Blitz, Weazel, and any Frogs...

[Dowding]

Dowding, I'm gonna be nice too you, I shaved a little spot on my arse for you to kiss so you don't get any of my curly butt hairs stuck in your pretty little mouth. Pucker up sonny.

The level of creativity and thought that went into that, worries me almost as much as the pospect of doing it.

Besides, already admitted I was in error.

[Eagler]

Vulcan

don't you know the peaceful Iraqies didn't fire anything?

Just another American/British lie to further justify our OIL war

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Eagler

don't you know the peaceful Iraqies didn't fire anything?
 

they just didn't fire Scuds, Eagler, which was the point of this thread. Vulcan wanted to say that Irak had breached res. 1441 because it had used Scuds, not declared to UN inspectors...

but they weren't Scuds, they were Al-Samud, which indeed were declared to the inspectors...thus the point of this thread has been proven to be invalid...for now


BTW, Spain is also supporting this "war for oil", as you call it. Much for my ,and most of my countrimates', shame :/

[Vermillion]

Actually, no RAM that logic is incorrect.

Just by existing the Al Samoud missle was and is a violation of the various UN resolutions.  Just because you "declared" it, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.  Thats why they were being destroyed.

Now, admittedly, you do get moral points in pointing out that such missles were being destroyed (at a slow pace and for propaganda purposes IMO).  

But they WERE a violation of the disarmament resolutions, just as the SCUD, or they would not have been in the destruction process in the first place.

[RRAM]

hummm correct me if I'm wrong, but 1441 called for Irak to declare&destroy any weapons that breached 1991 cease fire resolutions. And Irak was doing just that with the al-samuds...

I admit the destruction of those missiles was being done at a very slow pace, tho.

[Batz]

It doesnt matter  if the al samuds were declared or not  they were in material breech by just having them. They said they didnt have them until the inspector stumbled upon them.

The UN weapons gave them an opportunity to destroy them but that doesnt mean they were not in violation by having them.

Ram you need read the resolutions to figure what he roll of the inspectors were in Iraq to begin with. They werent sent their to disarm Iraq. They were there to verify that Iraq has complied with previous UN resolutions not to prove they were lying. They werent there as detectives to search for evidence that Iraq is hiding prescrided weapons.

Hans Bliz was a tool he said to group of students that he was much more concerned with the US refusal to acknowledge the koyoto treaty then he was about Iraq. He left stuff out of his verbal report to the UN.

Previous head weapon inspectors agree that Iraq is in material breech, not because of the al samuds but because of Saddams unwilling to comply in good faith.

The US government isnt obligated to the UN we are sovereign Nation and we will do what we want to preserve our interest. Your own government agrees with that. Do not  gimme "well popular opinion is against the attack" because popular opinion is usually the lest informed.

By any legal arguement the attack Iraq is a continuation of Gulf War 1. In this instance Saddam has failed to live up to the conditions he agreed to at the end of the 1st war.

[Vulcan]

Got up this morning and they're still saying they're scuds.

Last night before I hit the sack they reported 4 scuds, 2 al samud's, and 2 converted anti-ship missiles. So it sounded fairly certain then.

[Arfann]

So. . . .err. . . . .ummm. . . . which of them missiles is supposed to reach the good ol' USA we are trying to defend?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by RRAM
hummm correct me if I'm wrong, but 1441 called for Irak to declare&destroy any weapons that breached 1991 cease fire resolutions. And Irak was doing just that with the al-samuds...

I admit the destruction of those missiles was being done at a very slow pace, tho.

1141 called for them to adhere to 687, which gave them 45 days to declare all missiles.  

That's 45 days from it's passing in 1991, not 45 days from the time we catch you hiding them.

[CptTrips]

but they weren't Scuds, they were Al-Samud,

Well, CNN and Fox are both claiming that at least one of the missiles is confirmed to have been a SCUD-B.  

Ram?  Dowding?  Can you provide any sources to counter?  What is BBC reporting?  

Lets say it is a SCUD-B.  What would your thoughts be thoughts on that?


Wab

[Frogm4n]

good thing we started this war or those scuds would be heading to new york right now.


what about the squads we let North Korea sale to yeman?

[CptTrips]

Sorry froggie not going to let you deflect.

If Iraq used proscribed SCUD-B's, which I believe they claimed they didn't have, what are your thoughts on that?

Thanks for your cooperation.

Wab

[SirLoin]

What about the resolution that said trading hostages for weapons,and then sending the weapons and $$ to rebels without informing congress..and then having the President lie and letting the Vietnam hero take the fall..err..the Fifth...

Nah..no need for a "Trigger clause" there..........

[CptTrips]

Sorry Sir Loin, not going to let you deflect.

If Iraq used proscribed SCUD-B's, which I believe they claimed they didn't have, what are your thoughts on that?

Thanks for your cooperation.


Wab

[Toad]

'Scud attack'

The BBC's Tim Franks in northern Kuwait says the country has come under fire from 10 Scud-type missiles, some of which are reported to have been destroyed mid-flight by Patriot interceptor missiles.

Military sources in Kuwait say that two or three missiles were aimed at a Kuwaiti oil refinery.

Targets also apparently included Kuwait City and the British and American troops who had assembled near the Iraqi border.

One of the missiles landed just 300 metres from the US camp.

All were carrying conventional warheads, but US and British forces were taking no chances, donning gas masks and protective gear each time the air raid sirens sounded, our correspondent said.

Iraq has denied firing missiles into Kuwait.

BBC News Online's world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says that if it were confirmed that Iraq had fired Scuds, this would be proof that Iraq had broken the terms of the UN resolution which bans Iraq from having missiles with a range beyond 150km (93 miles).