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.”
I don't profess to believe anything of the kind, either way.
It is not predestined, if that's your implication.
If we took a poll, how many FReepers do you think would agree with the proposition that Saddam Hussein must be taken out even if it meant going to war against Islam?
Remember, our erstwhile ally, Pakistan, is both an Islamic state and a nuclear power, with delivery vehicles.
Terrorist attacks are terrible, no question. The perps of 9/11 and the suicide bombers in Israel and their masters need to be rounded up and shot.
But launching a nuclear war is an order of magnitude more serious, with consequences no one here can imagine. That's why I get particularly irate when posters flippantly suggest turning Baghdad into glass or dropping a neutron bomb on Mecca.
Such talk is not only pre-adolescent and hate-filled, it is downright dangerous. The fact that John Major goes way out on a limb in making threats he can't carry out is lamentable, but when Americans advocate extermination of Islam as if it were vermin, as I've seen too often on these threads, how do you think the rest of the world is going to react? Is it any wonder that Bush gets a cool reception for his plans to effect a "regime change" in Iraq when we have so many loose cannons wanting to continue the war even further?
I want to see real nukes taking out real enemies of the US. That includes kyoto signatories as well. Iraq is small change, in my book, and not worthy of any more than a fraction of our current arsenal.
Our best course is to learn from the past, and the record for previous empires is not exactly stellar. Maybe we'll be an exception.
(See post #62 for an example of what I just warned about above.)
give me a break. since when is john major now an expert on our present day military strategy? Not that i have any problem with nuking Bagdad, but I'll believe it when it comes from Rummy or W.
Dead Sea East
?
My apologies for missing your post earlier.
In answer to your news flash, "we" have also attacked the following countries over the past several years:
Afghanistan was targeted for regime change owing to the Taliban being kissing cousins to bin Laden and Al Qeda, not because we had any proof of the Afghan government, such as it was, being involved in the attacks of 9/11. As far as harboring terrorists, Syria and Iran would rank farther up the list, wouldn't you say, than Iraq?
Are we willing to press our luck with an all-out attack on Iraq, possibly escalating to the rest of the Arab world, possibly going nuclear, on the basis of such flimsy evidence as has been presented to date that Saddam Hussein aspires to build weapons of mass destruction, etc.?
Well, it's that way now. Who cares. It's lonely at the top.
It certainly beats the alternative, no?
The arab world already hates us over our support for Israel. We are unwilling to stand by and watch Israel die.
The rest of the pissant world has not supported us since 1945. We have already used nukes twice in battle.
We have absolutely nothing to lose and our national security to gain.
As for requesting a bloddy head be brought to us, isn't that a little olde worldish?
But does any country really leave us alone, not providing any influence on us in anyway?
These United States are NOT papa to the world and we have no business trying.
My point is that people behave best when they are compelled to do so. There is nothing wrong with disciplining a child, a classroom, a company or a foreign country that steps out of bounds. In fact, the lack of discipline has boosted many of our current world problems.
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.