Saddam wants the US to invade Iraq

Great Debates
21

Since we took thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqi prisoners, I’m not sure what Mystic2311 going on about. While very few American troops spoke Arabic, they were perfectly able to understand what throwing down your rifle and putting your hands in the air meant.

Perhaps he is refering to the “Road of Death”, where thousands of Iraqi soldiers fleeing with loot from Kuwait were killed by airstrikes. But they weren’t surrendering, they were fleeing. It isn’t against the Geneva convention to attack retreating troops, and besides, you can’t surrendur to an F-15. If the enemy is running away it is perfectly acceptable to shoot at him before he can regroup.

And AZCowboy, I am NOT saying that American GIs are going to be greeting like they were in Paris 1945. I imagine the average Iraqi hates both Saddam AND the US. I mean, you can hate George Bush and Osama bin Laden, right?

So the question becomes, will the average Iraqi soldier fight US troops, avoid combat, surrender, or attack loyal Iraqi units? Iraqi civilians aren’t going to fight, although Saddam is organizing militia units they are unarmed…even the cadre with rifles aren’t issued ammunition. Soldiers fight for many reasons. There may be some who will fight to defend Iraq. But even if they want to defend Iraq, and would fight if they thought they would win, they might surrender if they are convinced the US will win no matter what they do. After the first Gulf War, I’d guess that the average Iraqi soldier is convinced that the US military will win. That makes our job a hell of a lot easier.

22

Shiite conscripts, I think you mean. The surrendering Iraqis weren’t stapled collection of dialog from last week’s Jerry Springer.

23

Sorry, I meant conscripts. I was involved in another thread about April Glaspie’s transcripts and my scripts got transcribed.

Here is one story about Gen. McCaffrey committing war crimes in the Gulf War:

http://www.militarycorruption.com/barry.htm

Partial snippet:

"Like a ghostly finger pointing from the grave, charges that then-MG Barry McCaffrey ordered the slaughter of hundreds of Iraqi troops two days AFTER a cease-fire ended the Gulf War, just won’t go away.

This is bad news indeed for President Bill Clinton’s “drug czar.” Instead of the establishment media ignoring Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent Seymour Hersh’s masterful expose in the May 22 issue of The NEW YORKER, the wall of silence is crumbling.

One by one, newspaper articles and the top-notch reporting of ABC NEWS have zeroed in on what a high-ranking Army insider calls: "One of the worst war crimes by U.S. forces since the My Lai massacre in “Vietnam.”

Shiite conscripts:

http://www.bidstrup.com/hate.htm

“The result was the death in the desert of over 100,000 Shiite Arab conscripts, who were annihilated by bombs dropped by B-52s from high altitudes. The Shiite conscripts, who would have
been natural allies of the U.S. had they been captured, were kept on the front lines by their Iraqi commanders by the simple expedient of giving them cheap plastic shoes, which made long treks across the desert impossible. Their commanders fled. They had boots, mostly supplied years earlier by U.S. military aid. Meanwhile, American troops re-installed the very un-democratic rulers of Kuwait.”

24

This may not exactly be on-topic, but think it is relevant:

Use of Nerve Agents by U.S. troops:
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

American Gulf War Veterans Association Joyce Riley vonKleist, RN,
BSN spokesperson P.O.Box 85, Versailles, Missouri 65084 (573) 378-6049 voice, (573) 378-5998 fax www.gulfwarvets.com, gulfwar@dam.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 19, 2003 Contact Person: Gary Treece

GULF WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION QUESTIONS WHO STARTED THE OIL WELL FIRES IN KUWAIT.

For the past six years, the American Gulf War Veterans Association have received numerous reports from veterans stating that US forces were responsible for the setting of the oil well fires at the end of the Gulf War. These testimonies are now being taken very seriously in light of recent revelations of the events that occurred during the first Gulf War.

Joyce Riley, spokesperson for The American Gulf War Veterans
Association is quoted as saying: “There was intentional
misinformation given to the American people to generate support for Desert Storm often created by advertising agencies such as Hill and Knowlton.”

  • Revelations regarding the “Incubator story,” in which
    Republican Guard were reported to have thrown babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor turned out to be false and a “fraud on the American People.” (S.R. 103-900).

  • The St. Petersburg Times disproved the report of satellite photosshowing a thousand Iraqi tanks amassing on the Saudi border.

  • April Glaspie, US Ambassador, gave tacit approval to Saddam
    Hussein to invade Iraq by saying, “We have no opinion on…your
    border dispute with Kuwait.”

