Posted on 09/19/2002 1:38:31 AM PDT by Dallas
AMERICA will NUKE Baghdad if Saddam Hussein dares unleash weapons of mass destruction, it emerged last night.
The chilling warning to Iraq was revealed by former Tory Premier John Major, who led Britain in the 1991 Gulf War.
During that conflict, allied forces were armed with “battlefield” nuclear weapons and prepared to use them in a counter attack, he said.
Saddam was privately warned his capital would be obliterated if he used weapons of mass destruction against allied troops or Middle East targets — including Israel.
And senior security sources last night confirmed Saddam has been warned AGAIN of the consequences if he breaks the ban on using terror weapons.
Mr Major wrote of the Gulf War: “In private, Saddam Hussein received an unmistakable warning about the immediate and catastrophic consequences for Iraq of any such attack on civilians.
“I knew that if he did use these diabolical weapons we would have to escalate our response to bring the war to a speedy and conclusive end before too many of our troops were exposed to them.”
Mr Major yesterday supported renewed action but raised questions about the way a cornered Saddam might lash out.
He said: “On this occasion we will specifically be going to war in order to replace the Iraqi regime. Saddam will be gone.
“He will be dead, he will be in prison, or he will be in exile. Would he try to create maximum chaos? Would he seek to use weapons of mass destruction?
“Would he use them on oil fields in the Middle East to create economic chaos? Would he pass them to terrorist groups, would he — perhaps the worst nightmare of all — try to use them on an adjacent capital?
“We can largely protect against that, do not press me on how, we can protect against that.”
Saddam targeted Jerusalem with 39 Scud missiles in 1991 — killing two and injuring hundreds — in an attempt to drag Israel into the fighting.
He had chemical and biological warheads too but chose not to use them in the face of America’s warning.
Yesterday Israeli forces moved Patriot missile launchers — which take out incoming rockets — into position in case Saddam targets them again.
Pressure was building on Iraq as a British ex-UN official warned that sending in weapons inspectors is a “no-win” move because Saddam would hide his arsenal.
Tim Trevan, an expert on biological weapons, said: “I don’t think sending in weapons inspectors is a good idea, but it may be a necessary thing to do because of the political situation.
“We know he had anthrax and botulinum toxin and we know he had nerve gases.
“We never found all his equipment and he’s had four years to build new production facilities underground. The job of finding them would be nigh on impossible.”
That's 1 or 2 KT battlefield nuke.
At any rate, even if we assumed that he had a few pounds of biological/nuclear agents in some lab, and we bombed this lab, what do you think the results will be. I imagine the harmful material that was not released in the environment by Saddam, would be released by the US bombing. This material can pollute the air, and harm not only innocent Iraqi civilians, but also all neighboring countries including Israel.
I guess at this point, we should take advantage of the pressure that our President put on Saddam, and the opportunity to get the inspectors back in to continue the process of disarmament. Only through peaceful disarmament that we can safely destroy harmful materials. Bombing harmful materials transfer them from POTENTIALLY HARMFULL MATERIALS TO ACTUALLY DEADLY MATERIALS!!! Yes, our media is whipping us into frenzy to fight this evil guy, and yes we are not going to get exposed to these harmful materials because we are far away from theater of war. However, we should consider the harms and the permanent damage that may result from our attack. I am not a peacenick pinco commie, I am a thinking right wing republican that is more aware of the greater danger of Islamic fanatics around the world. We can deal with dictators after we are finished with the global Islamic terrorism challenge.
Why wait? NUKE MECCA NOW.
I agree. We can accomplish all our goals with minimum casulties with out it. (Now Saddam, when he realises it's over, may unleash one in an attempt to make it look like we did it.)
In this case it's the same thing. Saddam is an islamic leading a nation of islamics supporting a terror network of islamics.
After iraq on to iran, kill the beast one bite at a time until islam is only practiced in hell (where it reightfully belongs)
God Save America (Please)
The Last Crusader, I see.
Or a South Korean.
Can't do that. Iraq is the deadlier enemy. It must be handled first.
Also, with the fall of Saddam in iraq, the population in Iran will be even more in our favor. We might get an internal revolution throwing out the islaminazis and returning to a more western Shah-like regime. The iranians hate Saddam as much as we do (more probably) so the attack on iraq will be seen as a good thing by the general populace
GSA(P)
If the crusaders had done the job right and stomped out islam back then the world would be a much much better place now. Unfortunately they didn't and now we come to the conflict of islam vs civilization.
The war will last until islam is only practiced in hell. Better get used to it.
GSA(P)
A word to the wise...
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.