US may seize Arab airports by force to attack Iraq: report

matt drudge ^ | 8/12/2002 | drudge report

[TLBSHOW]

US may seize Arab airports by force to attack Iraq: report

Mon Aug 12 2002 14:19:02 ET

BEIRUT, Aug. 12 (Xinhua)--Lebanon received a report from diplomatic sources saying that the United States would seize by force several airports in Arab states when it launches a war against Iraq, the An Nahar newspaper reported on Monday.

The report said that US President George W. Bush would unleash the military offensive in January 2003 as he has to wait the outcome of the midterm elections of the Congress in November. ``Bush prefers to have Arab support for his war to remove Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the US forces would have facilities in several neighboring Arab airports,'' the report said.

''At any rate,'' it stressed, ``once zero hour comes, Bush will give the orders to use Arab airports by force for the military operation against Iraq if the need arises.'' Bush argued that without the US interference, the Arab countries, the Arab League and the UN Security Council would not have been able to oust the invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War.

Meanwhile, the report revealed that the Bush administration has allowed Israel to strike back in the upcoming confrontation against Iraq if the Arab country fires Scud missiles at Israel like it did in 1991.

The report suggested that the Arab world should take the US war preparations against Iraq ``very seriously'' and recommended a diplomatic offensive by Lebanon to consolidate Pan-Arab camp.

Developing...

[Jhoffa_]

Let's just hope Saddam doesn't go there.

If he can, he will.. Just like the last time.

And he will frame it as "The Mother Of ALL WARS against the Infidels.. So, come and help me out!" kinda thing.

He wants a regional conflict. He want's a bar fight.

Cause if it's just the US and Iraq out in the parking lot, alone, he knows his defeat is certain.

He wants to involve everyone he possibly can, even the most tenuous argument will do. ANYTHING to get him some help.

He would love to cry "The Joooz are comin!" and I don't want to let him do it.

My position in a nutshell. You don't have to agree.

[glock rocks]

Put Travis, Squantos and Harpseal in charge of the state department for 2 years and watch how the world changes for the better.

i'd think 2 weeks would be sufficient... hey, wasn't the WTC laid waste by saudis and egyptians?

isn't kitty litter made out of silica?

isn't glass?

[DoughtyOne]

If this were true, it would be a tipoff to set up charges to destroy as much of these airport infrastructures as possible when the time comes. I don't like to read reports about possible future courses of action. Speculation like this is pointless unless it intended to be a tipoff.

[andy_card]

Who said anything about ruling? You really ought to slow down.

Well, we are currently hegemonic, like it or not. We start on a policy of making everybody fear us, we rule by fear. QED.

[Don Joe]

"That's it! Nobody hated Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, because they were feared. Lets follow in their footsteps!"

Don't be silly. We should follow in the footsteps of France, since everyone loved that country! (Even Hitler didn't want to destroy it!)

Your "logic" takes us to strange places. We need to bend over and grab our ankles, lest we offend some scumbag POS renegade "nation".

F that S, dude!

[glock rocks]

But scaring everybody just makes them want to kill us.

where the hell have you been? they are killing us.

hopefully, you are just pulling our collective legs with some feelgood muckspout sarcasm, huh?

[Timesink]

I'd laugh, if only too many Americans didn't share that warped view. We can only go it alone for so long. If we unite the rest of the world against us, we will be destroyed.

Not unless we allow them to. The only armies in the world that could seriously take us on head-to-head are the Chinese and the Russians, and they need us more than we need them. The whole of Europe is largely military-free, because they all rely on OUR troops to protect them over there, and the rest of the world is too poor to create a force that could overpower us, even if they have the men. Besides, the actual citizens of most other countries love America and agree that we ought to take Saddam out. It's only the power-for-its-own-sake elite chattering classes in those countries that keep pumping out the anti-American rhetoric. Remember, leftist governments throughout Europe are being steadily thrown out by their citizens whenever they're allowed to actually vote, and they're voting in comparatively conservative politicans. The continuous anti-US, Neville Chamberlain Jr stances by those leftist governments are part of the reason for this.

[Bill Davis FR]

and pigs may fly...

[TLBSHOW]

early evening here.....

