Saddam Hussein "WARNS" the USA against attack!

[Guest Downhome]

The following is the article that I picked up on Yahoo News...

 

Saddam Warns Against Attack on Iraq

 

Thu Aug 8,11:42 AM ET

 

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein warned Thursday that anyone who attacks Iraq will die "in disgraceful failure," as thousands of armed civilians marched through Baghdad in support of the Iraqi president.

 

Speaking on the anniversary of the end of the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, Saddam made no direct mention of the U.S.-British demand for the return of U.N. arms inspectors to Iraq. But his speech comes as U.S. officials consider a possible attack on Iraq to oust him for allegedly building weapons of mass destruction.

 

The Iraqi leader did not mention America and Britain by name, but referred to them as the "forces of evil" — a phrase the Baghdad government frequently uses after U.S. and British airstrikes in the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

 

"The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs to die in disgraceful failure," he said in the televised speech.

 

The United States has warned Iraq of unspecified consequences if it does not allow U.N. weapons inspections to resume. Iraqi diplomats have held three meetings with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan this year to discuss the issue and related topics.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that some U.S. officials believe Iraq could acquire nuclear weapons in the future. He also expressed skepticism that the return of U.N. inspectors, barred by Iraq since 1998, would solve the problem.

 

Eventually, Cheney said, the international community will have to "figure out how we're going to deal with this growing threat to peace and stability in the region and obviously potentially to the United States."

 

Saddam, dressed in a dark suit behind a desk spread with white lilies, called on the United Nations to "honor its obligations" over sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

 

"The right way is that the Security Council should reply to the questions raised by Iraq and should honor its obligations under its own resolutions," Saddam said.

 

He was referring to 19 questions given to Annan at a meeting in March, and to council resolutions which say that U.N. sanctions on Iraq can be lifted once it has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction and fulfilled other requirements.

 

Iraq has long said it has fulfilled these conditions and that the sanctions should be lifted.

 

Annan circulated the 19 questions, which deal with various Iraqi complaints, to the Security Council members, who have not replied.

 

About 15,000 members of the "Jerusalem Army" marched through Baghdad shortly before the Iraqi leader's 22-minute address was broadcast. Dressed in khaki uniforms and carrying rifles, the marchers held up placards that said, "Long live Saddam!" and "Down with U.S.A!" Others carried photographs of Saddam or Palestinian and Iraqi flags.

 

"We reject the U.S. war threats and we are ready to face them," said Sabah Mohammed, a 45-year-old woman taking part in the march.

 

The government has organized similar demonstrations for the last week. The Jerusalem Army is a civilian force established by Saddam in 2000 with the aim of driving the Israelis out of Jerusalem and supporting the Palestinian uprising.

 

While members of the Bush administration and Congress have spoken openly about war with Iraq, it's not clear that a military effort to topple Saddam would have international support — particularly if Baghdad allows U.N. inspectors to return.

 

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said Wednesday that his government is opposed to a U.S. strike on Iraq, and would not allow its soil to be used as a base for such a military action.

 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq could wreck the international coalition against terrorism and throw the Middle East into turmoil.

 

Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, considered Washington's strongest ally, faces opposition to war at home.

 

...it looks like things are heating up once and for all. Add this latest statement by Sadam to the fact that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said Wednesday that his government is opposed to a U.S. strike on Iraq, and would not allow its soil to be used as a base for such a military action, and we have a boiling pot just waiting to overflow, and just explode onto all of us.

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest DrTom]

Saddam Hussein warned Thursday that anyone who attacks Iraq will die "in disgraceful failure," as thousands of armed civilians marched through Baghdad in support of the Iraqi president.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! The only challenge we'll have in Iraq is how quickly the bulk of the army surrenders to us again. I'm sure there's a record we could try to break in this regard.

 

Add this latest statement by Sadam to the fact that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said Wednesday that his government is opposed to a U.S. strike on Iraq, and would not allow its soil to be used as a base for such a military action...

 

Yeah. Precisely what would they do about it if we did decide we wanted to use their land? Not sell us oil? Ok. We'll see who that works out better for. I love it when piddly-shit countries with nothing to back up their words puff their chests out and issue empty threats. Prince Saud had better hope we don't march into his country after we're finished with Iraq. Fucking ingrate.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well yah, we could take out Iraq in a day or two, but what will it accomplish? We will lose all support from every country in the middle east and Iraq would just rebuild and continue the hatred for the USA. I have not heard yet exactly WHY we are attacking Iraq yet, except to take out Sadam, which is no reason for a full scale war.