  • John Shalikashvilli, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
    William Perry, Secretary of Defense wrote in a memo (obtained by the AGWVA) on May 25, 1994, There is no information, classified or
    unclassified that indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf.” General Norman Schwartzkopf’s NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) logs (also obtained by the AGWVA) dated Feb. 27, 1991, and March 3, 1991, clearly disprove the above statement.

One veteran has now stepped forward and given a detailed account of how he and others in special teams, moved forward of the front, (behind enemy lines ahead of US forces) and then set charges on the well heads. “We were mustered into the briefing tent at which point a gentleman whom I first had thought to be an American began to brief us on the operation. I was concerned because he was not wearing a US uniform and insignias.”

The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual. This testimony brings into serious question the integrity of the US government, as it provided information to the American public and military during the last Gulf War.

25

I am still not sure if invasion is the right thing to do. Some military action looks inevitable. But invasion? Not a good idea, IMHO.

That being said- the invasion would be nearly bloodless for the USA & it’s allies. The Republican Guard will briefly put up a good front, realize all they are doing is dying bravely, then run. The rest of the army won’t even do that. We are just that much better. And we are stronger since Desert Storm; but they are much weaker. Some American pilots likened it to a video game. In kinda poor taste, maybe- but apt.

Sure, if we are stupid enough to get into house-to-house in Bagdad- then body bags will start coming home. But I don’t think we’ll have to, or that we are that stupid.

Even if we get a “bloody nose” in some battle- which, given our overconfidence could happen- the groundswell against the war in Vietnam took years. This will be over in weeks, far too short for the American public to reverse itself.

ChemBio?- not a real worry for our troops. IF SH does have a nuke, and uses it against us; then yes, we’ll lose a few thousand. But then we’ll be filled with the same “terrible resolve” we had after Pearl Harbor. I’d hate to be an Iraqi then. How does that song go “they paved paradise, and put up a parking lot”?

26

So, Lemur866, your assertion is that the “war” will be so quick, easy, and successful, there is slim to no chance that the American public will go fickle?

27

AZCowboy, it seems that you aren’t reading what I wrote. First of all, back to the OP. The idea that Saddam wants us to invade, so he can triumphantly beat us back is pretty silly. The US may eventually be kicked out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, but it will be after several years, long after Saddam will either be in the Hague or dead. Since Saddam rules Iraq for the benefit of Saddam, there’s no way that Saddam wants that.

How does Saddam threatening devastation if the US invades make the invasion more likely? He is trying to stop the invasion, by pointing out the possible negative consequences to the US if we try to invade. He may be lying, or exagerating, or telling the truth, but either way he is trying to convince America that the price of invading Iraq is too steep. If he REALLY wanted an invasion, he’d round up the inspectors and send them back to the UN in small pieces. Of course he doesn’t want an invasion.

Saddam will be finished within a few months of the invasion. Even if the American public goes fickle, Bush isn’t going to pull the troops back until after the victory. If it takes a few more months than he thought, he still has to keep going since the political price for going in and losing is going to be so much higher than the political price for going in and winning after a harder battle than was thought. So, the war will continue. If we start to lose the war and are getting heavy casualties and there are anti-war riots in the streets, the war will still continue. The administration will continue the war long past the time when everyone else is begging for a US retreat, long past the time it is obvious to everyone that the war is unwinnable. To get to that point will take years. If the US is losing the war, it still won’t end until Bush’s term expires and the new president ends it.

But the “hot” phase of the war simply can’t last that long. This isn’t going to be a replay of Vietnam. We are going to be able to bombard any point in Iraq, there is no place for Iraqi armies to regroup or resupply, our army smash anything. We occupy Baghdad, Saddam dies or is sent to Belgium. That’s the easy part. The hard part is occupation duty, what happens after the glorious victory. The initial victory will be easy and done in a few months time. In that time frame, the American public isn’t going to go fickle.

But they may eventually go fickle, if mujahadeen start entering Iraq and we are losing occupying soldiers every day to snipers and Palestinian-style suicide bombings. That could be a big problem, and we could eventually be forced to retreat from a devastated, radicalized Iraq under the control of guys who make the Taliban look like Fred Rogers. But remember the OP? That outcome, while bad for the US, is also bad for Saddam. And so Saddam hopes we don’t invade.

