Saddam uses banned SCUDS...

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Jimster

Personally I am not aware of the destructive power of a SCUD missile- and won't make any assumptions- but what I was saying pre-war is somewhat being revealed- Now that the pressure is being cranked up on Saddam he is using his weapons- he wouldn't be shooting them off if Bush wasn't trying to over-run him

I not following this argument. Think about it this way. Let's pretend that I am a terrorist living in your country with a nuclear weapon in my possession, but I would never use it as a preemptive weapon. Then, let's say the gov't gets tipped off about my nuclear bomb and raids my house. Then, according to your logic I would be justified in setting off my bomb on the government forces???? Maybe I'm missing something?

And no a SCUD is not nearly as destructive as a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean the US should just shake it off and not make an issue of it. Like I said before, if Saddam lied about the SCUDs, who knows what else he is lying about? That's the way the American court system works: If you lie about one thing you lose all credibility and the burden of proof now lies on you to prove your innocence. Thus, in my opinion, Saddam's lies about the SCUDS (if these were in fact verified to be SCUDS) should not be taken lightly.

Oh, Millardo, were did you get your info on the types of missiles fired on Iraq? I've been searching, and I haven't found a report yet that veritably confirms whether or not they were SCUDs.

[Milliardo]

Whether it's a Scud or not is irrelevant, though Saddam's arsenal is made up mostly of Scuds. Any variant he has is based on it, so technically you might say they're modified Scuds. When I mean it's irrelevant, what I mean is that since what has been used are conventional missiles, they're perfectly legal, and Saddam has every right to use them. The U.S. cannot cry for sanctions against that, unless those missiles were biologically armed, something that so far has not been verified yet.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Milliardo
Whether it's a Scud or not is irrelevant, though Saddam's arsenal is made up mostly of Scuds. Any variant he has is based on it, so technically you might say they're modified Scuds. When I mean it's irrelevant, what I mean is that since what has been used are conventional missiles, they're perfectly legal, and Saddam has every right to use them. The U.S. cannot cry for sanctions against that, unless those missiles were biologically armed, something that so far has not been verified yet.

If the "conventional missiles" have ranges beyond 150km then Iraq is in violation of UN resolution 687. They don't have to be filled with chemcial or biological weapons for a violation to take place. And yes, much of Iraq's weapons are reversed engineered SCUD B's with worse quality and usually less range, but there are Al-Hussein missiles, which are variants of the SCUD B, (the al-Samoud missiles are also believed to have a range > 150km) that some sources say have ranges beyond 650km. So, you are jumping to conclusions way too fast. We don't even know the type or range of missiles used against the US bases in Kuwait. Until then, let's keep an open mind to all possibilities. The odds are that they are short range missiles, but I heard some reports from Kuwaiti officials that they were in fact SCUDs.

[Murco]

Originally posted by Milliardo
For the record, what were used were conventional missiles--they're not banned. What's banned are missiles which are biologically or chemically armed. That's what the U.N. is looking for.

And what they didn't find, among many previously recorded items in his arsenal. And resolution 1441 banned ANY missile with a range of 90 miles or more which the SCUD is capable of. Regardless of accuracy, it's the destructive range that is the concern here. Tracking has shown these to be SCUD missiles.
I would hope that even the most ardent anti-war people have noticed that we have not blown half of Iraq away in a huge mass of destruction and caused many civilian deaths, as was protested so much here before the invasion.
So, if he's attacked, Hussein can use WMD to defend himself? But then, Bush was right all along...

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by taranaki


Compare that with the amount of filth that America has rained down on Iraq in the last 48 hours.If you want a war criminal,try looking in the White House.Bush is an asshole.

you know naki i didnt expect to see something like that out of you. im a bit let down. there are resolutions in place saying that SCUDS are not to be in possetion by the iraqi gov. every single weapon being used by the US forces are legal in every aspect. i odubt bush is an asshole as you so nicely put it and i still have not had anyone give me an answer how america/white house/ bush is/are war criminals...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[T4 Primera]

IMHO, Bush was always going into Iraq regardless of the UN and regardless of disarmament. Notice the shift in emphasis now from one of disarmament to one of regime change.

Regarding the missiles - once a war starts, all bets are off. What military leader in their right mind would surrender all means of defending themselves when there is an army at the door and instability all around? It is just unrealistic to expect him to disarm under these circumstances. Bush made it virtually impossible to do otherwise - remembering that Iraq needs to maintain a some form of deterrent due to hostile neighbours as well.

Probably the most ludicrous ideal I can think of is that there are supposedly "Rules of War". It is easy to criticise the methods and tactics used by a weaker opponent when such a vast imbalance exists in military power. Desperate situations call for desperate measures and the more desperate the situation Saddam is forced into - the more unpredictable his actions will become.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

some of your points i would agree with. but all iam saying is that it is ironic that iraq is firing missiles off that they claimed didnt exist and that it is proof that saddam was lying about complying...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[T4 Primera]

Yes he lied. He needed to do that while still maintaining some suspicion that he had effective weapons. Quite a balancing act.

The point I wish to emphasize most is that of Iraq needing some form of deterrent to prevent the likes of Turkey and Iran invading.

In essence, complying with the UN resolutions of disarmament would have placed Iraq in the position of being ripe for the picking with regards to it's neighbours.

...and you can bet that neither the UN nor the allied forces would be falling over themselves in the stampede to "liberate" Iraq from a Turkish or Iranian invasion...at least not while Saddam Hussein was in power.

If we go back in History to the end of WW1, the resulting Versailles Treaty placed such hardship on Germany that it created the conditions that eventually led to WW2. We have a similar situation, albeit on a smaller scale (for the moment anyway) with Iraq. The demands placed on it by the UN since the Gulf War were unsustainable in the sense that the either they failed to comply - or gave up their main deterrent against being attacked.

[Cbass]

There is something you are forgetting here, he DID declare those missiles. Iraq has been in negotiations with the inspections team about how they will be disarmed, and when.

If you ACTUALLY READ the Blix reports, Saddam has been complying completely.

T4 Primera, you are absolutely correct. Bush never gave a damn about those alleged weapons of mass destruction, or Saddam Hussein for that matter. This war has been more than a decade in the making, and now it's finally come.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by Murco
And what they didn't find, among many previously recorded items in his arsenal. And resolution 1441 banned ANY missile with a range of 90 miles or more which the SCUD is capable of.

Ironically, doesn't the U.S. have ICBMs that have ranges well over that limit, which can reach halfway around the world and maybe a little bit more? I still fail to see why this should apply to Iraq, but not to the U.S. or any other country which possesses such missiles (Russia comes to mind).

Regardless of accuracy, it's the destructive range that is the concern here. Tracking has shown these to be SCUD missiles.

And we should not be concerned by U.S. ICBMs then? They're more accurate, more deadlier, and any fool who'd launch them on targets better make sure he's dead as well, or else he'll have much more to pay than Saddam ever would.

I would hope that even the most ardent anti-war people have noticed that we have not blown half of Iraq away in a huge mass of destruction and caused many civilian deaths, as was protested so much here before the invasion.

Contentious, as both sides will employ censorship. The U.S. government, for instance, didn't allow photographs of the victims of the atomic bombings in Japan during World War II to be circulated until after 2 or so years later. Until 1944, U.S. war casualties (soldiers) were kept from U.S. citizens. Such censorships are meant to minimize criticism, and I would expect that Bush will make full use of it, in light of the less-than-welcome response he got from many people.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

1)because last tiem i checked the us hasnt invaded mexico or canada in the past years with the current leader...

2)also when was the last time you have seen an icbm being launched at a target by the us...

3)censoring wars does more good than you will ever know...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
1)because last tiem i checked the us hasnt invaded mexico or canada in the past years with the current leader...

2)also when was the last time you have seen an icbm being launched at a target by the us...

3)censoring wars does more good than you will ever know...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Points 1 and 2 are ludicrious, because it doesn't mean they won't happen. Nor, in point 2, does that mean that an ICBM isn't dangerous. The point made in banning is that it is dangerous, and has the capability to inflict large losses of life, which an ICBM has an infinitely greater capacity to do than Saddam's Scuds ever could.

In point 3, so now when it comes to the U.S. having war, it is okay to withold information which the public has the right to know? So, in essence, we should throw away that right then? Unless Bush expects that if a large loss of lives were reported, there'd be a hell lot more demonstrations against him, and he can kiss his reelection bid goodbye.

[Pick]

Originally posted by Milliardo




In point 3, so now when it comes to the U.S. having war, it is okay to withold information which the public has the right to know? So, in essence, we should throw away that right then? Unless Bush expects that if a large loss of lives were reported, there'd be a hell lot more demonstrations against him, and he can kiss his reelection bid goodbye.[/font]

Oh, so know we should just broadcast every little military secret on everybody's TV. The media is already too nosy.

[dolla_bill0913]

Who locked Milliardo in a closet and threw away the key. Guess you slept through the 1st golf war. Just to catch you up to date, after the war the UN told saddam what weapons he could have and what he couldnt. The weapons(missles) he fired at kuwait where on the list of weapons he couldnt have. Do some research before you make a post, or else you just look goofy.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

milliard do you really think the US has any plans of invading canada or mexico. has bush stated that he is going to take over the world (dotn even try to tell me he has) saddam has proven that he will try to invade countries. and also did the un unanimously decide that the US should disarm NO so dont try to bring those points in here they just arent valid.

-GTi-VR6_A3