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

Skip to comments.

Iraq has poison bombs
The Sunday Telegraph ^ | February 23, 2003 | Philip Sherwell and David Wastell

Posted on 02/22/2003 4:37:44 PM PST by MadIvan

Saddam Hussein's air force has developed a more sophisticated delivery and detonation system for chemical weapons than previously known to United Nations inspectors, a former senior air force officer has told The Telegraph.

In an interview at a house in Amman in Jordan, where he has been hiding since he fled Baghdad last year, the former officer said that Baghdad was still pursuing the chemical armaments programme when he left Iraq - despite its insistence that it had abandoned its weapons of mass destruction project after the Gulf war.

"Ali" - The Telegraph knows his real name and former rank but promised not to disclose it in case his relatives still in Iraq are identified and punished - said that he was trained to handle binary-system bombs which mix lethal chemicals moments before detonation for maximum effect.

"Saddam will never surrender these weapons," said Ali. "They are as much a part of his life as eating and drinking."

His alarming claims, which indicate a clear breach of UN resolutions, will fuel fears that Saddam may use chemical weapons against American and British forces in the event of war.

United Nations weapons inspectors based in New York said yesterday that they would like to debrief the former officer urgently. "We would be interested in talking to this man," said a spokesman for Unmovic, the weapons inspection agency.

Ali described in detail how the chemical bombs and sprays were fitted and operated, backing up his testimony with drawings and graphics, during clandestine meetings lasting several hours in the Jordanian capital, Amman.

"What he describes is a logical development of the techniques we know the Iraqis were working on," said one former senior weapons inspector contacted by The Telegraph.

Another said: "If what he says can be confirmed then this is a very big discovery. It would be proof that Iraq has continued with the development of a new type of weapon."

The chemical weapons previously known to inspectors were less advanced; their lethal contents mixed on the ground before the bombs were loaded on to planes.

At the time that Ali was trained, he was working at military bases at Habbaniya 50 miles west of Baghdad, and al-Qa'qa, 20 miles south of the capital.

He last witnessed the new bomb mechanism being tested - with water and oil rather than chemicals - at Habbaniya in 2000, after which the tests were switched to a different location. However, he said former colleagues with whom he remains in contact confirm that the programme is still running.

He said that the bombs were divided in two by an internal partition. When loaded with chemicals, there was a black liquid in one compartment and a yellowish one in the other.

The pilots were trained to hit a switch to open the partition when they approached their targets, allowing the two substances to combine and reach their greatest potency. A few seconds later, outer doors on the bottom of the weapon would open automatically, releasing the mixture.

Ali then drew a detailed diagram of another binary-system bomb, also divided by a partition that was designed to explode after its release in mid-air, again allowing the two substances to mix at the last moment. These weapons were intended for the Iraqi air force's more modern jets, but an alternative delivery method was developed for slower planes such as Sukhoi-25s and for helicopters, he explained.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: blair; bombs; bush; iraq; poison; saddam; uk; us; warlist; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Go on, I believe the French, Germans and Martin Sheen were saying how inspections "work".

Note to Saddam: you drop one of these bombs on our troops, and it will be the last thing you ever do.

Regards, Ivan


1 posted on 02/22/2003 4:37:44 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UofORepublican; kayak; LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR; keats5; Don'tMessWithTexas; Dutchy; ...
Bump!
2 posted on 02/22/2003 4:37:57 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: MadIvan; *war_list; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; PhiKapMom; cavtrooper21; ...
OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
4 posted on 02/22/2003 4:41:48 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam and his Baby Milk Factories!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Yah, well, I guess that's why we're invading Iraq, is it not?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

5 posted on 02/22/2003 4:45:09 PM PST by section9 (The girl in the picture is Major Motoko Kusanagi from "Ghost In the Shell". Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
.
6 posted on 02/22/2003 4:46:52 PM PST by patton (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I sincerly hope "Ali" is smart enough to not talk to ANYONE from the UN. I'm sure some of our guyz would like to talk to him though. Maybe they already have?
7 posted on 02/22/2003 4:47:18 PM PST by upchuck (Sadamn: You are on the way to destruction...you have no chance to survive, make your time..ha ha ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Saddam Hussein's air force has developed a more sophisticated delivery and detonation system for chemical weapons than previously known to United Nations inspectors, a former senior air force officer has told The Telegraph.

It will never fly.

8 posted on 02/22/2003 4:49:24 PM PST by AndrewC (You gotta have the gun to shoot the bullet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: MadIvan
Note to Saddam: you drop one of these bombs on our troops, and it will be the last thing you ever do.

The problem is that we almost can't. We're liberating Iraq and that restrains us considerably. We're not likely to encounter Saddam or Republican Guard outside populated areas. So if we retaliated, we'd kill a lot of civilians.

We have to shoot down anything in the air. Hopefully, he's never made artillery shells to deliver gas. But we need to bomb every artillery piece we can find as well.
10 posted on 02/22/2003 4:52:36 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
"We would be interested in talking to this man," said a spokesman for Unmovic, the weapons inspection agency.

I hope this man and those in charge of protecting him are smart enough to never let this happen. I don't trust the UN Gang to protect his and his family's identity for one moment. Plus, it's not like they would do anything useful with the information if they had it. Have meetings. Form a few committees. Talk it out some more. Pass a few resolutions. Why would they need the info? Good grief, these people are something.

MM

11 posted on 02/22/2003 4:52:37 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NDante77
I have great faith that both the President and the Prime Minister would regard use of chemical weapons like this as serious enough to warrant using nukes.

Regards, Ivan

12 posted on 02/22/2003 4:52:53 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
idle speculation: I wonder if this is "Chemical 'Ali" Majid, Saddam's uncle. Apparently, he was the operational commander for the various CW attacks against the Kurds in the 80's.
13 posted on 02/22/2003 4:53:17 PM PST by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Interesting story. With all the stories that come out about defectors, ex-advisors, ex-scientists etc... this is the first one I've seen that actually says UNMOVIC wants to talk to the guy. Maybe there is something to this one.
14 posted on 02/22/2003 4:55:36 PM PST by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; Big Steve; deport; blackie; PhiKapMom; Deb
I sincerly hope "Ali" is smart enough to not talk to ANYONE from the UN. I'm sure some of our guyz would like to talk to him though. Maybe they already have?

I couldn't agree with you more,upchuck!

15 posted on 02/22/2003 4:59:55 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Siobhan; Salvation
check this out!
16 posted on 02/22/2003 5:00:51 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Note to Saddam: you drop one of these bombs on our troops, and it will be the last thing you ever do.

Yes indeed! And we should start by dropping Martin Sheen over Baghdad. Surely the gas would be enough to wipe out an entire regiment.

17 posted on 02/22/2003 5:05:25 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Novichok

Novichok, which is Russian for newcomer, is considered one of the more lethal and hard-to-monitor agents, according to experts.

This deadly agent is at least as toxic as VX nerve gas. Novichok is comprised of two benign chemicals that become lethal only when mixed together. This type of chemical is called a binary substance. It is said to be relatively easy to manufacture and can be readily made from standard ingredients found in most pesticide factories. Since Novichok can be produced from standard industrial and agricultural chemicals, the need for producing and stockpiling a large amount of hazardous substances is avoided.

The Russian military, sources said, developed Novichok in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a way to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) because the substance is made from chemicals that are not covered by CWC restrictions.

This gas is five times as deadly as conventional nerve gases. It is purported that 40,000 tons of Novichok is enough to kill all human life on earth.

It's my underdtanding, but I may be wrong, that current military NBC maks & gear are ineffective against Novachok but I haven't been able to confirm that for certain. Are you afraid yet??????

18 posted on 02/22/2003 5:07:08 PM PST by chuknospam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
. H opefully, he's never made artillery shells to deliver gas

As I understand it, we have found 15 of the 3 to 6 thousand
he had made, the others? Good question.
19 posted on 02/22/2003 5:08:02 PM PST by tet68 (Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Concur.

Go ahead, Saddam, make our day:

Bush approves nuclear response

By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options."

A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence.

A senior administration official said, however, that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if need be.

The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the heart and soul of our nuclear policy."

In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" the nuclear weapons.

"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says. "Complementing nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."

Before it released the text publicly, the White House changed that same paragraph to: "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities."

The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.

The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.

For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately vague nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and "not ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush administration officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the word "nuclear."

"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."

But in the paragraphs marked "S" for "secret," the Sept. 14 directive clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the "overwhelming force" that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological attack.

Former U.S. officials and arms control experts with knowledge of policies of the previous administrations declined to say whether such specific language had been used before, for fear of divulging classified information. But they conceded that differences exist.

"This shows that there is a somewhat greater willingness in this administration to use a nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction] attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure from previous administrations," one former senior official said.

Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is now "official policy, it means that the United States will actively consider the nuclear option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

"This document is far more explicit about the use of nuclear weapons to deter and possibly defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. "If someone dismisses it, that would question the entire logic of the administration's national security strategy against [weapons of mass destruction]."

Mr. Kimball said U.S. nuclear weapons "should only be used to deter nuclear attacks by others."

A senior official who served in the Clinton administration said there would still have to be a new evaluation before any decision was made on the use of nuclear weapons.

"What this document means is that they have thought through the consequences, including in the abstract, but it doesn't necessarily prejudge any specific case."

Baker Spring, a national security fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the classified language "does not undermine the basic posture of the deterrent and does not commit the United States to a nuclear response in hypothetical circumstances. In a classified document, you are willing to be more specific what the policy is, because people in the administration have to understand it for planning purposes."

Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making the classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies but has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the nuclear deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what it can expect.

They agree that there must have been "good reasons" for the White House to have "cleaned up" the document before releasing it. They speculated on at least three:

Although responding to a non-nuclear attack by nuclear weapons is not banned by international law, existing arms-control treaties call for a "proportionate response" to biological and chemical attacks. The question is, one former official said, whether any nuclear response is proportionate to any non-nuclear attack.

Second, naming nuclear weapons specifically flies in the face of the "negative security assurances" that U.S. administrations have given for 25 years. Those statements, while somewhat modified under different presidents, essentially have said the United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that state attacks it together with a nuclear ally.

Finally, publicly and explicitly articulating a policy of nuclear response can hurt the international nonproliferation regime, which the United States firmly supports. That sets a bad example for countries such as India and Pakistan and gives rogue states an incentive to develop their own nuclear capabilities.

William M. Arkin, a military analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."

Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for a war in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction."

He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options.

NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded nuclear weapons beyond the traditional function as a nuclear deterrent.

