's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Scuds(11 posts)

Mar 20, 2003 5:53 AM
THey are reporting that Saddam fired 4 Scud Missles on Kuwait. I thought he was not supposed to have those. I mean the inspectors only had 12 years to find them. I wonder what other weapons Saddam has?

Mike Y.
Nope...Al Sammoudssn69
Mar 20, 2003 6:13 AM
Probably some of the latter variants that he wasn't destroying to "demonstrate compliance." The thing with these that most never understood (least of all the media) is that liquid fueled missiles are not certified rounds. IOW, they have shelf lives since the propellants are extremely toxic and corrosive. After a while, the weapon has to either be re-engined/fueled or destroyed. ASs were a bastardized amalgamation of older SA-2 parts combined with FROG and/or various other antiquated surface to surface weapons dating back to the 50s. The ASs he was destroying were those that had exceeded their shelf lives and had a higher likelihood of blowing up on the rales than they did of hitting their targets. At the same time, his production lines have been pumping new versions out for the past 2 years at an alarming rate (one of the things I can say now).

In any case, I'll be curious to see how the PAC3 Patriots REALLY did (as opposed to DOD or CNN reports). That info will take a while to disseminate, however.

On a different note, thanks to all--left or right, for or against--for your support of our people over there. That means more than you'll ever know (except for OldEd and the others who, unfortunately, saw it the other way around). ...And remember Spookyload.... We haven't heard from him/her in a while, and I suspect that he/she has been quite busy for a while if that name means what I think it does.
THanks for the infoAlpedhuez55
Mar 20, 2003 6:34 AM
The media was reporting that they were Scuds this morning. Actually, ABC Radio News is still calling them Scuds at the moment. Just heard another report calling them scuds at 9:20AM. They also mentioned one the Patriots may have taken one of the missles out.

I hope you know all the troops are in my thoughts and prayers. As well as those of most Americans.

Mike Y.
On top of being wrong...Dwayne Barry
Mar 20, 2003 6:27 AM
you once again set-up strawmen to try to strengthen your side of the debate (or I guess in this case just to say "I told you so", which is always bad form).

The issue has never been whether or not Saddam was fully complying or had certain WMDs (although i don't think anyone thinks there are nuclear weapons despite what Bush implies). It's about whether that justifies a war.

Somewhat good arguements can be made to support this war, if we want to be honest. Don't engage is setting up strawmen, talking around issues, hyperbole, or putting forward falsehoods to support it. If nothing else the Bush adminstration has demonstrated that only works for a few of those open to persuasion.
ABC may be wrong, but they are still call them ScudsAlpedhuez55
Mar 20, 2003 7:00 AM
Whether they are scuds or Al-samouds, they were all supposed to have been destroyed. It just demonstrates how in-effective the inspection process was for the past dozen years. Here is a news report from ABC News:

"Iraq today fired at least four surface-to-surface missiles, prompting some U.S. Army troops awaiting a ground campaign near the Iraq-Kuwait border to put on gas masks and chemical protective gear before the all-clear sirens were sounded. Conflicting reports identified the missiles fired by Iraq as Scud or al-Samoud surface-to-surface missiles."
ABC Radio news has been and still is calling them Scuds at the moment.

In addition to weapons of Mass Destruction, there are many classes of weapons that were forbidden and supposed to have been destroyed. If Saddam is lying about these missles, what makes you think he is telling the truth about his chem & bio weapons? And we can thank Israel for Saddam not having Nukes right now. Whatever missles are being fired on Kuwait, they were in that class.

Mike Y.
You just don't get it...Dwayne Barry
Mar 20, 2003 7:25 AM
I think there is a high probability that Saddam does have chem/bio weapons. This seems to be an agreed upon position by just about everybody. Although there apparently is no or very weak proof, I think it's not a bad assumption.

The questions are:
Was there any reason to think he was going to use them in the region? (I wouldn't think so given the current state of international opinion and the fact he didn't use them in the 1st Gulf War).

And more importantly, from my perspective as an American, Was there any reason to believe he going to try to give them to terrorists to strike here?

Do you think if Saddam ends up trying to gas our troops that justifies the war, what about if he doesn't, does that mean we were wrong or does shooting a handful of highly inaccurate missles at Kuwait mean we've satisfied the issue of WMD and the threat they pose to the US?

I would say either a yes or no to either of those questions has anything to do with whether the war is in the best interest of the US. Which is ultimately what the debate should be about.
THere is plenty of proof of Chem & Bio WeaponsAlpedhuez55
Mar 20, 2003 8:28 AM
Saddam provide the information on them himself in Iraq's weapons reports. What he did not provide was the proof of the destruction of those weapons. If he did provide that information, then we would not be forced to use force against him.

Saddam has plenty of ties to terrorists as well. He has a history of support Hamas with money & conventional weapons. THey have threatened to bring scuicide bombers to the US. He lets al-queida train inside is country. Do we need to wait until he provides one of these groups with chem or bio to them for use in an attack against on US Soil?

War is justified because Saddam failed to meet the terms in 1991. And though you do not want to accept it, 9/11 changed how we will look at states like Iraq that support terrorism and added more urgency to the matter.

THe war is in the best interest of the US since it will eliminate a supporter of terrorism and allow an oppressed country to choose their own future. It will add some stability ti a very volatile region.

Mike Y.
O.K. now you're...Dwayne Barry
Mar 20, 2003 8:52 AM
finally debating the issues! A lack of proof of destruction does not mean that they are prooven to exist, right? They could have degraded with time to the point of ineffectiveness, been destroyed but they don't want to tell us, and/or been used. So, I think I'm still right in saying there is no proof he has them, but I think it's a moot point. Because it's a very reasonable assumption that he does.

I agree it can be "justified" based on UN resolutions, I just think it's a real bad idea because ultimately it won't do what it's suppose to, which is make us less susceptable to terrorist attacks. Besides the fact that it will cost a fortune in money, and very well may result in a numbe of US military deaths depending on how taking Baghdad and the occupation goes (probably when US soilders will be at most risk).

What if an anti-American democratic leader is elected? Be careful what you wish for, a free Iraq doesn't mean a friend to the US. Oh well, we'll see who is right. I hope you are because if I am, we'll see dead soilders like in Lebanon and more terrorist attacks as we continue to engender resentment in the muslim world.
O.K. now you're...Alpedhuez55
Mar 20, 2003 10:00 AM
Saddam was compelled to provide proof of destruction of the chemical and biological weapons such as the date, location and method of destruction. THat is one of many violations. I think if he had provided the proof, we would not have been launching missles and dropping bombs.

While it is justified by the UN Resolutions, it will help prevent future attacks because it is taking away a source of weapons and money from terrorist groups.

Czar and I have had several debates on the future regime. I think they can easily prosper and coalition can be made with all the factions. The goverment will probably be limited as to military build up they are allowed. Plus there are a million or more Iraqi exiles who will return to Iraq and help rebuild it. Many of them are Doctors, engineers and educators who have had a taste of freedom and capitalism who can help make it better. Money will be invested to help Iraq make better use of their resources such as increasing their oil production.

Sure it is an unknown but my guess is that it will work out. If the US were looking to install a puppet dictator, I would not be in favor of it. They are looking to let Iraq decide their fate on their own. After years of oppression in war, it is a fair bet they will choose a peacefull path.

Mike Y.
One can only hope you are....Dwayne Barry
Mar 20, 2003 10:12 AM
right. One point I would take issue with is that the adminstration's goal has been regime change for some time now. When they switched from just dis-armament to regime change this is supposedly what engendered such strong opposition from the French.

If Saddam would have complied in every way possible over the last couple of weeks (months) it wouldn't have stopped the administration from trying to go to war. They probably would have just said he was lying. But if they would have complied it may have brought the anti-war sentiment around the world (maybe even here) to the point that invasion was no longer politically tenable. Non-compliance was just another in the long history of Saddam's miscalculations.
ABC Corrected their coverageAlpedhuez55
Mar 20, 2003 11:04 AM
THey are now saying they do not think the missles were Scuds as originally reported. I guess news reports will be pretty foggy.

Mike Y.