[Guest Dangerous A]

I don't think a full scale attack on Iraq is the answer either, but we do need to have those inspectors in there. Nukes do not need to be in a madman's hands, particularly Saddam Hussein. If he gets his hands on them, there is no telling what the fuck he'll do. Remember, he is not of reciprocal thought lines. Even if we leave him alone, he'll turn right around and fuck us when he gets the chance. War no, but pressure, yes. We really need more countries to support us getting inspectors inside Iraq is the bottom line.

[Guest DrTom]

We really need more countries to support us getting inspectors inside Iraq is the bottom line.

 

No we don't. It would be nice if the UN would fully support this endeavor, but we don't really need anyone's support to go into Iraq. If Hussein refuses to allow weapon inspectors in, then we can and must do something about it.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Let's go one better and quote Saddam off The Tonight Show: "You better not come into our country, if you smeeeeell what Iraqi is cooking."

 

On another note, I think it's incredibly ironic (note: sarcasm) that there's never been a UN Secretary General from anywhere in North America.

[Guest Kingpk]

I just like the fact that whenever he says "Our enemy will fail since Iraq is strong", he either gets trounced and has his military decimated (Gulf War), or the war goes on for 10 years and hurts his country just as much as the enemy (War with Iran in the 80s).

[Guest J*ingus]

Saddam IS the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who gets all his limbs cut off, but still insists the fight was a draw.

[Guest -Cutthroat-]

Die Hussein, he can fart to um...something...

 

Yeah, like he can evn do anything REAL...

[Guest LooseCannon]

-Cutthroat-, you really should confine your posting to the Mission to 1000 thread.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Could we get like a formal IQ requirement to enter the Current Events forum or something? I feel as if I'm standing on my nice little pink marble terrace, sipping my tea, well-manicured green lawns stretching around for miles, and I'm at peace with the world. The lark's on the wing; the snail's on the thorn. Then I notice the low-income denizens of the suburbs across the river... and they're heading in this direction.

 

Suddenly, I want a gate and some security guards.

[Guest CanadianChris]

What makes you think that the inspectors will be any more effective than they were the first time around. Saddam's very good at giving people nothing and leave them thinking they've gotten something.

 

One thing's for sure, though...the Iraqi "army" will run away like little girls if the Americans ever do decide to show up.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I resent this calumny on behalf of little girls everywhere.

[Guest Vyce]

Why invade Iraq?

 

Cause eventually, Saddam will either pull off or try to pull off his own version of 9-11.

 

I'm tired of waiting. I like bombing the shit out of countries that hate us.

[Guest Y2BigJ]

I agree with you totally Vyce.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

The whole thing with Iraq is just messed up. You could reasonably say that Iraq is being subtly provoked to do something, right? How often in war do we publicly hear of the opposition meeting with one side before the war starts. Not to mention Saddam's step-son getting arrested and all those things.

 

We know that Iraq has to do something for us to come in and have any support, the problem is that they aren't doing anything.

 

Not to mention that for this "War on Terror" (remember that?), the US has failed to show any definate links between Saddam and 9/11.

 

I'd say this war in Iraq lasts longer, the hype is that the Iraqi side is gonna try and make it more of a guerrilla defense which if they are decent at it, should be a pain to deal with.

[Guest DrTom]

You could reasonably say that Iraq is being subtly provoked to do something, right?

 

That would imply that the "something" they could do would be harmful to the US in some way. While it's possible they might have that capability, I don't think anyone in Washington would be trying to goad Saddam into "doing something" if they felt he could really do any damage.

 

We know that Iraq has to do something for us to come in and have any support...

 

Whose support do we need? We can take care of Iraq by ourselves. The fact that no UN weapons inspectors have been able to get into Iraq in forever will probably be the justification that gets the UN on our side.

 

the US has failed to show any definate links between Saddam and 9/11.

 

Both American and British intelligence agencies have gathered evidence that he was a major financial player in 9/11. He also funds homicide bombings, just like the Arabians.