"This is an interesting distinction," Mr. Spring said. "There is an acknowledgment up front that under the post-Cold War circumstances, deterrence in the sense we applied it during the Cold War is not as reliable. I think it's accurate."

~~~

Go hide with Qadafy, Saddam--then we can get more bums for the buck.

20 posted on 02/22/2003 5:10:14 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue
LOL..... maybe the pilots will turn and spay the palaces where they suspect Saddam is staying....

Didn't the Iraqi AF leave for safe harbors in other countries during the Desert Storm/Shield? Seems like Iran may have been one of them. If they do it again at the beginning then their bombs won't be of much use..... If they don't use them early I suspect they can forget them as I suspect the Allies will control the airspace from day one.
21 posted on 02/22/2003 5:10:28 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
(You gotta have the gun to shoot the bullet.)

The Viet Cong made land mines with nothing more than a bullet, a lump of clay and a nail.

22 posted on 02/22/2003 5:14:56 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
We're not likely to encounter Saddam or Republican Guard outside populated areas. So if we retaliated, we'd kill a lot of civilians.

pit-ty

23 posted on 02/22/2003 5:16:23 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam; MadIvan
from Iraq's weapons of mass casualty
Janes Islamic Affairs Analyst
30 January 2003
By Al Venter

In a submission before the House Armed Services Committee on 10 September 2002 biowarfare expert Dr Richard Spertzel, who spent years trying to uncover Saddam's secrets while heading the biological wing of UNSCOM in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, said that there was some evidence that the Iraqis might now also have the deadliest nerve gas of all: Novichok. A product of the Cold War, Novichok is a dozen times more potent than any other agent easily penetrates all known gas masks produced in the West - Israel's included.

24 posted on 02/22/2003 5:18:55 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
idle speculation: I wonder if this is "Chemical 'Ali" Majid, Saddam's uncle.

Then wouldn't Saddam have to torture and kill himself???

25 posted on 02/22/2003 5:19:44 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: deport
maybe the pilots will turn and spay the palaces where they suspect Saddam is staying....

I like it!

Spay Saddam!

26 posted on 02/22/2003 5:22:06 PM PST by null and void (No good typo goes unnoticed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Novichok

Oh, man. What a mess. I'll let the Pentagon worry about it and hope they don't.
27 posted on 02/22/2003 5:23:25 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
and the fallout is over Iran . . .
28 posted on 02/22/2003 5:25:48 PM PST by ScholarWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I remain convinced that the entire reason for the delay in prosecuting the war has been to allow th in-country special ops and on-ground intelligence personnel to devise a rapid capitualtion strategy that minimizes the loss of allied military and covilian lives. My guess is that this work is near completion.

The horror scenario isn't that Hussein visits horrible weapons like this on our troops--the difficulty of delivering such weapons effectively against the type of light, mobile force we will send is immense. Rather, it is that he will deploy these weapons against large civilian targets. Our military leaders know that he knows that he will never survive the invasion--thus, he has nothing to lose and will likely act accordingly.

The delay in moving has been to allow our forces to interdict those units that will remain loyal to Hussein to the end--the ones who can execute his orders. These units are comprised of those most likely to bear the brunt of vengeance from the liberated, formerly oppressed. They, too, have little to lose.

Exhaustive planning is the hallmark of successful wars. The hand wringers in the media grossly overestimate the capabilities of the Iraqis (whose military is roughly 1/3 the Gulf War size and equipped with weaponry that has felt the effects of 12 years of sanctions) and their willingness to mix it up once Uncle Sam starts shooting. Likewise, the media grossly underestimate the caliber of our current weaponry and tactics.

The delay has permitted thorough planning and intelligence gathering that will minimize the loss of civilian and allied lives. The hot part of this engagement will be less than 96 hours.

29 posted on 02/22/2003 5:33:22 PM PST by Zebra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Has Saddam's air force been reconstituted or did the Iranians return the many jet planes that escaped destruction and flew there to safety? Have they bought new planes from France and Germany? Will they be destroyed this time or escape to Iran once again? Will Saddam have a plane or two available for a quick and safe exit? Do we know where their planes are now? Do they have civilian air liners that could also carry the chemical weapons? Will we shoot down such planes? Inquiring minds want to know.. So many questions, so few answers..
30 posted on 02/22/2003 5:35:25 PM PST by Paulus Invictus (Coke make)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I'm all for a rush to war.
31 posted on 02/22/2003 5:37:20 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast (HHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue
SHHHHH. Don't tell Jacque Chirac.
32 posted on 02/22/2003 5:40:02 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zebra
