For some fun......

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 03:27pm

Hameru wrote:
Yeah. But why wait until the next time he breaks out the nerve gas? Why wait till he's got long range ballistics missles? We wait until they're another Korea and can blackmail and entire region?
Without an ongoing WMD program, especially without the infrastructure to support one, this isn't likely to happen.

Not to mention that invading a country because of some non-existant threat they might pose in the distant future sets a dangerous precedent. whoa nelly watch us fall down this slippery slope

..You do understand that slippery slope is a fallacy, right? As in a load of bullshit?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-22 03:31pm

Hameru's criticisms of the administration, oddly enough, sorta dovetail with most of the conservative criticism of the administration: the diplomatic build up to the war was completely bungled. Every week there was a new excuse. There are only two arguments the administration would have needed, in my opinion:

1) Saddam Hussein required permanent containment, because even had he totally 100% cooperated with the UN disarmament resolutions, he would have commenced rebuilding his war machine as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Therefore, a war to remove him would ultimately prove less expensive and dangerous than containment, and would be better for the Iraqi people in the long run, because they'd be rid of a brutal tyrant and the sanctions needed to contain him.

2) The United States has a special responsibility to Iraq and the Iraqi people, because we supported him in the 1980s while he was fighting Iran, and especially because we sat back and watched as Hussein's forces crushed a revolt that could have toppled him 12 years ago. He's our son of a bitch, and he's our responsibility to remove.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:32pm

Hameru wrote:Without an ongoing WMD program, especially without the infrastructure to support one, this isn't likely to happen.

He's got the missles already. If we left him alone for ever how likely would he?

Hameru wrote:Not to mention that invading a country because of some non-existant threat they might pose in the distant future sets a dangerous precedent. whoa nelly watch us fall down this slippery slope

Slippery slope fallacy.

Besides, it's hardly a dangerous precendent when he's violated dozens of UN resolutions, the terms of the cease fire, and he's killing and torturing his own people.

Hameru wrote:There's no way to predict what they would have done in the event that we actually provided evidence to support our position. Unfortunately, we didn't provide enough evidence

who knows

France has been against action against Iraq and always has been. No amount of proof could have changed their stance.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 03:37pm

Hameru wrote: Without an ongoing WMD program, especially without the infrastructure to support one, this isn't likely to happen.

Forgot any building program. Large amounts of existing WMD are unaccounted for, as are delivery systems. Two the missiles that hit Kuwait where identified as SCUD's from the debris. Both missile and launcher are illegal. So we know the inspectors failed to get several very large objects. Really think they got everything smaller and easier to hid, like VX or Anthrax?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:45pm

Yeah, should've been more careful with that slippery slope

However...

Teh Sea Skimmer :

So we know the inspectors failed to get several very large objects. Really think they got everything smaller and easier to hid, like VX or Anthrax?

Argument from ignorance, check please

Just because we don't know what they have, doesn't imply anything, especially given the evidence we have so far

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:47pm

Hameru wrote:
So we know the inspectors failed to get several very large objects. Really think they got everything smaller and easier to hid, like VX or Anthrax?
Argument from ignorance, check please

Just because we don't know what they have, doesn't imply anything, especially given the evidence we have so far

Given the evidence show conclusively he had banned weapons, it's entirely possible he has WMD still stashed away. It shows he sure as heck hasn't complied.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:48pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Hameru wrote:
So we know the inspectors failed to get several very large objects. Really think they got everything smaller and easier to hid, like VX or Anthrax?
Argument from ignorance, check please

Just because we don't know what they have, doesn't imply anything, especially given the evidence we have so far
Given the evidence show conclusively he had banned weapons, it's entirely possible he has WMD still stashed away. It shows he sure as heck hasn't complied.

Do you or Skimmer have a link on those Scuds?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:49pm

Hameru wrote:Do you or Skimmer have a link on those Scuds?

Turn on the news, they've been saying it since he started shooting them off. It's old and common news.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Hameru wrote:Do you or Skimmer have a link on those Scuds?
Turn on the news, they've been saying it since he started shooting them off. It's old and common news.

