is this for real or just more propaganda from the Ba'ath party

[Tula]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam_2

A man said to be Iraq (news - web sites) Presiden Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is seen in this image from video aired on Abu Dhabi television Friday, April 18, 2003. The television station said the footage was taken April 9, just over a week ago, as U.S. forces moved into Baghdad. That same day, a crowd of Iraqis, with the help of U.S. Marines, toppled a 40-foot statue of Saddam in a main square of the capital. (AP Photo/Abu Dhabi TV via APTN)

Ok I read the artical and fliped through the little slide show on Yahoo news. To me personally either a) Saddam's got balls or b) its propaganda crap. I'm going more for optinion b

[renata]

It may be Saddam. But how can they pinpoint the date, unless there is someone there with April 9 edition of whatever Iraqi paper is published on a daily basis? I believe this is just old recycled footage.


BTW, welcome to the forum, love the avatar.

[Tula]

me too for one reason the man and you have to give cridet when cridet is do. But the man is smart I don't think if he is alive and stupid enough to prade around town espicaly where coliation troops are. Though yes he is a vane man and wants to stay in power and have total control the video has to be a recyled one. If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'll admit it) there newpaper and tv station Al Ja Zeer has pretty much been blown to bits or closed down. And if you look at the pictures real careful it looks like Iraq before US and British troops started bombing. Yes granted we were only going after gov't buildings, Saddam's palaces and bunkers but a friend of mine who was in Iraq yrs ago pointed out that gov't bulidings and pvt homes and businesses share the same streets. They don't have a place like Capitaol Hill or Wall Street. So you would thing to see more damage in the background. Also another thing to point out there is no smoke in the pictures. Just before we reached Baghdad Saddam had moats made and filled with oil and set on fire. Were's the smoke? Those pictures had to be taken months in advance.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by renata
It may be Saddam. But how can they pinpoint the date, unless there is someone there with April 9 edition of whatever Iraqi paper is published on a daily basis? I believe this is just old recycled footage.


BTW, welcome to the forum, love the avatar.

I believe it is him.

Prior to the war, you may require the rantings of a right wing hothead who called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons or at lease enhanced radiation versions of them, to decapitate the Iraqi regime at the beginning of the war. After all, this lunatic said, if you don't use them, what have you got them for?

That hothead was me. Today we are being treated to yet another video purporting to be Saddam Hussein, leading a cheering crowd in North Baghdad on April 9. That's the same day Iraqi's in another part of town were pulling down a statue to the same guy. Is the video genuine? I don't know. Some say we killed Saddam on the first day of the war, some say we killed him in the bombing on April 7 at the restaurant. The one on the 7th is more plausible, and we are doing DNA checks on samples. My problem with that raid killing him is that we seem to have exerted zero effort to secure the site and didn't excavate it real fast. If we thought he was under that rubble, wouldn't we have gotten to him as quickly as possible? I think he's alive.

My point on the nukes: If that initial decapitation strike had been a tactical nuke, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that he's dead. And his family. And the horse he rode in on.

[hgc]

That's the worst looking Saddam yet! They had to go deep into the bullpen for that look-alike. Who thinks that is actually Saddam?

[Skeptic]

Not that it really matters (except for the case of justice being served) if he's alive or dead. After all, Saddam has no substantial following like Bin Laden has. He was just feared as long as he was in power.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Brooklyn Dodger

My point on the nukes: If that initial decapitation strike had been a tactical nuke, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that he's dead. And his family. And the horse he rode in on.And hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of innocents, you evil prick.

[Tula]

I'm a little iffy that it is him yeah it looks like Saddam and well he has Saddam's pot belly. The pictures are fuzzy and so its hard to tell if its the real him or not. Though if I may get back to my orgional thought. If it truely is Saddam why in the hell is he walking around in public and leting his picture be taken and filmed when the colation is breathing down his neck?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by hgc
That's the worst looking Saddam yet! They had to go deep into the bullpen for that look-alike. Who thinks that is actually Saddam?

How good would you look if you got bombed twice and dug out of twenty tons of rubble?

I hear they had a meeting the day after the bombing at the restaurant. Information Ministar Baghdad Bob called in all the Saddam doubles for a meeting. They were very nervous since they heard about the bombing.

"I have good news and bad news," announced Baghdad Bob. "Our Maximum Leader, President Saddam Hussein is still alive, Allah be praised." The doubles looked relieved.

