Skip to comments.
Chemical arms moved to Republican Guard, Iraqi POWs say
NYT via Star Tribune ^
| Mar 28, 2003
| Bernard Weinraub
Posted on 03/27/2003 10:39:52 PM PST by Diddley
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:38:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
"Saddam Hussein has moved chemical weapons to the Medina Division."
Monitoring the movement of chemical weapons was difficult because Saddam often hides chemical pellets inside bunkers that carry conventional armaments.
American forces might receive an early warning if satellite photos picked up Iraqi units wearing protective gear.
1
posted on
03/27/2003 10:39:52 PM PST
by
Diddley
To: Diddley
This might be what Rick Leveanthal of FOX was talking about??
2
posted on
03/27/2003 10:40:59 PM PST
by
bonfire
To: bonfire
Whoa. This is getting really scary now.
No wonder Hans Blix decided to resign.
God protect our troops!
3
posted on
03/27/2003 10:43:10 PM PST
by
Wphile
(The debate is over. Let's roll!)
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: Diddley
officers said Saddam might be calculating that the step would actually turn to his advantage and stunt the American assault How much time between when the first chem bomb hits and when we send a nuke cruise missile to where it originated.
To: Wphile
Carpet bomb the entire Medina infested region, then bomb them again following assessment of damage, then drive to Baghdad as the bombs fall on the Hammurabi Division.
6
posted on
03/27/2003 10:46:17 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
To: Diddley
If somehow an operation could get proof of WMDs, Sadaam would crumble. If anyone really has a current location for WMDs, they should make use of that intell.
To: Diddley
Well, if they use them. Let's nuke the Medina division .. and then then Medina city as a warning to the rest of the Arabs.
8
posted on
03/27/2003 10:53:27 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: Dialup Llama
Would there perhaps be some way we could "sniff" the stuff out, knowing its general nature and general location. Such as with chemical detectors or dogs.
To: Diddley
Oh COME ON! Nuke the son of a bitch. Who cares about world opinion. They use WMD we have the right to use nukes. Let's finish this.
10
posted on
03/27/2003 10:55:25 PM PST
by
mercy
To: bonfire
This might be what Rick Leveanthal of FOX was talking about??I think it's related but not the same.
11
posted on
03/27/2003 10:56:22 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(...and Freedom tastes of Reality.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
They should use napalm. It burns that stuff up and won't have such a lasting effect. In fact, I think the fires around Baghdad are intended to act as a filter and burn up whatever slime clouds wander towards the city.
12
posted on
03/27/2003 11:00:29 PM PST
by
spunkets
To: Diddley
Bush should make it clear that any Chemical Attack and from this point on we dip all bullets in pig's blood and no Iraq soldiers is going to Paradise.
They don't fear nukes like they fear pork.
13
posted on
03/27/2003 11:00:45 PM PST
by
Swiss
To: Wphile
Military officials said that, in the event of a chemical attack, American forces might receive an early warning if satellite photos picked up Iraqi units wearing protective gear against chemicals at a weapons site. Could this be the reason he keeps lighting the oil pits around Bagdad?
14
posted on
03/27/2003 11:01:04 PM PST
by
Mo1
To: All
Ummmmmm
I think since we are within probably 30 miles of the Republican Guard, a nuke would probably affect us as well.
I think a few MOABS would do just fine on all that artillery.
15
posted on
03/27/2003 11:01:45 PM PST
by
bart99
To: Mo1
Could be. The whole scenario scares the living daylights out of me.
I'm going to bed.
16
posted on
03/27/2003 11:02:26 PM PST
by
Wphile
(The debate is over. Let's roll!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
15 mins
17
posted on
03/27/2003 11:02:46 PM PST
by
dila813
To: Diddley
Maybe this is a stupid question, but if we bombarded the arsenals where chemical weapons are stored, wouldn't this cause the chemical agents to escape, killing iraqi troops in the area?
18
posted on
03/27/2003 11:03:45 PM PST
by
fhayek
To: Centurion2000
No, lets Nuke France, after all, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be in this position.
19
posted on
03/27/2003 11:04:11 PM PST
by
dila813
To: bart99
Agreed... MOAB would be perfect. Let's toss one and see what happens with the new toy. We're on the edge here. We've GOT to be proactive and kill these pigs first!
20
posted on
03/27/2003 11:05:02 PM PST
by
thermodynamics
(Huge Fan of Ivan! Long live the Great Tony Blair)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson