Iraq threatens suicide attacks as US, Britain court new UN vote

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
A defiant Iraq threatened to unleash suicide attacks against US nationals in the Middle East and to wipe out any invading force should Washington wage a new war against it.

The warnings by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan were made public Saturday -- the day after US President George W. Bush met his close ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and declared that conflict could be "weeks, not months" away.

Suicide attacks "are our new weapons," Ramadan told Monday's edition of the German news magazine Der Spiegel, adding: "The whole region will be set ablaze. This part of the world will become a sea of resistance and danger for Americans."

Official newspapers in Baghdad on Saturday quoted Saddam telling senior military aides that if war happens, "the enemy will not enter Baghdad's suburbs because he will die. Even if they send a million soldiers, our boys will kill them."

On Friday, Bush said he would welcome a new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq as long as there was no attempt by the Security Council "to drag the process on for months".

He also insisted that last November's resolution mandating tough arms inspections in Iraq already "gives us the authority to move without any second resolution" -- a contention rejected by most Security Council members.

But Jimmy Carter, former US president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, unleashed his most vitriolic attack so far on Bush's policy towards Iraq.

"Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe," Carter said in a statement released late on Friday.

Carter mentioned the results of a recent survey that showed 84 percent of Europeans believed the US posed "the greatest danger to world peace".

"It's sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq," Carter said.

But Blair defended Bush's position in an interview with BBC radio.

"What he is anxious to ensure, and what I am anxious to ensure, is that the whole debate about a second resolution doesn't just become a means of putting this thing off for months and months and months."

"I believe there will be a second resolution," the prime minister had earlier told reporters on his flight back to London.

"I think it will be very clear to people whether Saddam is cooperating or not in the next few weeks."

British news reports said Blair and Bush had fixed a deadline of mid-March for Saddam to give up suspected weapons of mass destruction or face war, leaving just six weeks for diplomacy.

On Tuesday, he is to hold a summit with French President Jacques Chirac, who just this week declared that "nothing justifies military action".

Washington and London also hope to sway France and other reluctant allies on Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell is to present intelligence on Baghdad's attempts to thwart UN inspections as well as its alleged links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

UN inspector Hans Blix and Mohamad ElBaradei, the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are to fly to Baghdad for meetings with senior Iraqi officials next Saturday and Sunday.

Greece, which holds the European Union presidency, said it would wait to hear what Powell had to say before deciding whether to back military action.

The next edition of Focus, a Germany weekly, meanwhile reported that Germany's foreign intelligence service BND believes Iraq has mobile chemical and biological weapons labs disguised as ordinary trucks.

It also quoted Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa as saying that "war cannot produce democracy" and calling for the inspectors to be allowed to complete their mission.

In Jordan, around 10,000 people demonstrated on Saturday against the threat of a US-led war on Iraq, assembling in a park before marching to the local UN offices, which were surrounded by police.

The United States, Britain and Australia have a massive land, sea and air mobilisation that will see more than 150,000 service personnel, several aircraft carriers and hundreds of warplanes deployed to the Gulf by mid-February.

Around 100 US and British special forces also flew in from Jordan on a six-day covert mission in western Iraq to identify key targets in the event of a war, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported, quoting defence sources.

US embassies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia began advising their nationals to leave the countries on Friday and Saturday, as Israel's top security chief Ehpraim Halevy travelled to Washington to meet senior officials for discussions on the threat to Israel posed by a war in Iraq.

But Turkey said it had no immediate plans to ask parliamentary deputies to approve the deployment of US soldiers on its soil, despite intense pressure from Washington.

Iraq meanwhile denied a report that it had imported materials used to produce chemical weapons and long-range missiles from an Indian firm.

"This is disinformation, part of a campaign waged by Western media to distort Iraq's position," said Zuhair al-Qazzaz, director of the Fallujah II plant where the weapon-making materials allegedly ended up.

The Los Angeles Times last month reported that an Indian trading firm used front companies to export materials that could be used by Iraq to produce chemical weapons and long-range missiles -- such as atomized aluminum powder and titanium centrifugal pumps -- between September 1998 and February 2001.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030201/1/370ci.html
 
Funny...He threatened the same thing last time. Didn't he?...He's probably trying to confuse us again so we won't expect his planned immediate surrender...
 
What are you talking about? Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism!
(Dripping with sarcasm)
drip.gif
 
Carter, carter. Wasn't he the one who couldn't get the Iranian hostages back until it was obvious that Reagan was gonna be in power and blow the shit outta them?


On Tuesday, he is to hold a summit with French President Jacques Chirac, who just this week declared that "nothing justifies military action".


That's just too funny for words.
 
I'm thinking it's time to start the bombing runs. Baghdad first.
 
No, I think it would take a few more. He will already have his troops spread out to cover the south as well. No doubt about it, he will order his troops to fight to the death on this one, thing is, troops that are cut off from communications, food, and other supplies don't often do what they are told.

I don't think we need to do nuclear, but I'm feeling less and less sorry for all the innocents that are going to have to die in Iraq. I really think at this point, we need to level Baghdad almost immediatly.
 
Obviously, that would be the first strike...followed by key supply/communications/armories...I still think his plan is an almost immediate surrender. Just so he doesn't get put in personal jeapordy. Hes a coward.
 
I don't think so this time. I think he's going to order everything he's got, cause he knows we're not letting him out alive this time. Of course, I also predict the Osama problem will arise again. We either won't find his body, or it will be blown into so many pieces, we'll never be able to identify it to positively say he's dead.
 
My guess is he'll wait just long enough to see if anyone rallies to his defense. When they don't, he'll surrender to prevent us from seeking and destroying his personal ass.
 
I don't think there's a chance we'll take the guy prisoner and i don't think there's a chance he'll surrender anyway. Nobody want's the hassle of dealing with Saddam Hussain in any justice system. He's already dead.
 
Well...justice is always good but really the most important thing is getting him out, saving the people of Iraq and changing that country for the better. Justice is good but there are more important things in my view.
 
Stopping his actions should be our primary concern. Making sure he sees justice is a novel idea but far from our main concern. Preventing him from doing future harm. Stopping the starvation in Iraq. Stopping the man from murdering and continuing his program of weapons of mass destruction. I'd prefer saving the life of one Iraqi child over worrying about whether he lives in prison, excapes to Saudi Arabia or dies. he is not the objective. Stopping his actions are.
 
Obviously that is more important. But I hate that the name Osama still holds so much hope and inspiration for his followers. I would hate to see the same happen here...
 
I agree with both of you, stopping Saddam should be the most important thing, but if we don't confirm his death, there are going to be people that never believe he's dead.
 
There's i fine line between revenge and a desire for justice.

One of my favorite prayers..

God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, the courage to change the things i can and the wisdom to know the difference.
 
The problem with Osama was, we had to kill him because of the legal aspects if we took him prisoner in another country. To say nothing of the political problems with the Saudis. Without a body we were fucked. I don't think we would have a problem with Saddam, dead or alive...
 
Back
Top