The news isn't new to me, but I havn't seen any links on it
Once Fox said Iraq used chemical weaponry on the guys in Kuwait and retracted it, I said "anyways" and turned off the tv.

Probably buried under some other thread

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:59pm

Hameru wrote:The news isn't new to me, but I havn't seen any links on it
Once Fox said Iraq used chemical weaponry on the guys in Kuwait and retracted it, I said "anyways" and turned off the tv.

Probably buried under some other thread

Something just posted:

Iraqi Scuds

If the Iraqi can hide some pretty big missles then what about much more compact nerve gas or anthrax?

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:06pm

What type of SCUD did he shoot at Iraq anyway?
Where those SCUD-A or SCUD-B?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 04:08pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:What type of SCUD did he shoot at Iraq anyway?
Where those SCUD-A or SCUD-B?

I don't know. All I've heard was Scud, no specific model.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 04:09pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:What type of SCUD did he shoot at Iraq anyway?
Where those SCUD-A or SCUD-B?

He really doesn't use SCUD-A or SCUD-B or whatnot, he has a bunch of homebrewed modifications to his arsenal, most of which were exceptionally unreliable.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:11pm

phongn wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:What type of SCUD did he shoot at Iraq anyway?
Where those SCUD-A or SCUD-B?
He really doesn't use SCUD-A or SCUD-B or whatnot, he has a bunch of homebrewed modifications to his arsenal, most of which were exceptionally unreliable.

The ones he got from the soviet union were SS-1C SCUD-B with improved guidance systems.
I'm asking because IIRC the SCUD-A only had around 180 km range.
What was the maximum range he was allowed to have?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 04:18pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:
phongn wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:What type of SCUD did he shoot at Iraq anyway?
Where those SCUD-A or SCUD-B?
He really doesn't use SCUD-A or SCUD-B or whatnot, he has a bunch of homebrewed modifications to his arsenal, most of which were exceptionally unreliable.
The ones he got from the soviet union were SS-1C SCUD-B with improved guidance systems.
I'm asking because IIRC the SCUD-A only had around 180 km range.
What was the maximum range he was allowed to have?

150-km.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:25pm

phongn wrote:150-km.

One source I have (a russian site) says 130, another one (a missile book) says 120, the other one (a french site) says 180 km.

That'd suggest 120-130 is right.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:26pm

But SCUD-A weren't exported to Iraq IIRC.
Only SS-1c SCUD-B and several MAZ-543 mobile launchers.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 04:29pm

Correct. The UN restriction is 150-km, or about 93-mi. SCUD-B has a range of 300-km, SCUD-A has a range of 180-km.

SCUD, of course, is a varient of the A4 SRBM fielded by Nazi Germany.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:35pm

phongn wrote:Correct. The UN restriction is 150-km, or about 93-mi. SCUD-B has a range of 300-km, SCUD-A has a range of 180-km.

D'oh! Just noticed the SCUD discussion.

SCUD, of course, is a varient of the A4 SRBM fielded by Nazi Germany.

Yep.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 04:36pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:But SCUD-A weren't exported to Iraq IIRC.
Only SS-1c SCUD-B and several MAZ-543 mobile launchers.

The number of launchers was in the dozens IIRC. In addition Iraq built a number of fixed sites, though they all died on the first night of the Gulf War, and fitted an unknown number of regular trucks with launch rails for various home grown extended range SCUD's.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 04:42pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:But SCUD-A weren't exported to Iraq IIRC.
Only SS-1c SCUD-B and several MAZ-543 mobile launchers.

The number of launchers was in the dozens IIRC. In addition Iraq built a number of fixed sites, though they all died on the first night of the Gulf War, and fitted an unknown number of regular trucks with launch rails for various home grown extended range SCUD's.

The problem with all SCUDs is that with their trucks they are very mobile, so it's pretty much impossible for inspectors to find them.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 04:53pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:The problem with all SCUDs is that with their trucks they are very mobile, so it's pretty much impossible for inspectors to find them.

Indeed. We spent huge resources in the Second Gulf War just trying to get them even when we tracked their launch and many of the sorties were unsuccessful.