Our military leaders know that he knows that he will never survive the invasion--thus, he has nothing to lose and will likely act accordingly.
Boy, Zebra, I hope you are right. He can not escape justice. Please assure me that this will not happen in this case.

A_R

33 posted on 02/22/2003 5:41:34 PM PST by arkady_renko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Iraq....binary chemical weapons.....tick....tick....tick....
tick....Hussein....tick....Fully Disarm Now, Hussein....tick
....Time's up....tick....Surrender you're illegal weapons of
mass destruction, now, Hussein....tick....or face you're elimination....tick....tick...tick....tick....tick....17 U.N. resolutions....tick....12 years....tick.....enough is enough....tick....Times up, Hussein....tick....Game Over....
tick....This is you're final warning, Hussein....tick....tick....tick....
34 posted on 02/22/2003 5:42:27 PM PST by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
Its not old Chemical Ali. Chemical Ali is still in Iraq, threatening to shell allied troops with chemical and biological weapons for 2 weeks straight, last time I heard.

He is currently a Governor of some Iraqi province.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/majeed.htm
35 posted on 02/22/2003 5:43:24 PM PST by judicial meanz ( socialism- its a mental disorder, not a political view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
A nuclear response to protect the free world against chemical assault? I have no problem with that and neither did Truman in his time.
36 posted on 02/22/2003 5:46:21 PM PST by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
>the Iranians return the many jet planes that escaped destruction and flew there to safety?

They kept the planes. Hehehe.

37 posted on 02/22/2003 5:47:25 PM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: section9
Yah, well, I guess that's why we're invading Iraq, is it not?

Well, that and this...

among other things...

38 posted on 02/22/2003 5:47:58 PM PST by cgk (the Mrs half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
>Will Saddam have a plane or two available for a quick and safe exit?

Just like Hitler, trying to fly out of Berlin and then on a sub to South America. Well AH never made it out.

39 posted on 02/22/2003 5:48:52 PM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: deport
LOL..... maybe the pilots will turn and spay the palaces where they suspect Saddam is staying....


Now wouldn't that be a hoot!GWB has warned Iraqi generals that if they use that "stuff" we reserve the right to use nukes!

Didn't the Iraqi AF leave for safe harbors in other countries during the Desert Storm/Shield? Seems like Iran may have been one of them. If they do it again at the beginning then their bombs won't be of much use..... If they don't use them early I suspect they can forget them as I suspect the Allies will control the airspace from day one.


I don't remember but I sure wouldn't be surprised after all,a lot of their soldiers were surrendering to reporters,for pete's sake! Hehehe!

40 posted on 02/22/2003 5:51:08 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: null and void
The Viet Cong made land mines with nothing more than a bullet, a lump of clay and a nail.

Yep, and they are a world power now.

41 posted on 02/22/2003 5:52:38 PM PST by AndrewC (You gotta have the gun to shoot the bullet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
So many questions, so few answers..

So few answers are needed. They are dead. (Or ded if you prefer)

42 posted on 02/22/2003 5:54:08 PM PST by AndrewC (You gotta have the gun to shoot the bullet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
hehehe! I know.
43 posted on 02/22/2003 5:55:14 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
In case you missed it, they won that war...
44 posted on 02/22/2003 5:58:39 PM PST by null and void (It was in all the papers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: judicial meanz
Much thanks for the link! BTW, Chemical Ali is decribed in detail in Ken Pollock's book, which I'm reading now. I would recommend it for all FReepers.

Iraq is *clearly* the most odious regime the US has had to confront since WWII.
45 posted on 02/22/2003 6:08:00 PM PST by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
Any time. Glad I could help !

46 posted on 02/22/2003 6:10:49 PM PST by judicial meanz ( socialism- its a mental disorder, not a political view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
bump
47 posted on 02/22/2003 6:11:00 PM PST by fightinJAG (FOR SALE: French Army rifle. Never been used. Dropped once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: null and void
In case you missed it, they won that war...

Yes, it is known as a Pyrrhic victory. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

48 posted on 02/22/2003 6:15:03 PM PST by AndrewC (You gotta have the gun to shoot the bullet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: N8VTXNinWV
Ping!
49 posted on 02/22/2003 6:19:15 PM PST by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Honestly, all Iraqis should be notified by whatever means possible 3 days before attack that if they stay, sorry, but they will die. And then nuke the place...
50 posted on 02/22/2003 6:21:01 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (This space for rent (Not accepting bids from the United Nations - Boycotting German/French Industry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 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