"The 16th Infantry Division of the Iraqi army will be bombed tomorrow. Leave this location now and save yourselves."
Time to recycle those leaflets.
Posted on 08/30/2002 9:57:21 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Iraq said on Friday the United States would not be able to bring down President Saddam Hussein the same way it toppled Afghanistan's Taliban, as Washington pressed ahead with the case for action against the Iraqi leader.
The United States ignored calls for a new U.N. Security Council resolution to approve any American military action against Iraq as its key ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced opposition from his own party to a U.S.-led attack.
In a sign of rising tension, U.S. jets attacked an anti-aircraft missile site in a "no-fly" zone of southern Iraq in response to what the U.S. military said were repeated Iraqi attempts to shoot down American and British jets patrolling the zone. It was the eighth raid in less than two weeks.
A top United Nations arms inspector also said Iraqi reluctance to allow new inspections could suggest it may be hiding biological weapons.
Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Washington knew it would not be able to overthrow Saddam the same way it ousted the Taliban.
"We don't want to compare the two; Iraq is not Afghanistan," Ramadan told reporters in Beirut. "I believe that the U.S. administration is convinced of that."
Iraqi opposition sources said they were planning to meet in September to elect a government backed by the United States.
But Ramadan said: "This talk about the Iraqi opposition is insignificant, something that doesn't merit a reply. It doesn't exist, and has no roots on the ground in Iraq."
On Thursday Vice President Dick Cheney hammered home Washington's case for pre-emptive action against Baghdad, brushing off a groundswell of unease among European allies, Muslim states and broader world public opinion.
President Bush, without directly mentioning Iraq or Saddam, reinforced the message in fund-raising speeches in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
"We owe it to our children, we owe it to our grandchildren to make sure that the world's worst leaders do not develop and deploy the world's worst weapons," Bush said.
But despite the drumbeat sounded by the Bush administration, military and security experts say U.S. plans remain shrouded in uncertainty and a war with Iraq could still be months away.
They said they saw few signs of the kind of buildup required for a ground invasion of Iraq, or even of a consensus on what shape it should take.
U.S. SILENT ON POSSIBLE U.N. RESOLUTION
At the United Nations, talk about a new U.N. Security Council resolution to approve any American military action against Iraq was gaining momentum though discussions around the world were still at an early stage.
Most Security Council diplomats argue that without another resolution, existing measures do not provide a legal basis for a "regime change" -- Bush's euphemism for overthrowing Saddam whom he accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Russia and China oppose military action. France, another veto-bearing council member, has called for a Security Council vote with President Jacques Chirac criticising attempts to legitimise the "unilateral and pre-emptive use of force."
And in Britain, whose position is closest to the United States, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he would consider a report by a parliamentary committee to propose a U.N. deadline to readmit weapons inspectors.
The arms experts left Iraq in December 1998 on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid and have not been allowed to return.
Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack, who led past biological weapons inspections, derided Iraq's efforts this week to disprove any development of chemical or biological weapons by showing facilities to journalists, saying reporters were not weapons experts.
Asked if Iraq had something to hide, she replied: "Apparently it seems (so) because also the new mandate for the new commission was passed by the Security Council in 1999 and they have not admitted the inspectors back."
BLAIR UNDER PRESSURE
A survey in London on Friday showed Britain's Blair faced stiff opposition from the grassroots of his own Labour Party if he backed a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
The Times newspaper found 60 out of 100 Labour constituency leaders "expressed strong opposition" to a war against Saddam. Only five said they would support Blair if he decided to commit British troops to any military action.
In Amman, officials and diplomats said although Jordan might have deep misgivings about a U.S. attack on Iraq, the kingdom which sat on the fence in the 1991 Gulf War would have no choice but to join a U.S.-led campaign.
But Jordan, a pivotal U.S. ally in the Middle East, hoped any military action would be brief because of fears a prolonged war could go dangerously wrong and wreak havoc in a volatile region, they said.
The United States sent a conciliatory message to another key Arab ally, Saudi Arabia. Secretary of State Colin Powell said ties with Riyadh were strong.
But in remarks published in the London-based Ashraq al-Awsat Arabic-language newspaper, Powell cautioned: "There are more things that Saudi Arabia can do and we always explore cooperation aspects with the Saudi leadership."
Saudi Arabia, which played a pivotal role in the Gulf War, has said it will not allow U.S. forces to use its soil to launch an attack on Baghdad.
It's funny how Saddam's media was reporting right after the Gulf War that the superior Iraqi forces beat back the evil American invasion and declared Saddam the winner. The Iraqis have got to know that that is the biggest load of crap ever. If they still have respect for Saddam, they are the biggest bunch of idiots ever. Word around the campfire now says that the people are sick of Saddam and he's only in power because of his military and secret police that round up dissenters and shoot them.
Interesting use of "worst" in nearly opposed fashion. :)
And from a single SCUD deflected from its path into a barracks.
Which won't happen until Hussein gets a clear commitment from Ms. Amanpour as to availability for coverage.
Protocol and all...
My bet is there will be no date of attack. We will just gradually escalate the pulverization of their war machine, inch by inch, starting with their defense systems, moving on to their air force.
They are, though, you know.
"The 16th Infantry Division of the Iraqi army will be bombed tomorrow. Leave this location now and save yourselves."
Time to recycle those leaflets.
They're Iraqis: Saddam's crack urban-warfare squad, or something of that nature.
A suggested revision might be:
All of Iraq will be bombed two days from now. If you want to live, we suggest you leave Iraq now! If this page had been a bomb, you wouldn't be reading this. You will not be celebrating 9/11 any more!
And if that Texan tries any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no Taliban leader! Yeah, I heard that story....
Thank you for the dinner and a very pleasant evening. If your car could take me to the airport; Mr. Bush is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately.
And in Britain, whose position is closest to the United States, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he would consider a report by a parliamentary committee to propose a U.N. deadline to readmit weapons inspectors.
What a disaster it would be to get the U.N. involved. This is the same U.N., recall, led by the same European powers, who "condemned" ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, lectured Milosevic impotently, stood by and did nothing while U.N. encampments were shelled, quaked when U.N. hostages were taken and displayed tauntingly on T.V., quarelled with one another as whose side they should take, and then, after all that, decided the best course would be simply to surrender and withdraw their forces.
Not that Clinton's politically motivated intervention was much better, leaving as it did the fruits of "ethnic cleansing" in place. But what does it say about the Europeans when Clinton seems like Churchill in comparison to them?
But we should opt for more lecturing and a hapless inspectorate in the face of a much more dangerous enemy, Huessein, within easy reach of a large fraction of the world's oil supply?
Kulu qa'idatikum namlikuha
I leave the translation as an exercise for the reader.
Were they too slow in laying their weapons down in surrender?
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.