 

the hype is that the Iraqi side is gonna try and make it more of a guerrilla defense which if they are decent at it, should be a pain to deal with.

 

Where are they going to hide, in a sand dune? The Iraqi army -- including the allegedly elite "Republican Guard" -- did nothing but surrender to the US the last time we were over there. I've seen nothing that makes me think this excursion into Iraq would end any differently in that respect.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Whose support do we need? We can take care of Iraq by ourselves. The fact that no UN weapons inspectors have been able to get into Iraq in forever will probably be the justification that gets the UN on our side.

 

I'm hearing rumblings involving Iraq wanting inspectors. Although UN support would be dependant on Russia and China not using their veto, wouldn't it?

 

Both American and British intelligence agencies have gathered evidence that he was a major financial player in 9/11. He also funds homicide bombings, just like the Arabians.

 

Ahh yeah.. the evidence.. are they gonna show that to us sometime? the most I've heard with 9/11 involved some Iraqi agents and Atta, and even that is sketchy.

 

Also, funding suicide bombings and giving money to the families of the people who do them is not the same thing. Funding them involves sending them money before that for getting the dynamite for that. As much as I've heard of Saddam sending out checks, do we have anybody over in the West Bank who has recieved their check for their relative doing that? Just asking.

 

Also, using that 'funding suicide bombers' thing for the Saudis and so on, are we gonna invade Saudi Arabia next and get rid of their royal family?

 

Where are they going to hide, in a sand dune?

 

I was hearing they'd stay in the cities and try to fight from there. Not hiding in Sand Dunes. It's ignorant to assume Iraq is all desert. Some towns are around those areas.

 

The Iraqi army -- including the allegedly elite "Republican Guard" -- did nothing but surrender to the US the last time we were over there. I've seen nothing that makes me think this excursion into Iraq would end any differently in that respect.

 

We'll see..

 

There is nothing that says Iraq can win this, but if they play their cards right (which is unlikely in some regards), they could make it a huge pain in the BUTT for us. Sorta like how the North Vietnamese could never really defeat us but they did make us leave.

 

Also, I'd guess if they had bio weapons, chemical weapons or anything else, they'd start using them when they got really desperate. That'd throw a wrench into America's plans, wouldn't it?

 

One question: what if we invade, get rid of Saddam and we don't find any chemical or bio weapons?

[Guest DrTom]

Although UN support would be dependant on Russia and China not using their veto, wouldn't it?

 

For the explicit approval of the Security Council, yes. For other allied countries to lend us support in terms of brainpower and manpower, no.

 

Ahh yeah.. the evidence.. are they gonna show that to us sometime?

 

Why do they need to? It's also quite possible that they can't for security reasons.

 

Also, funding suicide bombings and giving money to the families of the people who do them is not the same thing.

 

You're right, but the result is the same: compensation has been paid because someone strapped a bomb to their chest and killed a bunch of unsuspecting innocents.

 

we gonna invade Saudi Arabia next and get rid of their royal family?

Well, since we're the ones who put them in power and have helped keep them there, that would be a little counterproductive. I don't like the ruling family of Arabia at all, and I think withdrawing all of our troops would be enough. Someone would kill them before long; the problem then would be the wackos who replaced them.

 

I was hearing they'd stay in the cities and try to fight from there.

I don't think they'd find that too effective against fart superior weaponry.

 

It's ignorant to assume Iraq is all desert. Some towns are around those areas.

I was being facetious. But really, though, how would the engage in the kind of guerilla tactics the Vietnamese did? We're a lot wiser to some of those tactics than we were then. Also, Iraq doesn't have the treacherous jungle settings of Vietnam that made the guerilla strategy so effective in the first place.

 

I'd guess if they had bio weapons, chemical weapons or anything else, they'd start using them when they got really desperate. That'd throw a wrench into America's plans, wouldn't it?

 

It would. I think one of the first things we should do is disable their ability to do that. Hussein has shown he's willing to gas and murder his own people, so a massive chemical or biological attack is certainly not out of the question. I'm sure our braintrust is expecting that possibility going in, though, and planning accordingly.

 

One question: what if we invade, get rid of Saddam and we don't find any chemical or bio weapons?

As *extremely* unlikely as that is... so what? We removed a mass-murdering fuckhead who supports radicla Muslim regimes and international terrorism from power. That alone is worth the effort and the time.

[Guest Phr33k]

*Iraqi News Broadcast*

 

"Our Great Leader, Saddam Hussein, made a statement to the media today, warning the American infidel dogs not to mess with Iraq. Afterwards, he headed back to bed, curled up into a fetal position, and whimpered until...

 

(Director makes "cut sign")

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

The only reason we didn't whup Saddam out of office during that war was because our troops weren't trained to laugh and shoot at the same time. And that whole thing about Saddam curling up in bed is pretty accurate: That whole Healthy and Vigilant Saddam is pretty staged. The guy can barely walk. Of course, you don't have to walk to order the launching of weapons of mass destruction, but I thought I'd throw that in.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Saddam supports terrorism, Saddam has weapons, Saddam does this and Saddam does that, blah blah blah..

 

I think we all know what this is really about, just like it was the first time, and just like it is now. Say it with me now..

 

O I L

 

I knew you could.

 

If Saddam were really some sort of real threat, he would have done something by now that would have given us a reason to go after him instead of having to wait 12 years for an excuse more palatable with the public (terrorism) to go after him again, even though we all know that the US just wants to attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam so that whoever replaces Saddam will be more open with the oil. I dont think that they've ever been able to conclusively state that he has any ties to any sort of terrorism that directly harms the US (IE Al Qeda) and I am getting tired of blaming every freaking thing on Terrorism just to make it ok.

 

And yet somehow, I know that the Bush administration will convince the majority of the people in the US that risking american service men's lives a second time for oil is ok, because its really going to put a dent in terrorism.

 

Sorry, but I dont buy it.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I would love to see Hussian go, the man is a maniac.

 

 

But to say that the Bush Administration is turning this into a fiasco is an understatement. If you had told me on September 12th last year that one year from now that U.S and European relations would be at their lowest ebb for years I would have laughed.

 

But thats what has happend, here in the U.K the government looks likley to split over the issue, Germany wants no part of it and I think Russia will not be keen either.

 

Ands thats before the U.S gets into Iraq. I have no confidance that the U.S after defeating Saddam can stop the region from destabilising, and install a democratic government. There scoreboard on that hasen't been great since the end of WW2

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

Bush senior should have finished the job properly at Storm

[Guest TJH]

Bush senior should have finished the job properly at Storm

Unfortunately, there were a couple of reasons that wasn't possible:

 

1. The UN mandate only extended to liberating Kuwait.

 

2. Saudi + Turkey did not want Iraq removed as a regional power owing to possible threats from the Kurds, and Shiites, as well as balance of power with Iran.

 

3. Possible threat of chemical/biological weapons.

 

Also, it was believed that there would soon be a revolution anyway, but that did not eventuate.

 

I personally don't believe these are valid reasons, and actually agree with Darryl, but i'm just stating facts here.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Say it with me now..

O I L

I knew you could.

We barely use any oil at all from the Middle East these days. Total imports from the region are at 10%. You're wrong; get over it. Next.

[Guest TJH]

We barely use any oil at all from the Middle East these days. Total imports from the region are at 10%. You're wrong; get over it. Next.

Yes, but because other areas rely on middle eastern oil, it will send the price up worldwide. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Supply down = Price up.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

because other areas rely on middle eastern oil, it will send the price up worldwide. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Supply down = Price up.

Speculative. Production in Russia, Venezuela, and Canada could make up for it in theory. We don't know what would happen because it hasn't yet, and the economics aren't that simple when supply is rigidly controlled in order to influence price.

 

Anyway, paying another dollar or two per gallon would be worth the benefits. Heck, maybe we'd see fewer SUVs on the roads. That alone would justify a war.

 

(Yes, that was a joke.)

[Guest TJH]

Speculative. Production in Russia, Venezuela, and Canada could make up for it in theory. We don't know what would happen because it hasn't yet, and the economics aren't that simple when supply is rigidly controlled in order to influence price.

 

Anyway, paying another dollar or two per gallon would be worth the benefits. Heck, maybe we'd see fewer SUVs on the roads. That alone would justify a war.

 

(Yes, that was a joke.)

I can't believe it! A Marney joke!

Anyway, it is a question of whether those countries would want to increase their production. Why would you want to force the price down if you are an oil producing nation, when you can sell less and still make the same amount of cash. However the U.S may "convince" them to do so.