Matt moved the story from top to side bar! LOL

[Nexus]

He's already screaming "The Indidels are coming!", and no one's listening. What convinces you that someone else will jump in if Israel sends a few F-16's in to expedite the destuction of any remaining Scuds/labs, especially after an NBC attack on their homeland? I don't even think an Arab nation could blame them. I agree with you on the Arab nutcase response, though.

[Sabertooth]

Well, we are currently hegemonic, like it or not. We start on a policy of making everybody fear us, we rule by fear.

So many treacherous leaps. We are "hegemonic?" Therefore we "rule?" Over "everybody?"

We are morally, culturally, economically, and militarily dominant, therefore we influence and attract. We show remarkable restraint, more than any nation ever has with such dominance. Sometimes, too much restraint.

I never said that "everyone" needed to fear us. Those who would hate us and kill us need to fear us.

All of your talk of "ruling" appropriately makes me wonder what you think Hitler and Stalin's mistakes really were.

[Timesink]

She already is! Notice my frequent typos prior to 7:30 pm est? That's her. She loooooves to hit daddy's keyboard!

Believe me, a toddler randomly bashing keys would make more sensible posts than a few adult Freepers do. Let her type!

[Admin Moderator]

You have mail.
AM

[andy_card]

(Presuming that you were trying to recall the Bible verse that begins with pride and ends with fall.)

You mean, of course, Proverbs 16:18. I know it well.

that "It doesn't matter if the whole world hates us" is an expression of pride. It's not. It's a simple statement of fact. The flip side of it is the realization of what we would need to become if our goal was to have the world not hate us. And that's something only a fool would wish upon his country.

I may be foolish, as you suggest, but I'll support my country whether it has a hundred allies or none at all. But only a punch-drunk proud S.O.B could possibly say that it doesn't matter whether the rest of the world is against us. Of course it does. It means everything. We must either love each other, or we must die. (w/apologies to Lyndon Baines)

[Jhoffa_]

He's already screaming "The Indidels are coming!", and no one's listening. What convinces you that someone else will jump in if Israel sends a few ... [whatever, name your poision]

Just the fact that they are Jews and we are Americans seems to be enough.

The ultamate coalition of evil infidels.. (insert evil laugh)

Honestly, we are going to down the guy.. It's written in stone.

I think that's the way it should be. Otherwise you have people sending their suicide bombers and assorted jihadders to Israel.

Hell, send them here and let us deal with them. Even the most hardcore will be on the run in no time, just like Osama.

And we don't live next door, Israel does.

To make this plain and short: Yes they would be completely, totally justified morally and in every other way in attacking Iraq. However, I think it would be better from every angle if they didn't.

Cause Saddam is leaving regardless. That's the future.

[WillVoteForFood]

Chinese Communist house organ reporting "news" from Middle Eastern sources. Now there's a formula for accurate, unbiased reporting.

Probably about as accurate as 400 people dying in an attack on a wedding in Afghanistan and as accurate as hundreds dying in the Jenin "massacre".

[Scott from the Left Coast]

The BS factor on this is so big that I'd almost think that Bill Clinton himself was the source.

Odds of this being true: 1 in 1 google.

[andy_card]

So many treacherous leaps. We are "hegemonic?" Therefore we "rule?" Over "everybody?"

We rule the world as much as anybody has ever ruled the world, yet we are far from wielding absolute power. As such, our position is still very much threatened by those you wish to scare, and those I wish to woo.

We are morally, culturally, economically, and militarily dominant, therefore we influence and attract.

That just makes people pay attention to us. It doesn't attract anybody. Regardless of our power, we must work to build respect. Making our enemies fear us is definitely a means to that ends, but it cannot be the sole means.

I never said that "everyone" needed to fear us. Those who would hate us and kill us need to fear us.

Welcome to Realpolitik 101. Everybody could hate or kill us, as alliances and interests shift. As such, we need to work to earn everybody's respect.

All of your talk of "ruling" appropriately makes me wonder what you think Hitler and Stalin's mistakes really were.

No moral equivalency there...

[Jhoffa_]

Odds of this being true: 1 in 1 google.

Do you two know each other?

(You leave Liz Cheney ALONE Mr. Gop!)