Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[Azimaith]

Blah, I could probably do the same with Slobo eh? Bah, Yugoslavia, bah! China, BAH IRAQ, BAH!

[Donut]

I'm afraid you've missed the barrel on several occasions John D. Are you seriously suggesting that given the trouble that Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent George Bush, is in with reguard to the reasons for going to war, that it is conceivable that they have found WoMD and are concealing the fact.

What sort of lax logic would that be!?
What earthly reasons could they have for doing that?

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Donut: I'm afraid you've missed the barrel on several occasions John D. Are you seriously suggesting that given the trouble that Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent George Bush, is in with reguard to the reasons for going to war, that it is conceivable that they have found WoMD and are concealing the fact. What sort of lax logic would that be!? What earthly reasons could they have for doing that?

Maybe if they found some WoMD but the label on it said 'Made in USA'??? Might want to conceal it in that case?

[Timber Loftis]

John D., thank you for your lovely rendition of that song. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Djinn, good point. If they run across "USA" labels on WoMD materials -- which is very likely considering we gave Saddam weapons to use against Iran -- it would be VERY interesting.

[Skunk]

--JOhn D. Well it's about time an opponent that isn't like shooting fish in a barrel, Lordy I was having to be creative in my replies to keep it interesting. That's the first time I've heard of the guidance system, do you have any links or can you point me in the direction to find it verify that for myself? (I'm not being a smart A** here I'd like to know the facts on that.)

Blix orders Iraq to destroy missiles
United Nations, February 22
In a crucial order that could make the difference between war and peace, chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix has given Iraq time till March 1 to begin destroying dozens of its Al-Samoud 2 missiles that exceed the allowed range, their engines, warheads and guidance system under the world body’s supervision.

Diplomats said Mr Blix was under intense pressure from the USA and the UK to move fast, and Iraq’s reaction to this major development could make the difference between war and peace.

In a four-page letter handed over to Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri yesterday, Mr Blix told Iraq that appropriate arrangements should be made so that the destruction process could commence by March 1.

Mr Blix’s order followed the conclusion reached by an international experts’ panel, convened by him, that the missiles were capable of exceeding the range of 150 km set by the Security Council. A copy of the findings of the experts’ panel was attached to the letter.

The inspectors, he said in the letter, would select a variety of methods for destruction depending on items to be destroyed such as explosive demolition, crushing, melting and other physical and chemical methods.

Mr Blix is also preparing a list of 35 outstanding questions about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and long-range missile programmes which he would like Baghdad to answer. He would discuss it on Monday with his advisory board of commissioners before finally submitting to Baghdad.

Diplomats said Iraq’s response to the letter would be closely watched, for, a reluctance to demolish one of its most prized weapon systems would be taken by Washington and London as Baghdad’s failure to disarm voluntarily and support their case for war.

The UN assessment is based on data provided by Iraq, which had explained that in some of the tests, the missiles went beyond the allowed range because it lacked a guidance system and the absence of any warhead also made them lighter.

Mr Blix is expected to present a written report to the council on March 1 but now diplomats say it may be delayed till March 7 by which time destruction of missiles and related materials should have started.

Mr Al-Douri wants the UN experts to go to Iraq and see for themselves that the missile cannot exceed 150-km limit rather than depending on theoretical calculations. PTI

Do a search on google with the keywords:
iraq missiles guidance system
and you'll find a lot more links to it. It doesn't surprise me that you hadn't heard about this, the media in the US had been rather coy about a number of pertinent war issues.

As you can see from above, it wasn't just the fact that they had no guidence system that gave these missiles the extra range - it was also because they had no PAYLOAD! The only way that those errant missiles could have killed anyone beyond the 150KM range would have been if they landed on your head...

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: How typical of a conservative to dismiss an investigative work they disagree with just becuase they do not like the arthor. If you had bothered to do even the most cursory look at the book in question you would have found that MR Woodward was given direct access to Bush and his advisor when writing this book and also given free access to meeting notes from the White House as well. (Deleted the book report...er... book review for brievities sake [img]smile.gif[/img] jdh )

So Rokenn I can take it from your answer quoted above that you can't give any facts just an opinion (the book review from Amazon.com) who's to say that that book review is the only sole truth on the book? (answer that if you can.)
How typical of a liberal when they can't come up with a single fact or answer they try to divert the discusion away from their lack of fact based reasoning by trying to cut down their opponent. So Rokenn I'm still waiting on one single quote of a Bush adiminstration official to back up your claims. And I couldn't help but notice that after you attempted to put down my arguements by saying it was typical of a conservative to dissmis something because thay don't like the author. YOU, yes I mean the personal you, then turned around and did the same thing to about me, and I quote:

Originally posted by Rokenn: Bad Donut! Stop trying to shake his blind faith in his leaders [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[/QUOTE]John you need to learn the difference between a serious statement and humor. Obviously the remark to donut was a humorous aside. Atleast my attempts at humor do not involve demonizing you (unlike your little bit of flaming humor).

As I have been on vacation the last 4 days and have totaly forgotten what 'facts' you feel are in question why don't you pose your questions so I can shoot them down one by one. Also I would really suggest that you take the time to read 'Bush at War' as it is actually very flattering towards the Presidant and a good read to boot.

[ 09-23-2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Donut: I'm afraid you've missed the barrel on several occasions John D. Are you seriously suggesting that given the trouble that Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent George Bush, is in with reguard to the reasons for going to war, that it is conceivable that they have found WoMD and are concealing the fact. What sort of lax logic would that be!? What earthly reasons could they have for doing that?

Donut,
Have you ever heard of the enigma code used by Nazi Germany during the second world war? Do you know that British Intel. cracked that code early in the war and DID NOT SHARE that info with other depts of British and Allied Intel. much less the general public? What about the Intel gathered all through out the cold war with the Soviet block, did British or US intel share all they knew with the public? What was the acuracy of the Soviet IMBC force? What about the codws they used? Amounts of Chemcial and Biological weapons? Locations of said weapons types? Some of that information can now be found a decade after the fall of the USSR but how much of that info was availible to the general public during the cold war? The intel community is known for keeping things secret, that's one of their main jobs. Lordy, Lordy look at the hoopla that is going on currently in the US about the mentioning of an CIA employees name! Given that fact alone plus the historical facts that the intel community keeps things secert is why I say the logic is lax. Facts and history do not back up any other conclusion.
What reasons would there be to keep the knowledge secret? To apply pressure on countries that sold items to Iraq for starters. Remember back in early July there was a report of finding several of the mobile labs? the reason that got out was there was an imbedded reporter with the military unit that discovered the labs. Soon after the techs got there to inspect the labs there story was dropped no more news came out about the labs. A few weeks later one of the country's that had opposed the war goverment, started backing off on thier critsizm(sp?) of the war and the leaders of the allied countries that attacked Iraq. Sereval of the biggest critics all of a sudden started singing a different tune. Oh it was slowly at first but nothing like the critisizm months ago. Or how about if the WMDs had been moved to a third county or countries? Would it not be reasonable for the intel community to keep their mouth shut and more so the leaders of the allies to sit on the knowledge rather then release the knowledge and risk the WMDs being moved? Or warn the countries that could be hiding the WMDs and significantly increase the likelyhood of losing soliders if an opperation was mounted against the WMDs. Or if reveling the fact they know of the locations of the WMDs in a differant country might give away an intel asset, the Intel community would keep there mouths shut.

[Djinn Raffo]

Hey John wasn't it the Poles that played the major part in cracking the Enigma code?

[Faceman]

A Polish mathematician, Marian Rejewski, broke the code first in 1932. Of course the Germans kept developing/enhancing the enigma but after the war had started the Poles shared their research with the British where Alan Turing (working at the Bletchley Park cryptography center) developed a new method to decipher the enigma based on the Polish research.

[John D Harris]

You've got to be kidding me Skunk,
First off the news paper artical you supplied clearly states:

Mr Blix’s order followed the conclusion reached by an international experts’ panel, convened by him, that the missiles were capable of exceeding the range of 150 km set by the Security Council. A copy of the findings of the experts’ panel was attached to the letter.

next it states:

The UN assessment is based on data provided by Iraq, which had explained that in some of the tests, the missiles went beyond the allowed range because it lacked a guidance system and the absence of any warhead also made them lighter.
***********
Ok we have established that fact.
now here's another artical:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030213/137/211og.html

Six independent experts have concluded that Iraq's production of the Al Samoud 2 missile had a range of over 150 km, which is forbidden under U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Al Samoud repeatedly tested up to 40 km beyond that limit.

However, Aziz suggested that any possible overshoot by the rocket was accidental.

"The main problem is that Iraqi missiles which are of a very short range don't have a guidance system and when a missile doesn't have a guidance system it goes five, 10, 15 kilometres beyond (target)," he said
**********
Ok which do we believe the six independent experts that state the missles went REPEATEDLY 40km beyond that {150km} limit or Aziz that said goes 5,10, 15 Kilometers beyond (target). Remember the inspector relied on Iraqi data as per the artical you supplied.
**************
Now here's another link:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/tran...25.siegel.html
Please note this quote from the artical:
SIEGEL: Now there's some dispute at this point, Iraq claiming that actually if the missile is armed and loaded it doesn't go that far, and therefore it isn't a violation. Is that something that one uses the computer simulation for?

Mr. McCARTHY: The thing about that is the Iraqis have argued that, you know, when they put the weight of the warhead and a guidance system on a missile that it won't fly as far. Now theoretically that's absolutely the case. The problem is that, indeed, right now as it's being flown the missile does have warhead weight and the missile does have a guidance system. What actually Iraq wants to do and what they're not telling a lot of folks is that they want to put in a second guidance system.

Anybody notice anything differant in this artical *hint* second "guidance system"
*another hint* The problem is that, indeed, right now as it's being flown the missile does have warhead weight and the missile does have a guidance system.

So it seem Skunk that the missle can do more damage then just falling on your head as you tried to point out.
***********
and this quote from the artical:
SIEGEL: So you're saying what the Iraqis claim would be a fully loaded Al Samoud 2 is nothing like the missile that they have right now.

Mr. McCARTHY: They are saying a fully loaded missile would be too heavy and, therefore, the range would be reduced. Except they're deploying the missile now without this second guidance system; therefore, the missile is operational and, therefore, it seems to me, they're flying it and it's certainly flying beyond the 150-kilometer range.

Notice anything about this quote *hint* the missile is operational, not underdevelopemnet but operational.
************

Now to be fair, and intellectually honest the next guest does talk about the accuracy of a missle with out the terminal guidance system. To be equally fair and intellectually honest the issue is not, was not and never has been the accuracy it has always been the range. I stated several times the scud missles are no more accurate then a V2, and it seems this missle also suffers from the same weakness. Too bad, so sad, not the problem, range is a violation not accuracy.
***********
VERY INSIGHTFUL QUOTE
Maj. Gen. SCALES: Very, very good point. If Saddam is intent on resisting this invasion using conventional military means, much as he did in 1991, then he would relinquish the missiles. If he intends perhaps to turn this campaign into a campaign of terror against the United States and against neighboring countries, he would probably hold on to it. So that's a very interesting litmus test, isn't it?

Does anybody remember watching the opening days of the war? Can anybody remember seeing the likes of Ollie North and other reporters putting on their bio/chem suits because they were recieving incoming...?

*hint* missles it seems they were the very types of missles we are now discussing.
**************
And another link
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-022047-3853r

Please note the expert panels findings.

As I've shown in the other links I provided the Statement the missles had no guidance system and therefore would have not traveled beyond the 150KM range limit is at best inaccurate and at worst a false, "HALE" no sense in plesentreies(sp?)a Damn LIE
***********

Now on to the next issue "Diplomats said Mr Blix was under intense pressure from the USA and the UK to move fast," Note the words "move fast" NOT lie. So where was this pressure and in what form? How could the USA and the UK pressure Mr Blix? He was not an employee of either country so he couldn't be fired. He was a UN diplomat so he couldn't be arrested. Now the panel of experts were from the five countries that make up the permenent members of the UN Security Council, three countries of which opposed any conflict with Iraq. How is it proposed that these members were pressured? After all their countries opposed any war yet these panel members insisted the missles were in violation a clear matterial breach under UN r1441. By stating the missles were in violation the authorazation for hostilies was given under UN r1441. Were these panel members countries incapitable of protecting them from pressure? Did they have so little faith in their own countries govt's or the UN that they caved in to the pressure? If they caved in and the UN caved in by not protecting them from this pressure would a body like the UN be the one the world would want to set up and control Iraq's future? Lord, if the UN can't even protect it's diplomats from pressure and cave in so quickly, how would they stand up to let's say a terrorist bombing? Oh wait that's right they retreated...er advanced in a different dirction.