Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq orders Baghdadis to stay put
UPI | 8/15/02

Posted on 08/15/2002 12:40:41 PM PDT by kattracks

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug 15, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Iraqi authorities have ordered Baghdad residents to stay put and warned that their money and property will be confiscated if they leave the city without permission, according to a well-informed source. The measures were taken, the source said, to prevent people fleeing in anticipation of a U.S. military strike.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barbequingsaddam; iraq; iraqihumanshields; jihadisreallycrap; saddam; saddamistoast; youstayanddie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 next last
To: kattracks
Baghdadis probably are thinking right now,
1) There won't be any Iraqi government left to confiscate my property.
2) My Iraqi money will be worthless when the government falls.
3) My property in Baghdad will soon be glowing in the night.
Would you stay?
121 posted on 08/15/2002 11:18:24 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Could Saddam be planning to trick Israel into nuking Baghdad to bring condemnation against Israel? Word is that Israel may be considering nuking Baghdad even if one scud with a conventional warhead lands in Israel. In this strategy, Baghdadis are not shields, but necessary expenditures in a world wide political gambit.
122 posted on 08/15/2002 11:25:54 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mixer
I am paying $2 a gal now.
123 posted on 08/15/2002 11:29:18 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: old school
Realistically speaking, we're gonna have to go a long way to demonstrate the need for killin' up a bunch of civilians;

How's this? "If we did not nuke all of Baghdad when we did, then we stood a significant chance of losing Tel-Aviv."

What is totally ironic in all of this is that it is Saddam who has assured that Sharon has nothing to lose by nuking Baghdad. Sharon would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as would all Israel.

IIRC, the bible talks about a scenario where Baghdadis are given one hour warning of the destruction of Baghdad so that they can escape. Perhaps Israel will do just this? We will see...

124 posted on 08/15/2002 11:43:35 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Bagh-ladies? Bagh-people? Soon to be homeless people?

Soon to be dead people.

125 posted on 08/15/2002 11:44:46 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
of course that's what Saddam wants ... I think these publications of "imminent attack" are not only signaling resistance groups, they're warning the Iraqi citizens to start running when the shooting starts ...

If the publications are not enough warning, then Saddam's order certainly is...

126 posted on 08/15/2002 11:47:42 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Alright people before you fly off the handle on me I don't care about the UN either.. but the world does..

But I don't care about the world either!

127 posted on 08/15/2002 11:54:41 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It's working. Kudos and touche to the mysterious Bush administration.
128 posted on 08/15/2002 11:57:00 PM PDT by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
And since the Bush Administration is going to get bad press no matter what (especially outside the US), we have nothing to lose.

Bush can't lose- because he aint got nothing to lose! Oh, I love it!

129 posted on 08/15/2002 11:57:09 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Why is it that even though we're the ONLY country that follows the Geneva Convention during wartime, and our enemies invariably flount it is the most bloody, inhumane ways, WE'RE the only ones that get pissed on by so-called "human rights groups" for so much as having a POW bathroom that's a 1/4 inch shorter than the Convention says it should be?

Because they won't be shot by our government when our press reports their findings?

130 posted on 08/16/2002 12:00:30 AM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
The only concern with American forces in Iraq or especially in Baghdad, is if Israel feels they must nuke Baghdad to retaliate. In this regard, Bush must be wondering whether dropping troops directly into Baghdad is a good idea or not. Such a move would provoke Saddam to strike at Israel just to strike at Israel, with the unintended consequence of an Israeli nuke retaliation.
131 posted on 08/16/2002 12:05:14 AM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is like Mayor Guillani on September 10, 2001 ordering World Trade Center workers to remain at their desk 24/7. I will never understand the mind of Arab/Islamist dictators/terrorists.

This is the mind of a desperate loser.

132 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:14 AM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Don Carlos
"If I understand correctly, EMP destroys circuits and components therein. Mobile launchers out in the desert with their own power supply (diesel, whatever) would thus be junk after an EMP "hit". EMP doesn't necessarily have to hit power supply stations or transmission lines to do its job."

You're close. It destroys unprotected semiconductor junctions. Tube-type equipment would not be damaged. Neither would vehicles or generators that did not use electronic engine controls -- although alternator-equipped (as opposed to generator-equipped) engines might lose their battery charging ability (i.e., if the diodes in the alternator take a hit).

OTOH, if the military equipment is hardened against EMP (which I think it not that unlikely), then it will keep on chuggin'.

133 posted on 08/16/2002 12:18:14 AM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Once again, bingo.
134 posted on 08/16/2002 12:21:09 AM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
Suppose Peter Arnett is on his way to give Saddam a soapbox again?
135 posted on 08/16/2002 12:23:36 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
"Milk Factory Bombed - 112 Feared Dead"
136 posted on 08/16/2002 12:25:04 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
It will not be remote via CNN this time.

Care to elucidate?

137 posted on 08/16/2002 12:39:59 AM PDT by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dec31,1999
Care to elucidate?

The weaponized Anthrax was made with clay as a dispersal agent. That is the method Iraq developed. It was sent to a few senators and congressmen to get the point across, whereas a release of the same in the windy tunnels of a subway station in New York would have killed hundreds. It was a message by Sadam that we have you by the short hairs, agents are placed inside America ready to release bio warfare.

America did not think that was funny the use of a WMD inside its borders, and has decided that containment is obviously not working. We are calling his bluff, not wanting to wait till he can release Ebola or Smallpox, as that type of bio agent does not have a self limiting factor and could at this point destroy civilization as we know it. We may loose thousands inside America, but Sadam is going to loose everthing, and never again be in the position to blackmail us, or the rest of the world again.

End of Elucidation...

138 posted on 08/16/2002 2:44:38 AM PDT by American in Israel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: old school
Realistically speaking, we're gonna have to go a long way to demonstrate the need for killin' up a bunch of civilians.......

Ah yes, as they say, "therein lies the rub".

As Americans, we traditionally try to conduct military operations that minimize civilian casualties. Nobody looks with glee to the prospect of killing a lot of civilians when we go after Saddam.

We should note however, that Saddam has no similar humanitarian concerns, and that he looks upon our desire to avoid collateral damage as our weakness and his strength. Using his own people as human shields is not a policy that can be permitted to work.

.... who are otherwise powerless to change their political circumstances. Saddam and his minions are our enemies;, not the entire poulation of Baghdad! Had the total destruction of the city been our objective, we could have done that long ago, with impunity!

Absolutely right. Our military planners are aware of this and their strategy will reflect this reality.

Saddam, in spite of all his posturing, is much weaker than he was in 1990. He is propped up solely by a few divisions of the Republican Guard, and without them to support his despotic rule, the people of Iraq would no longer be powerless to change their political circumstances. For that reason, we can expect the annihilation of the Republican Guard to be a top priority, right after taking out air defenses and command and control.

Military assets located in civilian neighborhoods can be taken out with close to pinpoint accuracy, but mistakes are sure to happen and civilians will suffer if they remain in the immediate area. Such is the nature of war, which is one reason it is against the rules of war to locate military assets in the middle of civilian areas, not that Saddam gives a damn about that, or his own people.

When we drop the leaflets on Baghdad telling the people that the Republican Guard no longer exists so they can do as they like, we just may find our entry into Baghdad feels more like the liberation of Paris than battle of Stalingrad.

139 posted on 08/16/2002 6:35:51 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: greggy
Wow for regular 87 octane you are paying $2 a gallon. Sorry to hear that. We pay $1.27 on average here.
140 posted on 08/16/2002 7:28:36 AM PDT by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson