Author Topic: Al Samoud 2 imported engines (Read 498 times)

Toad · « **on:** February 24, 2003, 10:52:12 AM »

Blix said in his letter to Iraq:

"3. The SA-2 missile engines imported outside of the export/import mechanism and in contravention of paragraph 24 of resolution 687 (1991), which have been configured for use in the Al Samoud 2, are in the process of being so configured, or are otherwise associated with the Al Samoud 2 missile program; "

So where exactly did they get the SA-2 missile engines from? The ones "imported outside of the export/import mechanism in contravention of paragraph 24 of resolution 687"?

Which country did the deal with them? Anyone know?

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:02:04 AM »

Some web sources are saying the Ukraine is the source of the engines. Haven't come across any real definitive statement yet though.

Monk · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:49:56 AM »

I've read that they are SA-2 rocket engines. They were aquired as late as December 2002.

Sabre · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2003, 12:23:11 PM »

Quote

in contravention

That would mean "in direct violation of" unless I'm mistaken; i.e. wantonly defying the U.N. Yet we are supposed to believe continued Iraqi claims that they destroyed all thier WMD and other prohibited weapons (of which this missile is one) back years ago. Once again let us remember that the inspectors job is not to "catch" Iraq hiding stuff, but to verify it's disarmament. If Iraq is intent on not disarming, there is no way to do this without occupying Iraq militarily. The evidence so far is that they are not serious about proving their own disarmament, and have not in fact disarmed.

Saddam is playing the U.N. like a virtuoso, preceding each new report with "indications of increased cooperation." This gives certain nations in the U.N. a reason to insist inspections continue, that progress is being made, that the inspections are "working" (what definition of "working" they're using escapes me). My own theory is that any time the U.N. manages to stumble upon an Iraqi violation (even a blind man will occasionally find an acorn in the forest), Iraqi hesitates in explaining or complying with inspectors' questions or orders, waits until the last minute before the next Blix report, than agrees to do what's been asked. Note: agreement to comply and actual compliance are not the same. This forces Blix to caviot his report to include the statement, "signs of increased cooperation." Assuming Iraq has plenty of stuff hidden away, they can afford to play this game until the world tires of it and forgets about Iraq again. Then, the inspectors will be kicked out again, perhaps never to return.

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2003, 12:26:14 PM »

Basically agree Sabre.

Although I expect Iraq to try to import prohibited arms; after all, that's the whole problem with Saddam, isn't it?

My thought, though, is that whoever supplied this stuff bears some responsibility as well. Maybe even more than Iraq. After all, the suppliers, whoever they are, are aware of the UN restrictions as well and chose to undermine the world community's action by selling to Iraq.

Sabre · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:28:21 PM »

No question about that, Toad. I think any nation, my own included, found to be aiding a country in circumventing U.N. sanctions should be censured in some way. Perhaps the U.N. could file suit in the World Court (though I don't know if such a move would yield any tangible penalties to the country sued). World condemnation may not mean anything to some countries, but at least call them out on it, hold them up to the court of world opinion.

bounder · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:34:40 PM »

I think Saddam just crossed his last line in the sand, refusing to destroy them as per Blix's order.

I hope he will reconsider (fat chance - what a dweeb).

funkedup · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:39:56 PM »

Yep he's a tard. You'd think he'd put self-preservation ahead of building offensive weapons.

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:49:41 PM »

In a similar vein, if it does come to light at a later date that other sovereign nations aided Iraq in covering up/hiding/moving/storing out the country some Iraqi WMD, what happens to those nations?

Rude · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:59:29 PM »

I give up...what will happen to those nations?

Oh...wait! I know.....the world will side with them and accuse the US of blind unilateralism

Dnil · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2003, 05:10:13 PM »

think we should send ol' Saddam a hat?

Maverick · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2003, 12:59:30 PM »

sadumb has no reason to comply as long as he thinks he has france and germany in his back pocket. Particularly france as they have a security council veto in the UN. Since russia has been tagging along behind france, sadumb has even more reason to keep thumbing his nose at the un.

StSanta · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2003, 01:08:45 PM »

Yep Maverick, now he even says he's 'considering' following the UN order to destroy the missiles.

If Germany et al had not gone their way, he'd be considering it - he'd done it by now.

But he knows how to play the wind.