Iraq fires SCUDs...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
So now that we can "prove" Sadam lied about "not having SCUDs", will France join us and fight Iraq?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.



    The question is "timing"... rather, the question is how much political pull can one gain from being on one side or the other. France is getting a lot of recognition and political capital being anti-war, so they will continue that as long as it is politically profitable for them to be so.



    Chemical attacks would change everything because the world populace is very simple-minded when taken as a generalized group. There are psychological triggers, and "Weapon of mass destruction" is one of them that get the sheep lined up pro or anti.
  • Reply 2 of 41
    I've always believed that the sheepfrog picture is an expressive metaphor for Paul Wolfowitz jumping over groverat's flock of anti-war sheep.



    Anyway, I mean really, they would never admit it but the French and the Germans and the Russians are not so stupid as to ever believe that Saddam would ever be fully disarmed via UNMOVIC. Of course that could beg the question of why they bothered with 1441, but then politics is not necessarily logical.
  • Reply 3 of 41
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,715member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.



    The question is "timing"... rather, the question is how much political pull can one gain from being on one side or the other. France is getting a lot of recognition and political capital being anti-war, so they will continue that as long as it is politically profitable for them to be so.



    Chemical attacks would change everything because the world populace is very simple-minded when taken as a generalized group. There are psychological triggers, and "Weapon of mass destruction" is one of them that get the sheep lined up pro or anti.




    The "military analysts" on NPR and (ouch) FOX just said that SCUDs ARE considered "weapons of mass destruction", due to their medium to long range. Iraq is not "allowed" to have such weapons. Maybe France will join the allies now that Sadam has shown his cards. I dunno.
  • Reply 4 of 41
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Just a quick FYI:



    if you are talking about the missles downed by patroits, the army now says they believe they were not scuds.



    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ets/index.html



    Thus, we have a lesson. But is this really a new lesson? I you doubt that 1000 incidences of you guys latching on to bad info will teach you to be more critical. But what else is new, right?



    whether or not Saddam uses scuds, vx or whatever, the important thing about digesting the *news reports* regarding it is to be critical and understand that they could easily prove false today, next week or next year.



    Of course, if you are talking about a different strike I don't know about (and I don't see another incident reported anywhere as of 7:30 CST), then ignore this post and carry on...
  • Reply 5 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,063member
    Are these Scud missiles or al Samouds? This webpage says:



    U.S.: Patriots down Iraqi missiles



    KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait (CNN) -- U.S. Patriot missiles knocked two Iraqi missiles out of the sky on Thursday, hours after two others landed without injury near the U.S. forces' main logistics center in the Kuwaiti desert, the military said.



    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.




    Is it possible to talk about this with any verification of news at all? Giving the track record (0% hit rate) of the Patriot missiles from the previous Gulf action, I even wonder if they downed those missiles. At least, if making an assertion, provide linkage like the thread at Ars Tech SB.



    And yes, this whole entire thing is an exercise in politics. There has never been a doubt that Iraq has proscribed weapons. There also has never been a doubt that Iraq is not a danger, and I mean danger in a inter-nation context, to any other nation within region or on the other side of the planet.



    [edit: two posts got in before mine. That sucks. ]
  • Reply 6 of 41
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    France will prpbabaly join in only in the later stages of the war.



    probably to rid all traces of weapons that they sold to Iraq.
  • Reply 7 of 41
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Well the al Samoud II missiles were streng verboten as well. I don't think anyone could argue that Iraq did not have proscribed weapons, which is what I said in my first post.



    The way people latch onto specific words is sad. "Weapon of mass destruction, weapon of mass destruction!"



    No one contests that Iraq was in violation of every resolution against them, so what's the point in arguing it?
  • Reply 8 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,063member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Well the al Samoud II missiles were streng verboten as well. I don't think anyone could argue that Iraq did not have proscribed weapons, which is what I said in my first post.



    You know they were al Samoud II missiles? For sure?



    Quote:

    The way people latch onto specific words is sad. "Weapon of mass destruction, weapon of mass destruction!"



    The sad thing is that no one deconstructed the phrase. It's being used as an umbrella term, as an emotional term, to win an argument, to persuade, or to sensationalize.



    Grouping chemical and biological weapons with nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction is typical fearmongering rhetoric. It's terrible discourse. Chemical weapons are useless against mobile infantry and need slow nondestructive delivery mechanisms. Bioweapons are mostly unreliable and also useless against mobile infantry. If Saddam Hussein was a smart rational individual, instead of an evil overlord, he should have realized that the chem and bioweapons can only be used as instruments against the people he ruled. Perhaps he did.



    Quote:

    No one contests that Iraq was in violation of every resolution against them, so what's the point in arguing it?



    Well, lets at least talk about what the violations are in detail and put them in the proper context. Are the al Samoud missiles, chem and bioweapons worth a military invasion or an inspector invasion? If the weapons are so dangerous, then do you believe the invasion force will have any problems taking over Iraq? You have to wonder now if the US loses more casualties due to friendly fire and accidents than Iraqis fighting back.



    I would have supported Bush if he was doing this for humanitarian reasons and followed a rational course to making things better. Maybe war in the end would have been the only option. Maybe the violations of the UN resolutions would have been the door to get things started. But I cannot abide by the rhetoric, the lying, the exagerrations, and the propaganda that got us to this point. That is the point in arguing.
  • Reply 9 of 41
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Well the al Samoud II missiles were streng verboten as well. I don't think anyone could argue that Iraq did not have

    proscribed weapons, which is what I said in my first post.



    Iraq had destroyed 50% of its verboten al Samouds by the time the inspectors were ordered out. Do you think that they would have kept on destroying them, while the US bombs were starting to fall?
  • Reply 10 of 41
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    I've always believed that the sheepfrog picture is an expressive metaphor for Paul Wolfowitz jumping over groverat's flock of anti-war sheep.



    Anyway, I mean really, they would never admit it but the French and the Germans and the Russians are not so stupid as to ever believe that Saddam would ever be fully disarmed via UNMOVIC. Of course that could beg the question of why they bothered with 1441, but then politics is not necessarily logical.




    The position of Chirac was more a position of timing than anything else. The european opinion needed more time to accept the idea of war than the US one, or the israelian one (who recieved Iraq bomb ion their heads in 1991).

    Saying war is in last resort, was also a way to prepare slowly the crowd for a war, at the contrary of Shroeder who said no war. It take time to move public opinion on those subject, especially in Europe. To an US point of vue, it's a waste of time, but in politic the form is sometimes as important as the matter.
  • Reply 11 of 41
    Quote:

    The position of Chirac was more a position of timing than anything else. The european opinion needed more time to accept the idea of war than the US one, or the israelian one (who recieved Iraq bomb ion their heads in 1991).

    Saying war is in last resort, was also a way to prepare slowly the crowd for a war, at the contrary of Shroeder who said no war. It take time to move public opinion on those subject, especially in Europe. To an US point of vue, it's a waste of time, but in politic the form is sometimes as important as the matter.



    Well first of all the Europublic was never going to move to a position in favor of a preemptive strike on Iraq even with SEcurity Council approval. The Peace no Matter what orientation is too strong for any preemptive action to be popular.



    Beyond that, I think your assessment of Chiraq is hopelessly naive with all due respect. Chirac was by no means trying to wait or prod the populace towards accepting the military action implied as a consequence of for Iraq's clear non-compliance with 1441. He more likely decided that the merits of the political popularity of his grandstanding at home and throughout Europe made this the perfect oppurtunity to attack the unipolar hyperpower ordering of geopolitics. By rejecting ultimatum's, he was effectively going back on 1441. France's position had little to do with Iraq's marginal efforts at token disarmament or any moral grounding. Chiraq is even more of a whore than Bush.
  • Reply 12 of 41
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    THT:



    Quote:

    You know they were al Samoud II missiles? For sure?



    nein.



    Quote:

    The sad thing is that no one deconstructed the phrase. It's being used as an umbrella term, as an emotional term, to win an argument, to persuade, or to sensationalize.



    word.



    Quote:

    Grouping chemical and biological weapons with nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction is typical fearmongering rhetoric. It's terrible discourse. Chemical weapons are useless against mobile infantry and need slow nondestructive delivery mechanisms. Bioweapons are mostly unreliable and also useless against mobile infantry. If Saddam Hussein was a smart rational individual, instead of an evil overlord, he should have realized that the chem and bioweapons can only be used as instruments against the people he ruled. Perhaps he did.



    I agree it's terrible discourse, but it's working both ways.



    "But he has weapons of mass destruction!"

    "Oh yeah, where are the weapons of mass destruction!?"







    Quote:

    Are the al Samoud missiles, chem and bioweapons worth a military invasion or an inspector invasion?



    In the context and history of Hussein, absolutely.



    Quote:

    If the weapons are so dangerous, then do you believe the invasion force will have any problems taking over Iraq?