"Unfortunately, he now has but one arm."

[Tula]

PS. and yes I know when I start to make sense I scare people:D :p

[Tula]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


How good would you look if you got bombed twice and dug out of twenty tons of rubble?

I hear they had a meeting the day after the bombing at the restaurant. Information Ministar Baghdad Bob called in all the Saddam doubles for a meeting. They were very nervous since they heard about the bombing.

"I have good news and bad news," announced Baghdad Bob. "Our Maximum Leader, President Saddam Hussein is still alive, Allah be praised." The doubles looked relieved.

"Unfortunately, he now has but one arm."


Brooklyn Dodger I love the joke keep em comming.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

And hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of innocents, you evil prick.

Sticks and stones, jackass. You have no conception of the effect of an enhanced radiation warhead on a precision target. The target will be gone, and little else. And the Syrians, North Koreans, and Iranians will all get the message, you evil prick.

[hgc]

Brooklyn Dodger:

Sticks and stones, jackass. You have no conception of the effect of an enhanced radiation warhead on a precision target. The target will be gone, and little else. And the Syrians, North Koreans, and Iranians will all get the message, you evil prick.
The effect would be to say to the world that the U.S. thinks nuclear war is a swell way to assisinate foreign leaders, so everyone else should get nuclear weapons and start using them for whatever they need to accomplish.

[Tula]

Hey guys lets keep it friendly though Brooklyn you have a point and not firsthand but through my studies in boot camp and Hospital Corps School we did go though classes on Bio, Chemical, and Necular attacks. The pictures sure the hell aren't pretty and neither are the resultes. Though Victor at the same time Brooklyn has a point, I don't believe he really ment to have the US and British go in with nukes. I think he is just expressing his fustration. I for one would like to see Saddam dead or caught and put on trail. Though Brooklyn if I am wrong with my analissas(sp) of your post you can call me on it I don't mind.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by hgc

The effect would be to say to the world that the U.S. thinks nuclear war is a swell way to assisinate foreign leaders, so everyone else should get nuclear weapons and start using them for whatever they need to accomplish.

Well now, let's test that. Iraq was trying to, and ... ok, we can scratch them. North Korea has been trying to, and ... hmmm, think they will test us after this demo? Neither do I. Iran? Naw. Just who do you have in mind? Syria? We can take care of them. So just who do you have in mind? India? Pakistan? The opportunity has been there but not the inclination. Ah. I know. FRANCE!!! We must nuke FRANCE!!!

[Tula]

Brooklyn you forgot about Germany:)

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Tula
Brooklyn you forgot about Germany:)

Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons. France does! NUKE FRANCE!!!

[Victor Danilchenko]

Brooklyn Dodger

Sticks and stones, jackass.Let's not forget history, dude. What was that about Prohibition passing under Wilson?..

You have no conception of the effect of an enhanced radiation warhead on a precision target.I have a concept of thinking, dude. We didn't know where Saddam was exactly, that's why precision strikes failed. Nukes would only help if they allowed us to cover a wider area -- but this would also have had the effect of killing a number of civilians.

The target will be gone, and little else.A conventional bomb can accomplish just that; and gamma or delta radiation in sufficient doses to kill someone in the building through radiation poisoning, would also reach many people outside the building.

Furthermore, using a nuke would have a really interesting effect on the world opinion; not that you care.

[Tula]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons. France does! NUKE FRANCE!!!

hmmmmmmmmmm are you sure they been a little too quite lately so has Russia?:D

[hgc]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Well now, let's test that. Iraq was trying to, and ... ok, we can scratch them. North Korea has been trying to, and ... hmmm, think they will test us after this demo? Neither do I. Iran? Naw. Just who do you have in mind? Syria? We can take care of them. So just who do you have in mind? India? Pakistan? The opportunity has been there but not the inclination. Ah. I know. FRANCE!!! We must nuke FRANCE!!!
As it stands now, not using nuclear weopons is the norm for nation-states that have them. If you don't think that if America used nuclear weopons then it would persuade other nuclear powers that that's the new standard operating procedure, then you're very deluded. Look at India and Pakistan. And there are plenty of countries that don't have nukes that can build them tomorrow if they want -- S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Malaysia, S. Africa, etc. I trust that your frivolous attitude is not shared in the corridors of power.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

Let's not forget history, dude. What was that about Prohibition passing under Wilson?..