28

That’s quite a list of conspiritorial nonsense you’ve gathered there Mystic, but you threw links in so I’ll take the trouble to dismiss them.

**

That’s not what the link says. The link accuses the US of providing chemical weapons to Iraq. It makes no mention of US troops using nerve agents against Iraq.

**

I’m sorry, I don’t see any reason to take these testimonials seriously. The US did not have forces in position to start hundreds of well fires at the time those fires were set. And since the fires hampered air operations and ground offensive operations, there was no motivation for the US to do so either.

**

It did turn out to be false. But executions of Kuwaiti citizens was not. Iraq still has not accounted for all Kuwaiti POWs

http://www.kuwait-info.org/POWs/plight_of_kuwaits_pows.html

**

The St. Petersburg Times is not qualified to analize military satallite photos. Perhaps some more detail?

**

This has taken on urban legend status. Not even the Iraqis believe that Glaspie gave them a green light.

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

**

How did it disprove that statement? There were many cases of false alarms. US detection equipment at the time was prone to such false readings.

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make.

29

Blackclaw, several people asked for cites about US forces killing Iraqis that were surrendering. I couldn’t find the one I was looking for, but I did find the one about McCaffrey slaughtering Iraqis after they had already surrendered. Apparently you were not able to dismiss that one. I threw in the other stuff just for fun. And, unless you were in the front lines in the Gulf War, you are in no position to doubt the testimonials of Gulf War vets.

Here is the story about the satellite photos:

http://www.iraqwar.org/bush.htm

30

Lemur:

Anecdote-based WAG here: WE’ll encounter more resistance from Iraqi soldiers this war than we saw in 91.

I know several Iraqis living in the USA. Most of them were soldiers who surrendered to American troops during Desert Storm & were given asylum in the states. I don’t know if they are Shi’ite ur Sunni, but the one thing they say in common is:
Invading Kuwait was the wrong thing to do. They were attacking fellow moslems who posed no threat to anyone. That’s the main reason they were so willing to surrender to American troops, because their war was immoral, as outlined by the Quran.

This time around, they will see things differently. Although the average Iraqi detests Saddam Hussein from the bottom of his heart, they will repel foriegn invaders because Islam teaches that it is immoral to invade another country.

I know it seems pretty simplistic, but my experience with middle-eastern moslems has reinforced the fact that the average middle eastern moslem’s religious training is much more pervasive and has much stronger influence on his thoughts and behavior than the average western christian’s. The motivations for the Iraqi soldier aren’t the same as they were for the NVA or viet cong 35 years ago, but he’s still fighting for his home and family. He won’t fight for Saddam like Charlie fought for Ho, but he’ll fight for his homeland all the same.

That said, I think we’ll get our nose bloodied in this war. I believe it’s winnable, but we will see heavier than expected casualties on the US side. I also believe it will last less than 3 years. I don’t know if it’s wise or prudent or if it will get W the popular support he needs in time to win the 2004 election. (And yes, that’s exactly what this war is about. Don’t believe the hype) If not, it will leave a real mess for his successor, much like Johnson or Nixon faced in the 60s.

I see Saddam Hussein as rattling his sabre while stopping short of causing an invasion. His regime is very opressive to the Iraqi people. There is nothing like freedom of speech. Imams who speak against his policies in mosques disappear. He sees himself as a Stalin, but without the land mass or the nukes he has to be very careful. Considering how long he’s been in power, he has a pretty good idea just how far his circle of power extends.

31

Excellent point, mystic2311. I was going to mention something similar, but you have covered most of what I wanted to say.

I am just wondering what will finally allow PATRIOT ACT II to pass.

32

I just overlooked it.

And no I wasn’t on the frontlines in the gulf. But neither was Seymour Hersh, the lone reporter who is holding on to these claims. I had several friends there but none of them when in the areas at the time of the alleged events.

Seymour is basing some of his report off the reports of Gulf War veterans and making the rest up. As of late, he has made such reporting a habit. Some of the witnesses he cites were not in the area of the alleged events.

In any event, the Iraqis McCaffery engaged had not surrendered. They were withdrawing to Iraq under the terms of the UN ceasefire. McCaffery’s group felt that the Iraqis fired or threatened to do so. Maybe the Iraqis felt threatened and panicked. After cease fire combat is not uncommon when two formerly opposing sides happen to run into each other.

