Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq - Scotsman says Saddam has weapons to wipe out world's population, nuclear bomb within 3 years
The Scotsman ^ | September 7, 2002 | Fraser Nelson and Alison Hardie

Posted on 09/06/2002 6:52:30 PM PDT by HAL9000

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: HAL9000
When Russia, China and France are against something, then you better be for it. China is our enemy, Russia can't be trusted (though they have so many internal problems they are weak now) and France hates America, though they are so wimpy they won't get involved in anything. The point is, when these three agree on something, which is all the time, then do the opposite.
51 posted on 09/06/2002 10:17:13 PM PDT by Contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Nah. Bin Laden is dog food at the bottom of a mine shaft.
52 posted on 09/06/2002 10:20:57 PM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
In the US, former president Bill Clinton led fresh demands for any action to topple Saddam to be delayed until Osama bin Laden is caught.

Hey Xlinton, OBL is caught......under a gazillion tonnes of rock
53 posted on 09/06/2002 10:32:57 PM PDT by gorebegone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
Don't you mean Scott al-Ritar?

Judas goat camel humper.

54 posted on 09/06/2002 10:46:54 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gorebegone
In the US, former president Bill Clinton led fresh demands for any action to topple Saddam to be delayed until Osama bin Laden is caught.

Clintons statement has nothing do with actually capturing OBL. His intent is purely political. If President Bush goes at Iraq, defeats Saddam and liberates the people of Iraq the political windfall will be unbeatable at the polls in 04.

The ex-liar in chief is only interested in how his henchmen & Hitlary can take over the White House to use as an Rico Act gone wild for personal profit.

55 posted on 09/06/2002 11:10:58 PM PDT by highpockets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
former president Bill Clinton led fresh demands for any action to topple Saddam to be delayed until Osama bin Laden is caught

OH, PULEEEEZE, you scum bag, you are the one who let Binny go!!! I just can't stomach reading any more about billary & hill!!!

56 posted on 09/06/2002 11:23:44 PM PDT by blondee123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I can't decide whether I want Saddam in prison, or dead.

Dead is the only choice. Put him in prison and he'll run his operation from there. A thief may be rehabilitated. A criminally insane dictator cannot.

57 posted on 09/07/2002 2:21:15 AM PDT by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Thanks for the post--that was a lot of formatting.

It seems they missed a couple of things--probably because it would screw up the official position that there is no link to Hussein and the anthrax.

From reply 366 by Wallaby here in article titled DEFECTOR CLAIMS IRAQ-BIN LADEN TIES

A high-ranking defector who served for 16 years in an Iraqi intelligence agency said on 2 November that the Baghdad regime has controlled and funded Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network since 1998. He was briefing members of the Iraq National Congress (INC) in London, according to Melbourne's "The Sunday Herald Sun" on 4 November. He claimed that the funding for Al-Qaeda came from illegal oil exports channeled through Dubai in the Persian Gulf. An INC activist said "he has first-hand information about the link between Saddam and bin Laden because he also worked as a money-launderer and sanctions- buster for the Iraqi leader." The defector's name was withheld for the sake of his personal security, but London-based sources say he has been living "in one of the Scandinavian countries." An INC activist continued to say "this is the third time a reliable Iraqi informant has come forward with disclosures about how Iraq has been in control of Al-Qaeda for the last three years." AFP reported on 3 November that "La Reppublica" of Italy had also reported on the defector's testimony before the INC. Here, the former officer is identified as "A.S." Among his claims is that Iraq had sent a ton of anthrax to bin Laden. He also said that members of bin Laden's terror network have been trained in Salman Pak in Iraq. (David Nissman)

They also missed this article at Newsmax: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/16/160324.shtml. Excerpt:

Reports that Osama bin Laden was able to buy anthrax from a factory in the Czech Republic add further legitimacy to suspicions of a foreign bioterror tie. Iraq's intelligence service is in charge of Iraq's anthrax program.

If Hussein paid for/authorized the shipment to bin Laden, both reports could be true.

I also suspect that he could be much further along in his nuclear program than we are led to believe. If Hussein has been controlling bin Laden and the reports of the former Pakistani head of their nuclear program being a radical who visited al-Qaeda frequently are true, then it's entirely possible that a man who felt betrayed by Musharraf siding with the West would have given Hussein the keys he needs.

58 posted on 09/07/2002 3:23:31 AM PDT by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

59 posted on 09/07/2002 4:01:58 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
Really?