I have a concept of thinking, dude. We didn't know where Saddam was exactly, that's why precision strikes failed. Nukes would only help if they allowed us to cover a wider area -- but this would also have had the effect of killing a number of civilians.

A conventional bomb can accomplish just that; and gamma or delta radiation in sufficient doses to kill someone in the building through radiation poisoning, would also reach many people outside the building.

Furthermore, using a nuke would have a really interesting effect on the world opinion; not that you care.

Was it Wilson's 14 pints or 14 points? I forget. Yes, he pulled out all the stops to keep that one out. Or was it his wife, while he was uncoscious?

We did know where he was, but didn't quite get him. An enhanced radiation warhead, penetrating deep, and there would be litle if any collateral damage.

World opinion? Your opinion? What do you care? You were against the war anyway. Go back down your hole. We won.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by hgc

As it stands now, not using nuclear weopons is the norm for nation-states that have them. If you don't think that if America used nuclear weopons then it would persuade other nuclear powers that that's the new standard operating procedure, then you're very deluded. Look at India and Pakistan. And there are plenty of countries that don't have nukes that can build them tomorrow if they want -- S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Malaysia, S. Africa, etc. I trust that your frivolous attitude is not shared in the corridors of power.

We've already used nuclear weapons. And it felt GOOD! India and Pakistan aren't using them, though they both have them. Israel hasn't used them, nor have Russia, France, Britain, China, or anyone else. South Africa had one but dismantled it, but that was when it had a white government. No telling what would happen today. North Korea could try, but we would fry them first. Ditto Iran. So who are you afraid of little man?

[Tula]

Brookly just to point out to you there are a lot of us aginst the war but a lot of us who support the troops. Victor can be aginst the war all he wants this is AMERICA we have rights and freedoms that most countries only dream of. Now I started this post to see if anyone thought that the Ba'ath party was blowing smoke out of there ass or not. The next time I hear anyone tell someone to crawl back into their hole cause of politcal views my next post will be a lot harsher. Need I remind you that I have friends and fellow servise members over in Iraq right now to help the people of that country that have been living under Saddam's tyrnery for the past 25 years to at least get a taste of what we take for granted day by day and diying for it. Now I'm not going to tell you to go back into your hole but you've been warned. Yes you have a right to your opinion but when your opinion makes someone look like a fool I'll come down and I'll come down harsh.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
We've already used nuclear weapons. And it felt GOOD!You are the single most despicable person I have ever encountered.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Martinm
You are the single most despicable person I have ever encountered.

Thank you. That feels even BETTER!!!!

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Tula
Brookly just to point out to you there are a lot of us aginst the war but a lot of us who support the troops. Victor can be aginst the war all he wants this is AMERICA we have rights and freedoms that most countries only dream of. Now I started this post to see if anyone thought that the Ba'ath party was blowing smoke out of there ass or not. The next time I hear anyone tell someone to crawl back into their hole cause of politcal views my next post will be a lot harsher. Need I remind you that I have friends and fellow servise members over in Iraq right now to help the people of that country that have been living under Saddam's tyrnery for the past 25 years to at least get a taste of what we take for granted day by day and diying for it. Now I'm not going to tell you to go back into your hole but you've been warned. Yes you have a right to your opinion but when your opinion makes someone look like a fool I'll come down and I'll come down harsh.

Tula, I appreciate your and your husband's sacrifce for this country. That doesn't make Victor any less slimey. Let him stay in his hole. As for me, I earned my right to my opinion. I was an Air Force officer for 23 years, and that includes several years flying F-4 Phantoms. If he likes, I can bomb him a new hole for a home. Then he can curl up nice and comfy. He was anti war for months.

[Tula]

WOW ummm sir with all do respect what you think of victor is your business. I'm just getting fustrated with people who are yelling if your not for the Priesdent, the war, etc (and I'm not just talking about this war I'm also talking about ones in the past) your unamerican, cause to me I don't think it is. But F-4 Phantoms WOW. Were you ever stationed in Alaska by any chance? My paternal grandfather served during Korea. He was stationed in Alask and he did the flights to Korea/Russia from Alaska with a nuke in the cargo bay. I can't remember his rank and all but if I find out I'll send you a PM it would be funny to see if you knew him.

There were quite a few reporters in Baghdad. I would think that a large gathering, such as the kind you see around Hussein in the footage, would have gotten their attention. Since there appears to be several hundreds, in not thousands, in the crowd, it is unfeasible that word would not have gotten back to our intelligence people.

I saw the video on the news today. It would have been better if the camera had panned around a little and captured some of the background.

[Tula]

good theory and good point Luke. The reporters/camera men should have panned out but probably didn't or didn't wan to so that if it is truly Saddam and to make him still look popular why pan out on the small number of people when you can make it look like a group of a thousand or more.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Tula
WOW ummm sir with all do respect what you think of victor is your business. I'm just getting fustrated with people who are yelling if your not for the Priesdent, the war, etc (and I'm not just talking about this war I'm also talking about ones in the past) your unamerican, cause to me I don't think it is. But F-4 Phantoms WOW. Were you ever stationed in Alaska by any chance? My paternal grandfather served during Korea. He was stationed in Alask and he did the flights to Korea/Russia from Alaska with a nuke in the cargo bay. I can't remember his rank and all but if I find out I'll send you a PM it would be funny to see if you knew him.

Tula, I joined in 1970, and became a weapons controller, which then was a guy who worked a radar to run planes together against other planes. I went to Miyako Jima in the Ryukyu Islands, then to navigator school, then went to F-4 school, then to Holloman AFB, NM. That was 1973. Late 1974 there was a fast requirement for navigators for C-141s, so I went to McGuire AFB, and did that for four years. That learned me my lesson. I went to the Air Guard side, and went to Andrews AFB where I went back to the F-4, and stayed at Andrews and finished up in early 1993.

I hit a number of bases but only for a day or two each, so I can't tell you much about exotic locales.

As for Victor, I just can't stand the guy. He is a whining leftist and there are so many of his ilk around here.

BD, we were supposedly in a war against Saddam Hussein and out to liberate the Iraqi people. That made this war different from most other wars we have waged. When we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were at war with Japan. The whole country. That's different.

Nuking Baghdad would have resulted in us killing the people we claimed to be liberating. Talk about your crossed-signals! No way we could have claimed any "collateral damage" was accidental. :)

There are 5 million people in Baghdad. And I'm sure you know all about the long term fallout effects.

The other problem is that we never really knew for sure where Saddam was. I bet he really was in that restaurant at some point. But when you figure in the time it took for word to get back to our people, and then the time to scramble an attack together, and then the flight time, well, Saddam was probably long gone by then. So it would be for a nuke. All we would end up doing is slaughtering millions of civilians.

We were also engaged in a war to take out a guy who was manufacturing or storing Weapons of Mass Destruction. We were concerned he might actually use them one day. That was what made him a threat. It would be pretty hypocritical of us to turn around and use our own WMD.

While other nations may not have nuclear WMD, they have chemical and biological WMD. I'm sure they would feel like we were the ones to open Pandora's box, so why the heck not use them, too?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by LukeT
BD, we were supposedly in a war against Saddam Hussein and out to liberate the Iraqi people. That made this war different from most other wars we have waged. When we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were at war with Japan. The whole country. That's different.

Nuking Baghdad would have resulted in us killing the people we claimed to be liberating. Talk about your crossed-signals! No way we could have claimed any "collateral damage" was accidental. :)

There are 5 million people in Baghdad. And I'm sure you know all about the long term fallout effects.

The other problem is that we never really knew for sure where Saddam was. I bet he really was in that restaurant at some point. But when you figure in the time it took for word to get back to our people, and then the time to scramble an attack together, and then the flight time, well, Saddam was probably long gone by then. So it would be for a nuke. All we would end up doing is slaughtering millions of civilians.

We were also engaged in a war to take out a guy who was manufacturing or storing Weapons of Mass Destruction. We were concerned he might actually use them one day. That was what made him a threat. It would be pretty hypocritical of us to turn around and use our own WMD.

While other nations may not have nuclear WMD, they have chemical and biological WMD. I'm sure they would feel like we were the ones to open Pandora's box, so why the heck not use them, too?

Hold on. I was referring to the FIRST strike, not the restaurant strike as the one we should have used an enhanced radiation penetrator on. If we had, the rest of the war would have been simpler. And I believe you have an inflated opinion of what collateral an ER warhead does, or for that matter, the smaller tac nukes.

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Hold on. I was referring to the FIRST strike, not the restaurant strike as the one we should have used an enhanced radiation penetrator on. If we had, the rest of the war would have been simpler. And I believe you have an inflated opinion of what collateral an ER warhead does, or for that matter, the smaller tac nukes.

