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

Skip to comments.

**US MAY USE TATICAL NUKES IN IRAQ**
LA Times and Times of India ^ | January 25, 2003 | William Arkin

Posted on 01/25/2003 6:43:36 AM PST by ewing

The United States is quietly preparing for the use of tatical nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq and military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets, the media reported Saturday.

The preparations include possible use of so called 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday morning quoting William M. Arkin.

Defence officials have been focusing their plans on the use of tatical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, the daily said.

US Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, using nuclear arms may be the only way to destory deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons, the report said.

Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation of effect of such strikes would be limited.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: boom; bunkerbusters; iraq; mindgames; newweapons; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: ewing
It certainly makes sense to vaporize those Chem/Bio WMD before they are used against us. This would save lives in the long run.
51 posted on 01/25/2003 8:07:39 AM PST by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Why would he pee in his pants? The possibility of our use of nukes is just about zero. Hell, the administration is about to cave on extending the inspections. So far, Saddam's winning and we look impotent.
52 posted on 01/25/2003 8:09:44 AM PST by clintonh8r (It's better to be feared than to be respected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
So, tactical nukes are the only response.

One kiloton per presidential palace, in deep penetration mode should be about right.

53 posted on 01/25/2003 8:11:51 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Nukes are a big stick that we should use on the turd world pissants out there.

The use of TACTICAL nukes won't make the use of STRATEGIC nukes, by our militarily near-equal geo-political rivals one whit more likely.

But they'll quickly dot the eyes of the ankle-biting vermin we must deal with.

Nukes are just tools.

We just need to remember to operate them with all guards securely in place while wearing our safety glasses...

54 posted on 01/25/2003 8:12:22 AM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Interesting in light of this coming out of california too: Schools to Hold Anti-War Teach-In - Berkeley BOE passes resolution, MEGA BARF IDIOTS ALERT!
55 posted on 01/25/2003 8:45:34 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
NO, I clearly think this is a strategic move by the United States. If it is the only way to destroy deeply buried bunkers that may house Saddam and some of his weapons, I say load them up and prepare them for delivery.
56 posted on 01/25/2003 8:56:55 AM PST by rs79bm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Join the AXIS OF FREEDOM Rally on TUESDAY – it’s a CAR/HOUSE/YARD sign Rally

DAY of SUPPORT…Tues, 1/28/03....FLY your flags (U.S., British, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Spanish, Quatar, Kuwaiti, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.


57 posted on 01/25/2003 9:17:44 AM PST by goodnesswins ("You're either with us, or against us!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If Iraq hits Israel with chemical or germ weapons, who doubts that Israel will make Iraq glow in the dark?

Interesting question. I think this is what going after Iraq is all about. The US believes that Saddam will attack Israel sooner or later with his WMDs. Israel would retaliate with deadly force. Other Arab countries would join in the fracas and the whole thing would turn into a bloody, regional war in a place from which the world gets a great deal of its oil from. This of course will have far reaching effects in terms of world economic stability, much worse than WTC. Say what you want about blood for oil, but people will suffer without the oil. This is exactly what the militant muslims would like to see happen and this is what Bush is trying to prevent. The stonewalling by the UN,Germany, France has been a big side show and has distracted from and obscured the real purpose of getting rid of Saddam. Why they are stonewalling is kind of mystery to me. All I can figure is that they are guilty of complicity with Saddam or this is part of some big international face-saving ruse they are putting up.

58 posted on 01/25/2003 9:32:43 AM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I believe that Saddam was hinting at the fact that he would blow up his own underground facilities when he made the threat that the US military would find themselves in pits in the ground if they tried to attack Iraq.
59 posted on 01/25/2003 9:34:36 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
[I]Sure, that wouldn’t pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic. Tens of millions of radioactive civies wouldn’t send the rest of the world scrambling to the UN’s world government vision for protection.[/I]

I happen to agree. Nukes simply aren't necessary in this situation. Our boys have the equipment to stroll right through whatever cloud of chemicals Saddam might be able to waft their way. And if he hides in a bunker, we can certainly wait him out--six months, a year, who cares? Heck, just seal it up with another 6 ft. layer of concrete. :)

Pre-emptive nuke strikes would do more harm than good.
60 posted on 01/25/2003 9:50:33 AM PST by pickemuphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere
Gosh darn HTML. Why didn't that work?
61 posted on 01/25/2003 9:51:34 AM PST by pickemuphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Vanishes

NewsMax's correspondent at the United Nations, Stewart Stogel, says Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri is missing.

Aldouri decided to take an "overdue" home leave during the week of Dec. 15.

He told NewsMax it would be the first time to return home and visit relatives in more than a year. The ambassador said he would return to New York and his U.N. post on Jan. 15.

He hasn't.

Inquiries to the Iraqi mission have resulted in "moving dates" as to just when Aldouri will return.

At the beginning of this past week, a senior Iraq diplomat explained the ambassador would return "by Wednesday." On Thursday, another Iraqi diplomat said it could be any time "between now and Monday." He could offer no explanation to account for the delay.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA must submit their latest update on Iraqi cooperation and inspections analysis to the Security Council on Monday.

Aldouri was last seen in public in Baghdad about two weeks ago. He was present at a factory site being inspected by UNMOVIC. The U.N. froze the site for several hours.

Aldouri voluntarily elected to remain at the site while the inspections were in progress. Afterward, he complained about the "conduct" of the inspections and the inspectors. Since then, he has not been heard from.

In his absence, Iraq's deputy U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Salman Ali has assumed Aldouri's duties.

As previously reported in NewsMax, Ali is regarded in U.N. diplomatic circles as the New York station chief for Iraq's intelligence service.

A little over a year ago, Iraq's No. 2 and No. 3 diplomats defected to the U.S. just as their tours of duty at the U.N. had ended.

In 1991, Iraq's ambassador to the United States defected shortly before the start of the Gulf War.

In March 2002, a high-level group of Iraqi officials visiting the U.N. on the possible resumption of arms inspections were approached by the U.S. to defect.

One was Gen. Amir al-Saadi, Saddam's chief scientific and senior military weapons adviser. Another was Saeed Hassan, Iraq's former U.N. ambassador and Aldouri's predecessor. None accepted the U.S. "offer."

However, all of this happened on Aldouri's watch.

Aldouri was also believed to be close to former Iraqi oil minister Gen. Amir Rasheed, who unexpectedly "resigned" last month.

The ambassador's influence at home is regarded by U.N. diplomats as "decreasing."

The fact that Aldouri remains at home while the suspected intelligence chief runs the show in New York (just as UNMOVIC and the IAEA prepare critical reports) has led to speculation among numerous diplomats as to what Baghdad is up to.

62 posted on 01/25/2003 10:02:17 AM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
"More psy ops on Saddam?"

Sort of...but tactical nukes have always been a possibility, given Saddam's and Uday's words, actions and instability.

Remember that Uday 'warned' the US yesterday that a coalition attack will result in Iraq unleashing something that would '9/11 look like a picnic' [close paraphrase without taking time to dig up the actual quote]

This is likely just a subtle, AND TRUTHFUL reiteration of the US position that an Iraqi WMD attack would result in Iraq suffering the "ultimate" consequenses.

The US is wise to flex military muscle to back up it's positions. President Bush took Binny's 'stronger horse' comments to heart.

63 posted on 01/25/2003 10:12:50 AM PST by cake_crumb (Typos are my frends. They follow me wherever I go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere
try <> instead of []
64 posted on 01/25/2003 10:16:04 AM PST by Nexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere
”Gosh darn HTML. Why didn't that work?”

Close, but no cigar, it’s <i>”quoted stuff”</i>, not [i]”quoted stuff”[/i]

65 posted on 01/25/2003 10:16:29 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: metesky
"It's my understanding that "bunker busters" are not nuclear weapons."

I must have missed that part of the article, LOL...but if you think about it, a nuke COULD pretty effectively bust a bunker...or at least seal it in glass so thick whomever's inside had better have a few hundred pears worth of rations and air.

HEY...isn't the first shipment of rabidly freedom hating socialist/fascist/communist/anarchist Western psychopathic human shields supposed to leave for Iraq today?

66 posted on 01/25/2003 10:22:54 AM PST by cake_crumb (Typos are my frends. They follow me wherever I go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: commish
"The LA SLIMES and company are doing their best to try and paint this as some startling and troubling development, when the fact of the matter is that Every campaign is designed with the use of ALL weapons factored in as contingencies."

Dead-On-Target!

Truth is, U.S. Field Commanders (0-6 and above) had nuclear auhtorization clearance in Desert Storm.

Stormin' Normin was never more than fifty feet from "The Button."

buh buh Saddamned!

67 posted on 01/25/2003 10:38:38 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: section9
"This leak was necessary, and all to the good."

Good post, Christoph!

Q: Does Saddam ready his news on WWW.FREEREPUBLIC.COM?

#:>)

68 posted on 01/25/2003 10:43:29 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Would a nuclear reaction render bio and chem agents inert?
69 posted on 01/25/2003 10:45:46 AM PST by copycat (Ridicule Hillary! to someone you know TODAY!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Now, who says there isn't good news in the public press these days? (Big smile)
70 posted on 01/25/2003 10:47:53 AM PST by neutrino (Audaces fortuna juvat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
"HEY...isn't the first shipment of rabidly freedom hating socialist/fascist/communist/anarchist Western psychopathic human shields supposed to leave for Iraq today? "

The Washington Republican Party Response to Patty is HERE

Hi! My Name is "Taliban" Patty Murray
But You Can Just Call Me Traitor!

Listen To My Radio Show "Taliban" Patty - Live From Baghdad!
[strum, strum] "Where have all my neurons gone . . ."

71 posted on 01/25/2003 10:48:05 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: elfman2; TLBSHOW
Sure, that wouldn’t pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic.

Nuke them too if they want act up.

72 posted on 01/25/2003 10:51:13 AM PST by putupon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: copycat
"Would a nuclear reaction render bio and chem agents inert?"

The heat generated from a detonated nuclear weapon would depend on the megatonnage and type of device employed.

Some nukes are designed for high-short term radiation and low-damage so as to kill all local living organisms, but render buildings still able to be occupied.

The rest of the nukes reach temps comparable to the heat on the surface of the sun - killing any chems or bio WMDs.

73 posted on 01/25/2003 10:51:59 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: metesky
"It's my understanding that "bunker busters" are not nuclear weapons."

Go to http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html

74 posted on 01/25/2003 11:01:54 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"The United States is quietly preparing for the use of tatical nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq..."

Sounds good to me!

75 posted on 01/25/2003 11:03:41 AM PST by WatchNKorea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: virgil
" I think this is what going after Iraq is all about. The US believes that Saddam will attack Israel sooner or later with his WMDs.

Israel would retaliate with deadly force. Other Arab countries would join in the fracas and the whole thing would turn into a bloody, regional war in a place from which the world gets a great deal of its oil from.

This of course will have far reaching effects in terms of world economic stability, much worse than WTC. Say what you want about blood for oil, but people will suffer without the oil."

Your insight as to the underlying reason the U.S. has no option other than destroying Saddam's regime is DEAD-ON-TARGET.

And all the while, the ar$ehole, Bill Clinton is going around bashing Bush from the shadows of the DNC platform.

Bill Clinton's Lies and Promises - Did He Cause 9/11/01?

76 posted on 01/25/2003 11:04:04 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: WatchNKorea
And watchsouthAmerica they're closer!
77 posted on 01/25/2003 11:06:46 AM PST by TLBSHOW (Slamming the liberal bias media but GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Of course Iraq has WMD. How else could Saddams son threaten to make 9/11 look like a joke?
I'm glad the U.S. is getting ready like this. The Butcher of Bagdad has more than the extremists liberals could even imagine- and they're planning to stand right in the line of fire! DUH!
78 posted on 01/25/2003 11:08:37 AM PST by concerned about politics (Achievement is politically incorrect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
TommyDale. .

U.S. AIR LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE

WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD

CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER

BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION

RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION

1,500 MILES B VERSION WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION

12 FT. B VERSION

LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION

20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION

DIAMETER - 25 IN. WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION

2,825 POUNDS B VERSION

ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST

GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER

SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION

AGM-86B - rocket assisted bunker "buster"

The Boeing air launched cruise missile (ALCM) uses the same engine and similar guidance systems as the BGM-109 Tomahawk. The USAF originally intended the ALCM as a nuclear strike weapon but has since modified the A model into conventional warhead B models.

The new B models have extended range fuel tanks and larger warhead capacity than the older nuclear A models. The B model is 30% longer and has a 25 degree wing sweep. The B model can be equipped with a variety of conventional and unconventional warheads including non-lethal energy warheads such as High Frequency RF, EMG, or microwave generators designed to knock out enemy electronics.

The variety of warheads has also served to confuse USAF target planners. One 1997 strike of "fragmentary" warhead equipped AGM-86Bs was targeted at an Iraqi hardened bunker. The fragmentary warheads exploded harmlessly outside the bunker, causing no damage. A second strike of a bunker buster 1,000+ pound AGM-86B had to be targeted against the Iraqi bunker to destroy it.

The U.S. used about 90 AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise missiles (ALCM) during Desert Fox. All the USAF launched ALCM cruise missiles were Block 1 types equipped with heavy conventional warheads for bunker busting. The bunker busters are equipped with a rocket assisted booster for added penetration.

The U.S. military is scrambling to replace the highly valuable robot missiles but the Air Force has opted not to purchase new units. Instead, the USAF is upgrading leftover inventories of nuclear B models.

The USAF bought only 200 of the heavy conventional ALCM missiles and has only enough on hand for one more Desert Fox like attack. The firing of 90 for Desert Fox has left the Air Force little choice but to convert 90 more of a remaining 130 formerly nuclear tipped missiles into bunker busters.


79 posted on 01/25/2003 11:17:08 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"[strum, strum] 'Where have all my neurons gone . . .' "

ROFLOL!! "Muslims picked 'em, every one'?

Murray can't provide facts to back up her idiotic statements because there aren't any...unless you consider terrorist indoctrination camps (madrassas) to be 'schools', a couple of packed dirt highways through the desert of Afghanistan so the Taliban could murder, rape and pilliage more easily to be 'infrastructure', and a few triage units inside al Qaeda camps for wounded terrorists to be 'hospitals'.

80 posted on 01/25/2003 11:33:38 AM PST by cake_crumb ('The Taliban only occasionally bombs it's citizens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Cool. Nowhere to run; no hole deep enough to hide in.
81 posted on 01/25/2003 11:37:15 AM PST by cake_crumb (Typos are my frends. They follow me wherever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Close, but no cigar,

Thank you, Freepers!

82 posted on 01/25/2003 11:51:32 AM PST by pickemuphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere
Using Nukes on our enemies would give us all here a great sense of satisfaction...but let's face it, it simply is not going to happen, ever. The media is stupid enough to put a story like this out there for titilation but we should be smarter here.

The U.S. is never going to engage in first use of nuclear weapons. They will only be used in the case that we are first attacked with the same.

The nation that uses nukes in a first strike will be the world's pariah. And any U.S. President that orders it will be politically dead...if not impeached.

83 posted on 01/25/2003 12:08:12 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
liberate not destroy.
84 posted on 01/25/2003 12:32:56 PM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
liberate not destroy.
85 posted on 01/25/2003 12:35:21 PM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Psy Ops courtesy of the liars of the LA Slimes!

They ran this same story before we started the war that we would lose in Afganistan.

The good thing is the terror that this will cause to those still loyal to Uncle Soddomite in Iraq. When they get their run to the border and surrender passes dropped next week, they will be more inclined to drop weapons and run for the border.
86 posted on 01/25/2003 12:39:53 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Stop future Freepathons! Become a monthly donor! Only you can prevent Freepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky
It's my understanding that "bunker busters" are not nuclear weapons.

The B61 Mod 11 is a nuclear bomb intended to penetrate a significant distance into the ground before detonation.

87 posted on 01/25/2003 12:40:08 PM PST by Poohbah (Four thousand throats may be cut in a single night by a running man -- Kahless the Unforgettable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Sure, that wouldn’t pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic.

What, the penguins are tracking al-Qaeda operatives for us?

88 posted on 01/25/2003 12:41:05 PM PST by Poohbah (Four thousand throats may be cut in a single night by a running man -- Kahless the Unforgettable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Except that's a totally ridciulous precendent and would result in world isolation.. unless you want any country with nukes to free to nuke countries that don't have them at will. You would basically start WWIII.
89 posted on 01/25/2003 12:54:30 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Psy ops..exactly...just like the Pentagon's release of information recently confirming that we have thousands more cruise missles than ever before and can fly 2400 sorties a day from our carriers, as opposed to 400 a day in the Gulf War.
90 posted on 01/25/2003 1:02:28 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Whatever it takes...
91 posted on 01/25/2003 1:18:41 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (This space for rent (Not accepting bids from the United Nations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
”What, the penguins are tracking al-Qaeda operatives for us?”

Just a little something extra for ya…

92 posted on 01/25/2003 1:23:41 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Do you think that the civilians in Iraq love us?? well they don't and who cares if we kill a few well that is my opinion seeming how i am currently in the active forces!
93 posted on 01/25/2003 1:24:59 PM PST by navychicknik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: putupon; TLBSHOW
”Nuke them too if they want act up.”

They would “act up”, and too many of them are able and probably willing to lob them back.

94 posted on 01/25/2003 1:27:34 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
This report is bogus. You don't win wars with nukes.
95 posted on 01/25/2003 1:29:20 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I agree with you totally !! (currently overseas on the USS TRUMAN CVN75)
96 posted on 01/25/2003 1:34:15 PM PST by navychicknik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You don't win wars with nukes.

"Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

97 posted on 01/25/2003 1:38:29 PM PST by Poohbah (Four thousand throats may be cut in a single night by a running man -- Kahless the Unforgettable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Russia May Expand Nuclear Doctrine (4/28/00)
Report: Military Plans Nuke Hits on 7 Countries (3/9/02)
98 posted on 01/25/2003 1:55:43 PM PST by Orion78 (I hope Golitsyn is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Its time to put fear into these dirtbags.
99 posted on 01/25/2003 2:20:35 PM PST by muslims=borg (Whats this space for ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
You would basically start WWIII.

and finish it in about 3 hours.

100 posted on 01/25/2003 2:40:33 PM PST by putupon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 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