You've heard of those modern marvels called container ships and oil tankers haven't you?

Delivered directly to any port USA…

I really hate it when people make such ignorant claims.
60 posted on 09/07/2002 6:01:28 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
The world stage is set for a global, total war. As OBL has told us, for infidels there is no difference between soldiers and civilians; the fatwa proclaims "Death to America." Your children and mine. Islamic networks, of the religion of peace, the Trojan Horse, are now well established in every city of the world.

Socialists' dithering and politicized obstructions subvert the USA's defensive prosecution of this declared war on America. Just which American cities are the Democrats, our allies, and UN willing to sacrifice to terror?

Iraq is just one of many failed societies craving to get even. Many world leaders consider their own populations but convenient human shields. This war will likely lead to nations' destructions, theirs or ours, or both.

We know what to do, but have we the will to win this brutal war?
61 posted on 09/07/2002 6:02:00 AM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
I do not believe you are correct.

I do not believe we can detect a nuke from any significant distance when reasonably shielded.

For example if one is placed at the bottom of a filled oil tanker I seriously doubt we would have much luck at all detecting it.

That is prior to detonation…
62 posted on 09/07/2002 6:08:19 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
He hasn't moved yet because he has an organized PLAN, not just a single strike...........

which will probably be in concert with others.........

63 posted on 09/07/2002 6:09:31 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk
The beauty is Daschle has gone on record saying the "evidence" presented to him doesn't convince him. When that evidence goes public and the public IS convinced by it, what is poor Daschle going to say???

Daschle has cornered himself with his own mouth. I have to believe there is going to be a price paid by him and crew, especially just prior to a national election.
64 posted on 09/07/2002 6:15:19 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Husker24
Read 64.
65 posted on 09/07/2002 6:17:54 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Scott Ritter is a traitor. He is now spouting off how Iraq is more than ten years away from development of WMD. Why won't the media play his former statements juxtaposed with his current statements re: Iraq? Remember the famous "above your pay grade" remark of Gephart? Or was is Dasshole? One of those socialists.
66 posted on 09/07/2002 6:29:42 AM PDT by Skeptical constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Scott Ritter is a traitor. He is now spouting off how Iraq is more than ten years away from development of WMD. Why won't the media play his former statements juxtaposed with his current statements re: Iraq? Remember the famous "above your pay grade" remark of Gephart? Or was is Dasshole? One of those socialists.


67 posted on 09/07/2002 6:36:02 AM PDT by Skeptical constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eowyn-of-Rohan
:-) Except that it's really "Bomb Iran."
68 posted on 09/07/2002 7:27:27 AM PDT by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Skeptical constituent
I think Scott Ritter has been duped. Maybe he really doesn't want war, feels sorry for the minions under Saddam...*sigh* but if so he's going about it the wrong way. They need to be liberated and given hope, and yes, some will die in the process.
69 posted on 09/07/2002 7:29:11 AM PDT by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DB
You may be right. Fortunately, the lousy persian golf oil tanker smugglers don't come to our shores. The big tankers are run by the oil companies and they have sufficient security to prevent someone from sequesting a nuke. Not easy at all to do that. Would require quite a bit to get one on board undetected, I think; and require replacement of the crew with suicidal fanatics who would have to successfully sail the ship for several days to get it to our shores. Pretty risky for them.
70 posted on 09/07/2002 7:31:17 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Bttt.

5.56mm

71 posted on 09/07/2002 7:36:54 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
You mean like taking control of a plane in flight and successfully flying it to its target?

Taking over an oil tanker at sea wouldn't be hard for those trained to do it. Like the plane, they don't have to "land" it, just get it near the target.

And how do you stop a loaded oil tanker going into San Francisco bay for example? Sinking it in the bay not knowing what a real threat it really is would be a disaster into itself as well.

And lastly, before the ship goes down, the bomb goes off, wherever it is.
72 posted on 09/07/2002 7:45:21 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DB
Taking over an oil tanker at sea wouldn't be hard for those trained to do it. Like the plane, they don't have to "land" it, just get it near the target. And how do you stop a loaded oil tanker going into San Francisco bay for example? Sinking it in the bay not knowing what a real threat it really is would be a disaster into itself as well.
Au contraire. I have extensive knowledge of ships - spent 6 years in the US Navy.
"Taking over" the oil tanker at sea requires that (a) they find it, (b) they capture it, (c) they hoist a very heavy nuke on board.
Capturing it in the Persian Gulf while it is loading oil is the easiest - easy to find, easier to get aboard, easier to get the nuke on board. Ability to make the the corporation running it and the US Navy to think everything is okay while they do this and then run it all the way over here - NO WAY!
Okay, so they capture it on the high sea's, preferably only maybe 24 hours before it is scheduled to come into port (e.g. reach target from their perspective.)
Pretty hard. Its actually pretty hard to find any ship out in the ocean without satellite surveillance or a major Navy to be the eyes. Even if they have a couple of crewmen on board (and they would) they are likely to be "deck apes" or cooks. They might be able to get the position information and radio it - but the ship is moving. Takes time to match course and speed. And the closer they get, the oil tanker will see them. The control room sits pretty high up. Then, the capture. The sides of those oil tankers are like cliffs. Very difficult to try to run some Zodiacs along side and then climb those steel cliffs. Then they have to capture the control room and the radio room. You think the security measures for the oil tankers haven't thought of all the scenarios? You think they don't have a coded messages and means to yell "Help Help"? They do. Etcetera.

Like I said - not easy at all. Reaction time to the airliner highjacking was short - and they had the advantage that the US was not thinking it would happen. Reaction time to respond to a hijacked oil tanker is very long - plenty of time to respond. And that is a scenario that the military has trained for.

73 posted on 09/07/2002 8:00:26 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
If you have inside people the call for help is gone.

One satellite phone, one GPS and a couple armed crewmembers and the deed is done.

Once the ship's radio is out, armed crewmembers could hold the ship until their comrades arrive. It isn't like they want hostages they simply kill the others. Helicopter is the easiest way to board it. It doesn't matter if they can see it coming if you can't call for help or you're already dead.

You assume these people aren't willing to take years to train and gain the positions necessary to do the deed. I think that is a very dangerous assumption.
74 posted on 09/07/2002 8:26:52 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Brett66
It would not be hard to smuggle them into a large city.
That is a nightmare scenario.
However, it is highly dangerous to the person[s] attempting it.

Why do you think that means that it wouldn’t be done? I understand your reasoning but it is far too civilized.

It depends on how you do it and whom you use to do it. You seem to assume that they will be using the traditional method used by people who plan on coming home after the war. They won't. Instead they will find suicidal volunteers to fly planes loaded with gas, bugs or bombs to several targets. If only four or five hit we are talking about potentially millions of lives.

If volunteers are not forthcoming then you just grab a few pilots’ families. After they watch you cut off a couple of ears they will fly the planes.

a.cricket

75 posted on 09/07/2002 8:43:56 AM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Fortunately, the lousy persian golf oil tanker smugglers don't come to our shores. The big tankers are run by the oil companies and they have sufficient security to prevent someone from sequesting a nuke. Not easy at all to do that. Would require quite a bit to get one on board undetected, I think; and require replacement of the crew with suicidal fanatics who would have to successfully sail the ship for several days to get it to our shores. Pretty risky for them.

Any such nuke would not come here on an oil tanker. It would come here in a sealed container on a container ship along with cheap Asian-manufactured junk on it's way to your local WalMart.

Any one of these containers (maybe that green one, far aft, starboard side on the Mexican Line ship) could have gone from Iraq to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia to Mexico to San Francisco without ever once being opened and inspected.


76 posted on 09/07/2002 10:30:04 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Skeptical constituent
It is strange, indeed, what has become of Ritter. Weird.
77 posted on 09/07/2002 10:30:09 AM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DB
Yep. Sounds easy. But. I say again. The corporations that run the tankers pay big bucks to security consultants, who employ and are owned by ex-CIA, ex-DIA, ex-FBI, ex-spec ops, ex-cops, etc. Those consultants come up with all the ideas - just like the way you proposed but in more detail. Then they come up with counters. Counter-counters. Etc.
So - it is not so easy as you think.
78 posted on 09/07/2002 10:41:13 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Yes - that is a bigger problem. It is a far more likely scenario than trying to get a nuke on an oil tanker.
And I don't think it would be easy to stop if the cargo container was down in the hold, below the water line, with shielding containers stacked around it.
Might be possible.
79 posted on 09/07/2002 10:44:09 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Here is the problem Saddam faces. Ever since Mogadishu the prevailing view throughout the world is that the United States can be made to backdown if you inflict casualties on them. The Arab world is now convinced that if a bunch of ragtag Somalians could change American foreign policy by killing less than 20 American soldiers then imagine the possibilities if weapons of mass destruction were in Arab hands. America could be blackmailed into doing nothing whenever the Arab world so desired.

Good plan, bad timing. Clinton ain't in the White House anymore. If the current George Bush was in the White House on Sunday, Oct. 3, 1993 Mogadishu, Somalia would have ceased to exist on or about Oct. 4, 1993. I don't think Saddam understands that George Bush, not Tom Daschle and company and the media, will decide what the United States is going to do in a very short period of time.

80 posted on 09/07/2002 11:20:43 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skeptical constituent
I think that was Biden.
81 posted on 09/07/2002 1:52:46 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
it is highly dangerous to the person[s] attempting it.

I am not referring to those dedicated and brainless servants of Satan who do the actual transporting and detonation of such devices.

I am referring to the power behind the attempt. Goldfinger, Dr. No, Saddam, whoever. He would have a lot of company, uninvited guests, very hungry and annoyed, and very quickly and soon.

I am saying it can't be done in a general attack. It will be discovered and it will fail. It can be done on a small scale, but all that would do is in effect poke a hornet's nest. No sane madman would bother with such a scheme.

82 posted on 09/07/2002 2:05:36 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DB
I really hate it when people make such ignorant claims.

Go easy.

Our ports has been monitored for this very likelyhood for some time now.

83 posted on 09/07/2002 4:07:38 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
No sane madman would bother with such a scheme.

Unless he was dying anyway. Why not go out having made sure that the world will never forget you? As for the ones you leave behind, what do you care?

I have often wondered if 9/11 would have happened when it did if Bin Ladin hadn't known that he was living on borrowed time.

a.cricket

84 posted on 09/07/2002 5:13:42 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
if Bin Ladin hadn't known that he was living on borrowed time

He knew that, no doubt about it. Too bad he went to the wrong Sufi school, he could'a been a contenda.

85 posted on 09/07/2002 5:24:53 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
After one spends billions for more than a decade on making the "bomb" the relative difficulties of delivering it are small.
86 posted on 09/07/2002 5:34:00 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
dead works for me...But, preferably when Scott Ritter is addressing the Iraqi Parliment.
87 posted on 09/07/2002 5:37:06 PM PDT by hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Yes SOME of our ports are monitored. It is actually a small percentage. But even then the ability to monitor is very limited. These monitors have to be close to the ship and the ship is basically in port by the time it is checked.

It is way too late then.

This "monitoring" doesn't detect chemical and biological weapons. On the West coast the prevailing winds are inland.
88 posted on 09/07/2002 5:42:19 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
By then there will be another piece missing, Saddam Hussein will have left the planet.

Probably on Farrakhans's Mother Ship

89 posted on 09/07/2002 9:13:54 PM PDT by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: Brett66
Does Grand Central Station still have luggage lockers?
91 posted on 09/08/2002 9:57:11 AM PDT by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000; dodger
Seriously, there should be laws against this kind of liberal internationalist Iraqi bogeyman scare propaganda. This kind of delusional hype war propaganda coming out of the White House and #10 Downing Street is beginning to take on Orwellian proportions.
92 posted on 09/08/2002 2:10:24 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000; Askel5; DoughtyOne; HalfIrish; Scholastic; belmont_mark; Miss Marple; Jack-A-Roe
3750 TOW anti-tank missiles. Gee, I wonder who could have given him those? Let's see could it have been President Reagan? Yes it was and what's more Reagan had it right! It was more important to US national security to arm secularly led Iraq to fight a war against the Islamicist Ayatollah's of terrorist Iran. Such a wiser Reaganite policy would make a lot more sense in countering the greatest national security threats to the US if employed by Bush than the President's current militarily bone-headed policy of invading puny non-threat Iraq while promising Iran that the US will not attack them leaving Iran and Al Queda to pick up the pieces once Saddam is gone and Iraq has been Balkanized.
93 posted on 09/08/2002 2:18:04 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
Seriously, there should be laws against this kind of liberal internationalist Iraqi bogeyman scare propaganda. This kind of delusional hype war propaganda coming out of the White House and #10 Downing Street is beginning to take on Orwellian proportions.

You buds with Scottie Ritter?

94 posted on 09/08/2002 2:33:25 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2; HAL9000; sinkspur
Yes, Reagan had it right ... nigh on twenty years ago.

Meanwhile, we've had a war with Iraq, they defied the terms of truce without response form the wimpy West (while Billy Jeff was more interested in f*llati* that foreign policy) and have since colluded with Al-Queda. Moreover, you quite wrongly presume there is nothing being done or in the works for Iran (or much of the Middle East, for that matter.

As for the 'Balkanization' of Iraq ... that is a laugher. I understand it's boundaries were actually drawn arbitrarily and with a ruler in the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Iraq is an unecessary construct of the post-Colonial era ... all the better it be carved up.

More to my original point, how's about that Iraq apolgist, Ritter?

95 posted on 09/08/2002 3:01:56 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: dodger; sinkspur
Your analysis/rebuttal here is badly skewed. You do nothing to address the Balkanization of Iraq issue and the threat of an Iranian takeover of one or more of the three component parts of Iraq. Nor do you address the Bush pledge not to attack the 9-11 supporting Ayatollahs of Iran thus giving 9-11 terrorists fleeing Afghanistan a nice big sanctuary to rest, train, and re-arm for the next Iranian supported 9-11 operation. As for Ritter, he's spot on with Generals Schwartzkopf, Scowcroft, Hoar and others including former President George HW Bush and his entire War Cabinet except Cheney in regards to his belief that it would be militarily stupid to invade non-threat fourth rate military power Iraq and spark a new backlash which will radicalize virtually the entire Middle East against the US and wholly eliminate our ability to continue the war on terror. It will also lead to Iran becoming the regional nuclear hegemon of the entire Gulf region including Iraq.
96 posted on 09/08/2002 3:14:21 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
Nor do you address the Bush pledge not to attack the 9-11 supporting Ayatollahs of Iran thus giving 9-11 terrorists fleeing Afghanistan a nice big sanctuary to rest, train, and re-arm for the next Iranian supported 9-11 operation.

There's no pledge, there's only "you're either with us, or with the terrorists."

it would be militarily stupid to invade non-threat fourth rate military power Iraq and spark a new backlash which will radicalize virtually the entire Middle East against the US and wholly eliminate our ability to continue the war on terror.

There's that phony "Arab street" nonsense again. The only thing the "Arab street" understands is cowardice or violence. We're going to take down Hussein and scare the hell out of Assad, and Sultan, and Mubarak, and the Mullahs of Iran. They'll KNOW they could be next.

It will also lead to Iran becoming the regional nuclear hegemon of the entire Gulf region including Iraq.

You need to read the news more closely. The Mullahs' power is crumbling internally. The moderate Khatami will, within five years, consolidate power in Iran, and bring the country back into the 20th century. There are too many Western-educated Iranian young people who are sick and tired of wearing burquas and having their satellite dishes confiscated.

Nobody gives a damn about Iraq, and the Arab states will bid good riddance to Hussein when he's carried out horizontally.

97 posted on 09/08/2002 3:30:59 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
In the US, former president Bill Clinton led fresh demands for any action to topple Saddam to be delayed until Osama bin Laden is caught.

Is their any hint of shame or decency in the Sink Emperor's soul? He has the incredible chutzpah to criticize Bush's handling of the affair his own incompetence and stupidity caused?!?

98 posted on 09/08/2002 3:37:23 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2; sinkspur
You say "spot on "?

Well than, do tell, are you a Brit or just a US 'wannabe'?

In any event, I quite directly addressed -- indeed, dispensed with -- your balkanization (so-called) of the fairy-dust state of Iraq.

Likewise, I quite directly addressed -- indeed, dispensed with -- your miscreance as to GWB's likely dealings with the soon-to-be secular state of Iran.

Furthermore, your erroneous histrionics as to the views of GHWB & 'his entire War Cabinet' are laughable. Who among your would-be Pantheon has said anything like '... it would be militarily stupid to invade non-threat fourth rate military power Iraq '?

Who, exactly?

So too, your paraphrenia runs a bit wild (or, if your Britishistic verbal proclivities prefer, 'at the end of the day' rather 'over the top') as you ululate about ghosties-ghosties such as 'Iran becoming the regional nuclear hegemon of the entire Gulf region including Iraq '.

Stuff & nonsense, you mad mustachioed purple-hued maltworm!

99 posted on 09/08/2002 7:10:26 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Skeptical constituent
Scott Ritter is a traitor.

Sadly, I must agree, either that or he is insane (or on the take or being extorted ...).

100 posted on 09/08/2002 7:12:45 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson