraqi and U.S. actions is very dishonest.
posted by gyc at 8:19 PM on January 18, 2003


Just FYI: MetaTalk thread about this thread in specific and political/war threads in general.
posted by The Michael The at 8:23 PM on January 18, 2003


That's kind of a goofy argument, gyc. If the U.S. didn't have its thumb on the U.N. as it does, we too might be "forbidden" to have WMD. That's kind of like saying we give ourselves more leeway than we give others. Well, yeah.

Telling phrase heard on tv yesterday: "Weapons of Mass Distraction."
posted by rushmc at 8:23 PM on January 18, 2003


Just getting back to the DEBKA article - am I the only one who finds their argument unlikely?
- wouldn't it be extremely difficult to plant double agents amongst a couple of hundred UNMOVIC staff?
- more importantly, wouldn't evidence of weapons of any kind make Saddam look *more* guilty and *hasten* any possible attack?

Any ideas / responses?
posted by lambchops at 8:45 PM on January 18, 2003


Rest of the World: take a good look in the mirror. Its time to examine why YOU don't get it.

*laughs uproariously*

Some devilishly clever self-parody, there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:52 PM on January 18, 2003


I guess Bush Administration is going after Saddam for his daring to attempt to assassinate ex-President Bush Snr, to quietly acquire wmd, to use chemical weapons against his own people in northern iraq, to start a major war in middle east & leave behind an inferno that took years to abate / clean up, to attack Israel with aim to widen the conflict,and last but not least, to defy the UN Security Council. We are therefore being led to believe that Saddam is capable of anything, even the unimaginable of using "hidden" wmd in any conflict he chooses. In other words, he threatens world peace everyday that he is in power.

The saddest part is that the majority of the Iraqi poplulation is innocent, and yet they are living in fear of a large-scale war against their country. And add to that, Saddam is defiantly inciting his peaceful people to take up arms in the event of a war.

I agree with all the posters here who are not convinced that war is the answer. I do not know exactly how Saddam is be removed/dealt with, but whatever it is, it is globally risky for US and UK to start a war against Iraq without UN sanction.
posted by taratan at 9:05 PM on January 18, 2003


I wonder what will happen after we lay waste to Iraq and find that there were no nukes under the rug or behind the box. it would probably be an embarassment worth covering up.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:41 PM on January 18, 2003


Looks like there's more than shells.
On the same morning that a team of inspectors had found the 12 artillery shells, another team of nuclear weapons experts had paid a surprise visit to the homes of two of Saddam's leading nuclear physicists who worked for Iraq's top secret for the Ministry of Military Industrialisation (MMI).

The ministry, which is run by Saddam's younger son Qusay, recently replaced the Military Industrialisation Organisation (MIO), the institution which historically has controlled the development of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction arsenal since the mid-1970s.

In their eagerness to get into the scientists' homes, some of the inspectors had been seen jumping over a garden wall.

Once inside they found what one Western official has described as a "highly significant" batch of documents which, on closer inspection, revealed that Saddam's scientists were continuing development work on producing an Iraqi nuclear weapon.

Although these documents are this weekend still being examined by IAEA experts to establish the current state of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme, the discovery could well turn out to be the "smoking gun" that officials in the Bush administration have pinned their hopes on obtaining in order to justify launching military action against Baghdad.

When Saddam submitted his 12,000 page dossier to the United Nations Security Council at the end of last year, the Iraqi leader insisted that Baghdad no longer had any interest in developing nuclear weapons, and that Iraq's nuclear research programme had been discontinued.

The documents seized at the homes of the two scientists, however, confirm what Western intelligence has been arguing all along, that Saddam is continuing with his quest to develop the first Arab atom bomb.
Man, you just can't trust anyone any more, can you? I was hoping Saddam was playing this straight. Doesn't look like it, though.
posted by JB71 at 9:59 PM on January 18, 2003


If the U.S. didn't have its thumb on the U.N. as it does, we too might be "forbidden" to have WMD. That's kind of like saying we give ourselves more leeway than we give others. Well, yeah.

I'm not understanding your point. Iraq invaded Kuwait and was punished by forbidding to develop or keep its biological/chemical/nuclear weapons program. Why would the UN outlaw these weapons from the U.S.? Do you think the UN is just a puppet controlled by the U.S.? How so? We are but one of many security council members in the U.N. We don't decide what the UN does unless everyone else agrees. If you think the UN is powerless against the U.S. then do you think the inspections are a sham? Unnecessary?
posted by gyc at 10:01 PM on January 18, 2003


Paris, Your faith in our government is commendable, but I don't believe they'll have some big evidence to reveal, if anything they're scrambling to get something. Rumsfeld has his own people working on digging up something to pin on Saddam, because Tenat couldn't find anything worth saying.

On a side note, New York -- Over half of Americans (53%) polled approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president, according to the latest TIME/CNN poll. His approval rating has dropped slightly from 55% a TIME/CNN poll in December.

Over half (56%) say the country is in deep and serious trouble, while over a third (39%) say the problems we face today are no worse than at any other time in recent years.

Only a quarter (27%) think economic conditions will get better in the next 12 months, down from 35% in October 2002.

Over half (51%) think Bush is doing a poor job handling the economy, while half (50%) think he is doing a good job handling foreign policy.

The TIME/CNN poll was conducted by Harris Interactive by telephone among 1,010 adult Americans age 18 or older Jan. 15-16, 2003. Margin of error for total sample is +/- 3.1%. Full poll results attached.



I love it, all of Bush's smack talk is finally bouncing back to hurt him, let's hope he ignores the numbers, and keeps marching ahead to meet the same fate as his father. President Edwards has a nice ring to it.
posted by jbou at 10:04 PM on January 18, 2003


the big evidence will be revealled at the end of the month, when all the naysayers' arguments will have already run their course.

Great, it's about time. So when do we get to see the classified information linking Saudi Arabia to al Qaeda that Senator Graham recently refered to?
posted by homunculus at 10:20 PM on January 18, 2003


« Older DALnet DDoS attacks   |   Sprite is Good Food Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments