Skip to comments.
Iraq May Use Mobile Launchers to Take Aim at Troops Moving North
New York Times ^
| 3/22/03
| MICHAEL R. GORDON
Posted on 03/22/2003 12:41:31 PM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1
posted on
03/22/2003 12:41:31 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks; *war_list; W.O.T.; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; knak; MadIvan; ...
To: *miltech
b
To: kattracks
sound to me someone is gaining contol now in the regime
4
posted on
03/22/2003 12:53:20 PM PST
by
stlnative
To: kattracks

BREAKING: CALLING HANS BLIX, FRAUD
IN ADDITION TO ANTHRAX - IRAQI MISSILES SEEN IN BAGHDAD

5
posted on
03/22/2003 12:55:26 PM PST
by
Diogenesis
(If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.)
To: Diogenesis
These are Surface to Air missiles (SAMs).
They're not banned.
6
posted on
03/22/2003 12:57:43 PM PST
by
Riley
To: kattracks
>>Allied warplanes are now involved in an intensive effort to strike the Iraqis' mobile missile launchers before they fire again. <<
Can you say "napalm"? I knew you could (with apologies to the late Fred Rogers).
To: brigette
Maybe Saddam's "concussion" wore off...
To: Jeff Chandler
"One of the Ababil-100's that was intercepted flew about 110 miles. Before the war started this week, weapons inspectors were still debating its range."
Nothing like a demonstration and a long measuring tape to iron out that controversy. Looks like a great "Highway of Death Part II: Ababil" opportunity. Hey Iraqis, keep an eye on that rear view mirror. Something might be gaining on you.
9
posted on
03/22/2003 1:04:35 PM PST
by
usafsk
To: Riley
That looks awfully big for a SAM.
10
posted on
03/22/2003 1:04:39 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: Riley
They're not banned. They should have been. Our whole problems with 1991 were the terms of surrender. We (thanks to kind advice from our good friends France, Germany, Russia, and China) effectively surrendered. What business did Saddam have with *any* military after that war? In fact why didn't we go to Baghdad?
To: Husker24
>>That looks awfully big for a SAM.
If it's an SA-2, it ought to be- they're huge. It's *way* too small to be a SCUD, or similar.
I'll see if I can find some good SAM pics online and post a link.
12
posted on
03/22/2003 1:09:44 PM PST
by
Riley
To: EaglesUpForever
>>What business did Saddam have with *any* military after that war? In fact why didn't we go to Baghdad?<<
New World Order (Bush 41 WAS a wimp).
To: kattracks
"So far, the Iraqis have not fired any of the few Scuds they are thought to have retained."This is a blatant lie, and the NYT should be called on it. Saddam fired a scud into Kuwait and it has been positively idenitified as a scud.
To: Riley


I found a pic with the same aspect, but no indication of scale. The SA-2 is about 35 feet long, and about almost a yard in diameter. It is a *BIG* missile.
15
posted on
03/22/2003 1:24:12 PM PST
by
Riley
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I'm sure the maggots in charge of the NY Slimes would be very happy if the Iraqis killed some or a lot of our men in Iraq.
16
posted on
03/22/2003 2:57:28 PM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
To: Grampa Dave
On the 'Rat Underground, they're saying Bush will launch chemical weapons on our own troops so Iraq can be blamed.
17
posted on
03/22/2003 4:23:35 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: Grampa Dave
Also on the 'Rat Underground, they're discussing whether Saddam would be "justified" to launch biological weapons on our troops... most have concluded that he would be!
18
posted on
03/22/2003 4:24:25 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
Are these people aware that there is a thing called the Geneva Convention that bans biological and chemical attacks?
That is un-fripping-believable. Dummies Underground is appropriate.
19
posted on
03/22/2003 4:49:19 PM PST
by
OpusatFR
(Free Speech means you can talk and I can criticize! It doesn't mean you talk and I shut up!)
To: Diogenesis
Looks like an Sa-2 or long range interceptor missile.
Still, smaller than the SA-4 Ganef for sure.
20
posted on
03/22/2003 4:53:05 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson