Posted on 09/19/2002 8:46:50 AM PDT by Heartlander2
Saddam is warned: We'd nuke Baghdad
By TREVOR KAVANAGH
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.”
Sounds good to me. Lets take out the Saudis with neutrons while we're at it.
My question is-would Saddam ultimately gain if we did "nuke" Baghdad? Ofcourse, the rest of the world would be up in arms. And we would be the only country to ever use nuclear weapons-twice. (Not saying I don't think that should be our response-just predicting world opinion)
President Bush turns to Powell and says, "See, Colin! I told you no one would care about killing several million Iraqis!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On the day the deadline was to run out, I started drafting a warning to Saddam. It read:Only conventional weapons will be used in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention and commonly accepted rules of warfare. If you, however, use chemical or biological wapons in violation of treaty obligations we will:
destroy your merchant fleet
destroy your road infrastucture
destroy your port facilities
destroy your highway system
destroy your oil facilities
destroy your airline infrastructureI saved the worst for last, and it was a bluff intended only to strike fear in him, an action that our lawyers would veto. I wrote, we would destroy the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flood Baghdad, with horrendous consequences. I started circulating the message through channels, but time ran out before it could be cleared. Its meaning, however, was not lost on our side. We would fight a conventional war, unless Saddam drove us to other means, which would be swift and crushing.
As far as bombing biological arsenals and the attendant risk of unleashing rather than preventing a catastrophe, I told Sir David Craig, "If it heads south, just blame me."
Just Baghdad? Great, now if Saddam has any designs on using WMD, we now know exactly where he won't be when they're unleashed. We should have at least a few nuke warheads designated for Baghdad and one each for the 10 or so next largest cities in Iraq.
And then what? Iran? Peru? Mexico?
You warmongers seem to think as the World's Last Remaining Superpower we are invincible, indomitable, infallible, and therefore any actions we take for democracy, women's rights or the other liberal buzzwords of the moment are justified, just because.
Making war on other nations is a grave undertaking, pardon the pun. You can expect an aggressor nation to be denounced by the rest of the civilized world at the very minimum, possibly attacked as we attacked Iraq in 1991.
The War on Terrorism cannot be won by alienating people we need to fight in it, or by striking out against targets who we "think" may pose a threat some time in the future.
But that thinking seems to fit pretty well with current policy, doesn't it? Get them before they get us?
Prepare to hunker down.
Perhaps we should call it Mesopotamia National Park.
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.
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.