Here’s a news report with interviews with both Seymour and McCaffery.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_2_000515.html

**
[/QUOTE]

The story doesn’t make much sense. Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. There had to be Iraqi forces there. The Kuwaitis weren’t imagining it. Iraq had a strong foothold in Kuwait. Did Bush exaggerate the threat to Saudi Arabia, maybe. But Saddam would later invade Saudi territory to try and jump start the war early.

33

The story doesn’t make much sense. Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. There had to be Iraqi forces there. The Kuwaitis weren’t imagining it. Iraq had a strong foothold in Kuwait. Did Bush exaggerate the threat to Saudi Arabia, maybe. But Saddam would later invade Saudi territory to try and jump start the war early. **
[/QUOTE]

The story makes a lot of sense. Saudi Arabia did not want US forces on their soil, so they US lied to them and said that Iraqi forces were massing on the Iraq-Saudi border. The reporter from the St. Petersburg Times purchased commercial satellite photos that proved the US was lying.

Seymour Hersh is a respectable reporter and has tons more credibility than you. You are the one who is making stories up. Hersh cited a number of soldiers who witnessed the atrocities. Are you calling them all liars? By the evidence presented, Gen. McCaffrey is clearly guilty of a war crime.

34

2thick, there is rational life on the SDMB! I am so used to getting flamed, I had to read your message twice to make sure you weren’t pulling my leg. So what are your thoughts on our current crypto-klepto-terrorocracy?

35

The reporter isn’t a trained analyst that knows how to spot armor position or even knows where to look for them. There can be no denying that there were Iraqi forces in Kuwait, they didn’t use phantoms to invade that country. There may be some truth to the idea that the US exaggerated the threat that Iraqi forces posed to Saudi Arabis, but that’s a metter of guesswork. The US acted in part out of a desire to protect Saudi Arabia. The US did not want it’s major oil supplier falling into Saddam’s hands.

Hersh use to have credibility, back in 1970 when he won the pulitzer prize. But in the last decade or so, he’s mostly just become an anti-US shrill. His reports lack credibility. He fails to follow up with witnesses or do any real investigative reporting. He goes with the most sensationalized version of events and runs with it.

The witnesses he cites were scout forces 9 kilometers away from where the battle erupted. They may not have even been looking at the same group of Iraqis.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq000515.html
Seymour wasn’t there. He has no idea if the Iraqis posed a threat or not. The Republican guard units that were engaged were not a disarmed bunch of refugees, they were in armored vehicles, fully armed.

36

After the initial shock of watching live footage on the morning of September 11th, I started to notice something strange. The first clue was how quickly the names and pictures of the hijackers appeared on television. I believe it was within 24 hours.

Ever since then, I have watched a Goebbels-type fear mongering campaign that has destroyed civil liberties and has almost made the Bill of Rights merely an irrelevant historic anomaly.

What throws me for a loop is the apathy and indifference that is present in so much of the population. Besides the apathy, there is a very vocal minority that vomits McCarthy-like accusations of anti-Americanism whenever a voice that opposes the current administration is raised.

This fire of ignorance is further fueled by the paradox that manifests in the popularity of right-wing talk-show hosts such as Rush and O’Reilly.

With that being said, I am sure that the administration is capable of (and is probably responsible for) “attacks” that spur support for the Bush agenda. When I say that they are responsible, I include inaction as an element (and not just direct involvement in the “attack”).

And to end on a note of caution, I see the future of computerized voting as the end of popular elections. Now anyone can make the computer spit out whatever results they want.

37

2thick, I have come to the exact same conclusions. You are obviously a highly intelligent person. I have been going crazy because it seems like most Americans are in a state of hypnosis after 9-11. Perhaps we should start a thread on the question, “Is Bush complicit in the 9-11 plot or did he just let it happen on purpose? (the LIHOP theory)”

38

Blackclaw said:

"This has taken on urban legend status. Not even the Iraqis believe that Glaspie gave them a green light.

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm "

[sorry, my quote button does strange things sometimes]

This story doesn’t make any sense. Why would Tariq Aziz say that April Glaspie did not give them the green light to invade Kuwait? He would never say something which is contrary to the interests of Iraq. Besides, that cite is not credible. It is a “whatever happened to…” story about April Glaspie. The alleged original source (only USA Today, no date or page number) of Tariq Aziz’s supposed statement is not given, so it cannot be verified. Therefore, according to Cecil’s rules, it is invalid. USA Today is not a credible journalistic source in any case by my standards.

See, I can play this game too. You invalidate my sources, I invalidate your sources. There aren’t any double standards on the SDMB, are there?