    I don't really think it matters when evaluating it how dangerous they are. There is no reason to excuse anything for Iraq. It's proscribed, and that's that. I don't care if it's a candy bar to be quite honest. You give leeway to people who make honest efforts.



    Quote:

    You have to wonder now if the US loses more casualties due to friendly fire and accidents than Iraqis fighting back.



    It seems helicopter crashes are the main enemy of our armed forces, and those happen in times of peace.



    Quote:

    I would have supported Bush if he was doing this for humanitarian reasons and followed a rational course to making things better.



    Seems like an odd reason to oppose it.



    Quote:

    Maybe war in the end would have been the only option. Maybe the violations of the UN resolutions would have been the door to get things started. But I cannot abide by the rhetoric, the lying, the exagerrations, and the propaganda that got us to this point. That is the point in arguing.



    Join my team, then, the pro-war, anti-Bush'shandlingoftheprocess club.



    --



    SJO:



    Quote:

    Iraq had destroyed 50% of its verboten al Samouds by the time the inspectors were ordered out. Do you think that they would have kept on destroying them, while the US bombs were starting to fall?



    I don't know what you're trying to address with that question. Someone brought up Scuds (which are proscribed). I mentioned that the al Samoud II was proscribed as well.



    What's your point?
  • Reply 13 of 41
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Well first of all the Europublic was never going to move to a position in favor of a preemptive strike on Iraq even with SEcurity Council approval. The Peace no Matter what orientation is too strong for any preemptive action to be popular.



    Beyond that, I think your assessment of Chiraq is hopelessly naive with all due respect. Chirac was by no means trying to wait or prod the populace towards accepting the military action implied as a consequence of for Iraq's clear non-compliance with 1441. He more likely decided that the merits of the political popularity of his grandstanding at home and throughout Europe made this the perfect oppurtunity to attack the unipolar hyperpower ordering of geopolitics. By rejecting ultimatum's, he was effectively going back on 1441. France's position had little to do with Iraq's marginal efforts at token disarmament or any moral grounding. Chiraq is even more of a whore than Bush.




    I think he played on both boards : like you said attack the unipolar hyperpower ordering of geopolitics, and keep a door open for the war, if necessary (plan B).

    In in last declaration he said he regreted the current situation but hope that the war will be quick and will make the less casualties possible among the population. Russia has much more harsh comment and China asked that US stop immediatly the war. Like any other declaration Chirac did not say that he was opposed systematically to a war, but only at last resort.



    For the last thing , perhaps Chirac is more a whore of Bush. The truth is that i don't know what Bush is.
  • Reply 14 of 41
    Bush is a retarded inept fundamentalist fascist prick with an annoying smirk to boot. He should be shot of course.
  • Reply 15 of 41
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Bush is a retarded inept fundamentalist fascist prick with an annoying smirk to boot. He should be shot of course.



    "Suicide is the only solution" . (from the spicy chicken manifesto)
  • Reply 16 of 41
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    As far as I know, the US army has much more proscribed weapons than Iraq. Who is the first to say, "We will disarm Saddam - err - Adolph - err - George Bush!"?
  • Reply 17 of 41
    Quote:

    "Suicide is the only solution" . (from the spicy chicken manifesto)



    What do you know about the SpicyChickenManifesto?!? These smilies are total ass by the way.



    Anyway, I always enjoyed the MASH theme song, Suicide is Painless.
  • Reply 18 of 41
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by costique

    As far as I know, the US army has much more proscribed weapons than Iraq. Who is the first to say, "We will disarm Saddam - err - Adolph - err - George Bush!"?



    And France, China, UK, pakistan, India, Israel (not official), Russia two.

    The difference that there is no UN resolution asking to remove them. And if UN ask Iraq to remove them, it was for a good reason.





    The debate about this war is not there.
  • Reply 19 of 41
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stunned

    France will prpbabaly join in only in the later stages of the war.



    probably to rid all traces of weapons that they sold to Iraq.




    He he he.



    Yes! And then they'll hide all the chemical and biological agents Donald Rumsfeld sold them too! Hahaha!
  • Reply 20 of 41
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    What do you know about the SpicyChickenManifesto?!? These smilies are total ass by the way.



    Anyway, I always enjoyed the MASH theme song, Suicide is Painless.




    I know it's quite indigest to eat, if you do not have a strong stomach.



    Yes the Mash theme song is great, but Harakiri is painfull, i take a comic suicide anytime over a japonese one.
Sign In or Register to comment.