Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on March 20, 2003, 04:08:19 AM
-
Ummm just wondering, they're reporting 2 Scuds shot down over Kuwait by Patriot missiles.
Could you please clarify for me, is the Scud (regardless of warhead) a material breach on resolution 1441?
-
Irak has long range misiles which where declared to the UN inspectors, and destroyed according to 1441. There are still many of them which were not destroyed.
Al-Samud, I think they were called, and were perfectly able to reach Kuwait City from Iraqi soil.
Are you sure they were Scuds the missiles the patriots shot down, and not al-samud?. How do you know?.
-
Guess no one will know til they find the bits, but initial reports are they were scuds, and the warheads were conventional. I'd assume they calculated the type from the trajectory, and given the attacks on artillery positions within striking distance of the Kuwaiti border I doubt the coalition forces would've left any Al-Samuds alone either.
-
Al-Samud is also a ballistic missile with ballistic trajectories. And is also a movile land to land missile, like the scud is.
Not to mention that if Iraq had Scuds, I doubt it was Kuwait the nation Saddam would attack, but Israel.
I'm not saying it was not a Scud as I simply don't know, my point is, you also can't be sure it was. Just because the media reported it was a Scud, doesn't immediately mean it WAS one.
-
A conventionally armed and ranged scud is not covered by 1441.
I expect you to start a similar thread when the Iraqis open up with their AK-47s or start using their T-72s.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
A conventionally armed and ranged scud is not covered by 1441.
not sure about this, Dowding, but I think it was covered by 1441. Reason why Al-Samuds were being destroyed was that their range was several dozen miles over what was allowed by the disarmement requirements of the UN resolutions, and Al-Samuds have lower range than the Scuds.
-
Oops Dowding, I think you've got some turd on your shoe.
:D
-
Isn't the whole of Kuwait inside the allowed UN range? Bear in mind it's a rather small country...
-
no, it isn't. Al-samuds were illegal according to UN resolutions,that is why they were being destroyed. And Al-Samuds could reach Kuwait City, which was well out of the range allowed for Irak's missiles.
-
Al Samud <> Scud
A conventional Scud can reach Kuwait city. A conventional Scud, not range modified, is not covered by 1441.
Vulcan - is that right? Ha! I must have trod on you. :D
-
Not all Al-Samouds were destroyed, that's obvious, so they could be firing those, but the fact is that Kuwait City is only 40 miles from the frontier, so you don't need an Al-Samoud to reach it. I don't know if they have something else capable of those ranges.
So stop wondering about silly "proofs".
As Dowding said, it looks silly to start a war and whine when the enemy fires back.
-
Scratch that, I'd confused the ranges of the Scud compared to the Al Samud. My mistake.
-
A conventional scud, not range modified, is 300km's, modified is 650km's. Both are a tad outside the 150 km limit.
Reports range between 3-6 scuds, being launched from across the 'bay' of kuwait. Northern British forces have been kept in biochem suits for 3 hours while the missile components were recovered identified and tested for chem or bio munitions.
So the missiles have been identified and confirmed as scud's.
Here you go dowding:
"Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations."
The war is legal. Saddam has revealed at least some of the weapons he has failed to destroy, declare, and so on.
On the first day he has deployed those weapons he denied he had.
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.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
On the first day he has deployed those weapons he denied he had.
No, he hasn't. According to the Pentagon, the downed missiles were al-samuds.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.kuwait.rockets/index.html
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile "
As I said, It's a mistake to extract conclussions so fast from media reports. It's better to wait and see until the facts are shown to be that: facts.
Takeda I'm sure noone is whining about Irak striking back. But if Irak had done so with Scuds, then it would be evidence of them breaking the 1441 resolution, giving backup to those who say that UN isn't effective when it has to enforce its own decisions.
-
Interesting, I just saw a frontline interview where they positively identified them as scuds. But this was British forces, where the scuds actually came down.
-
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.:p
-
Vulcan
don't you know the peaceful Iraqies didn't fire anything?
Just another American/British lie to further justify our OIL war :rolleyes:
-
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 :/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So. . . .err. . . . .ummm. . . . which of them missiles is supposed to reach the good ol' USA we are trying to defend?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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..........
-
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
-
'Scud attack' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2869121.stm)
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).
-
Its amazing how they scramble for other excuses isn't it AKWabbit. They won't be happy unless a cloud of VX actually hits New York and millions are killed. Even then they'd probably say it was the US's fault because Saddam was molested as a child.
Sirloin, Frogman, so now we know Iraq lied about its Missiles. And the weapons inspections teams missed up to 10 Scuds and their launching systems. Thats a freaking big missile to miss.
So what else did Iraq lie about? Its bio and chem weapons programs? Its Nuclear programs? Its ties with Al Qaeda?
And what else did the Weapons inspectors miss.
-
The fault lies with the government that refused to cooperate with them. Inspectors can't find a missile in a complex they're not permitted access to.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Ram? Dowding? Can you provide any sources to counter? What is BBC reporting?
I'll look, wait and see.
All I know is that yesterday the pentagon claimed the first missiles to be al-samuds. The last ones ,I don't know :).
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Sorry Sir Loin, not going to let you deflect.
You mean.."Divert".....Either way,it's the old American double standard...Arm one country illegally and take "the Fifth",then turn around and invade another for doing the same thing...lol
-
No, much better to take the Canadian approach. Sit idly by while the world disintegrates around it, while people are public executed in the streets of Bagdad by having their tongues ripped and being left to bleed to death - all because they 'slandered' saddam.
Whats ridiculous is taking some moral high ground based on events that happened so long ago, committed by another president, another administration.
Its the ineptness of people like you who look in every nook and crany of world history to find a reason to 'leave him be' that has allowed attocities to happen. Attrocities like Iraq, like Cambodia. People like you would have us speaking German and wearing brownshirts by now.
These protestors are doing nothing short of supporting a massmurderer.
Good diddlying job Bush is cleaning up. So diddlying what if its in the name of Oil. At least it gets that bastard Saddam out of there.
-
Ramm I just asking what your opinion of that scenario would be. No need to wait. What I'm asking is (even if we haven't verified yet...) if it turns out they were using missles they claimed the never had, does that alter your view?
SirLoin why don't you just answer the original question? Does it scare you?
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.
(BTW, I not saying they definitely were. I'm seeing conflicting reports.)
Wab
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
SirLoin why don't you just answer the original question? Does it scare you?
A:Yes it is in breach of Resolution 1441.
Let me ask you one my good luck footed friend...
Q : Do you believe this invasion is about the disarmament of Iraq or removing Saddam from power?
I'm willing to make a nice long post if you are...
PS..and,yes I am very scared..
-
Bump
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
A:Yes it is in breach of Resolution 1441.
Let me ask you one my good luck footed friend...
Q : Do you believe this invasion is about the disarmament of Iraq or removing Saddam from power?
I'm willing to make a nice long post if you are...
PS..and,yes I am very scared..
They are both the same thing. Iraq must be disarmed. Saddam refuses. To disarm Iraq, and ensure it stays that way, Saddam must be removed.
-
*If* it was a Scud it's a breach of 1441. :)
I don't recall ever saying saddam didn't have chem/bio weapons...after all RoNaLD RaYguNZ and Poppy Bush sold them to saddam.
That said this war is still about oil.
Chimpy knows if he can grab the oilfields and drop price per barrel to $20.00 it's the same as a $100 billion dollar tax cut in it's effect on the US economy.
-
I'd suggest using 1441 as 'rolling paper' and pass it around...
-
Good god!
Lee Harvey Weazel made a coherent post!