Actually, I don't have an inflated opinion of them. And they are practically moot these days since we have conventional weapons now which inflict the same damage without the nasty side effects of radiation.

By the FIRST strike, are you talking about the one on March 19? The first hour of the war? There is still no guarantee that Saddam was in the neighborhood. Again, time delays between intelligence sources and flight times have to be factored in. Nuclear bombs are just too much of a risk for such a low chance of return.

It's bad enough we probably killed civilians with what we did use without getting Saddam in the process.

We probably still haven't found all of Saddam's bunkers. And some of them are thought to be very bomb resistant, and even beneath hospitals and other civilian facilities. For all we know, he is living in one right now in Iraq somewhere. They supposedly are as large as a university campus and well stocked.

I don't see how you think a nuke would assure the death of Saddam more than a conventional weapon. A nuke is not only unnecessary, but has all kinds of political and physical side effects that can't be calculated in the harm it would do to everyone involved.

The idea of Saddam Hussein being vaporized inside a mushroom cloud has a certain je ne se qua to it, but isn't very realistic, IMHO.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

Let's not forget history, dude. What was that about Prohibition passing under Wilson?..

I have a concept of thinking, dude. We didn't know where Saddam was exactly, that's why precision strikes failed. Nukes would only help if they allowed us to cover a wider area -- but this would also have had the effect of killing a number of civilians.

A conventional bomb can accomplish just that; and gamma or delta radiation in sufficient doses to kill someone in the building through radiation poisoning, would also reach many people outside the building.

Furthermore, using a nuke would have a really interesting effect on the world opinion; not that you care.
Not only that but of course we could just as easily have missed him with a nuke. But the Dodgy one doesn't seem to really care.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius

Not only that but of course we could just as easily have missed him with a nuke. But the Dodgy one doesn't seem to really care.

We could have lucked out and hit you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not that it really matters (except for the case of justice being served) if he's alive or dead. After all, Saddam has no substantial following like Bin Laden has. He was just feared as long as he was in power.

which has been his achilles heel all along, as I said earlier, he could create fear, but not loyalty.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


We could have lucked out and hit you.
Ouch, I bet that would hurt. Don't think my post quite merited a death wish, but when your only weapon's a hammer the whole world is a nail.

A blessed Easter to you and yours.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius

Ouch, I bet that would hurt. Don't think my post quite merited a death wish, but when your only weapon's a hammer the whole world is a nail.

A blessed Easter to you and yours.

I'm sure by your calculation three days later and you'll be fine.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
I'm sure by your calculation three days later and you'll be fine.
Eh?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Eh?

Happy Easter.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Happy Easter.
Oh, I see.

[gnome]

The nuclear stability of the entire world depends on two things for each nuclear power:

1. The unwillingness to strike first.
2. The ability to launch a credible counter-strike should somone else strike first.

These harsh realities may be fading in our memory, because we have trusted each other enough to be able to remove our fingers from the triggers for a while.

But let someone use a nuclear weapon of any kind, tactical or strategic, and see how quickly everyone's back on the brink...

It took decades of a painful and disastrously expensive Cold War to move us away from that... some of the wounds are still healing.

I'd have a hard time coming up with anything that's worth revisiting that horror, and risking once again all of life on this planet.

If that means men like Saddam Hussein are alive and at large for a little while longer because we didn't choose a nuclear option... I think it's worth the price.

[Tula]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Tula, I joined in 1970, and became a weapons controller, which then was a guy who worked a radar to run planes together against other planes. I went to Miyako Jima in the Ryukyu Islands, then to navigator school, then went to F-4 school, then to Holloman AFB, NM. That was 1973. Late 1974 there was a fast requirement for navigators for C-141s, so I went to McGuire AFB, and did that for four years. That learned me my lesson. I went to the Air Guard side, and went to Andrews AFB where I went back to the F-4, and stayed at Andrews and finished up in early 1993.

I hit a number of bases but only for a day or two each, so I can't tell you much about exotic locales.

As for Victor, I just can't stand the guy. He is a whining leftist and there are so many of his ilk around here.

Ok NM you wouldn't know my grandfather he was in during the 50's then got out as a VFW. As for Victor and all leftist I listen to what they say I may not agree all the time and yes I have argued with many (and many out rank me too I may add which isn't smart on my part). But I love this old saying opinions are like @$$ holes everyone's got one.