Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Thought Iraq Was Disarmed?  
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Stupid old me somehow thought that Iraq was "disarmed" because they told the U.N. that they were... they had no more scud missles, were getting rid of additional rockets, and destroyed most military arms.

This was under the 12 year accord to "disarm" per the UN.

So anyway

I'm watching TV and I see Iraqi forces firing on US positions and at US/allied aircraft.

Thing is, according to UN 1441, they were not suppose to have any weapons...

so what are they firing at our aircraft? *tongue in cheek*

I praise Bush for going after Saddam when parts of the world said "NO"... although it is NOW clear that Saddam is (and was) in defiance of resolution 1441.

So for all you naysayers, the proof is evident. Bush was right. Time to admit it...

-n

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Reportedly they are those Al Sayuud (spl???) missles that they where supposed to destroy a month ago.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Kuwait confirmed at least 1 was a Scud. Which obviously can't be true, as Iraq doesn't have them. And it clearly is false that the Oil Wells are on fire, as Saddam said he would never do that either.  Big grin


I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

I don't remember having heard that Iraq was unarmed.

You can have missiles without having WMD on them.

Additionally, America would most certainly be the most coward nation in the world, waging war against a completely unarmed enemy.

The gallant seals or US Marines, armed with the best Dollars can buy, sent against a country with out any weapons?

You wish.

Actually I am surprised for not seeing the Iraqis chemical weapons already suffocating the US soldiers.

Shouldn't they use their WMD's while they have the capacity to release them?

Where are the WMD's?

Where?

If those weapons don't show up, Mr. Bush's image will go even lower (if that is possible of course)

I am certain the US will win this war. But I must say, I wish they loose many feathers there.


User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

Hey smarty they are firing AA fire which is not considered a banned weapon under 1441. If they are firing Al-Samoud 2 missiles it is because they still have at least 80 of those because they were in the process of destroying what they claimed were 120 missiles. Of course now that they are being attacked they will use whatever they have to protect themselves. It has not yet been proven that Iraq has WMD and they certainly have not proven breach of 1441 AS OF YET. Please do research before making ill informed posts.

User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1366 times:

There was never any requirement for them to *disarm*. The requirement to destroy WMD was specific and did not encompass all weapons. Surely if you are going to comment on these issues you'd make sure you were informed of the facts wouldn't you?





ADG


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1358 times:

Not all weaponry is covered by 1441 or the UN agreements of 1991, 1993 or 1995. Weaponry by which a sovereign nation can defend itself by is not covered by any such agreements.



User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

There are several reasons why they don't use their chem weapons. First off, the open strike crippled their capabilities to use them. Second, they may be smart enough to realize that the US/UK soldiers are well equipped to deal with being gassed, while their own soldiers are not. Third, they were well hidden for the inspectors and its taking time to get them deployed (which they won't be able to anyway).


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

Iraq wasn't supposed to possess any missle with a range longer the 150 KM.

That is why those Al-Whatever missles where supposed to be destroyed last month.

If that was a Scud that blows that range restriction out of the water, and I am pretty sure that it was banned by name in the cease-fire.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1342 times:

IMHO, Chemical weapons will be used when Saddam is desperate and the end is near


I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5977 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

*hint* Kuwait is less than 150 km's from Iraq. But why would we want to bring that up?

If he starts firing at Israel, then you can have a go, until then...  Insane

[Edited 2003-03-20 21:04:24]

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Scuds and all derivatives including the Al-whatever (nice name  Smile/happy/getting dizzy) are indeed banned under treaty obligations.
Their use on day 1 proves that the US were correct in saying Iraq hadn't complied with their treaty obligations (and hadn't cooperated with the inspectors either as the rockets used were reportedly regular Scuds which weren't shown to the inspectors at all as they were supposed to have been in 1992).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

L-188 they were in the process of destroying those missiles when they were attacked. If it were me being attacked I would stop destroying my missiles and use them against the enemy wouldn't you? What we are arguing is that nothing new has come of these attacks. Saying that AA fire violates 1441 shows segment king's ignorance or total misinformation.

"Thing is, according to UN 1441, they were not suppose to have any weapons..."

This is the ignorant statement we are arguing against.

[Edited 2003-03-20 21:08:59]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Ben88.

The order to destroy those came a month ago.

Why was it taking them so long? How long does it take to run a bulldozer over a missle. I would have thought more then three a day could have been done.

Your right though, He probably was trying to hold on them as long as possible.

That being said, If he had just obeyed UN instructions, he probably wouldn't be under attack right now.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13510 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting how the enlightened, peaceful Europeans are the first ones to pray for heavy American casualties, isn't it?

I'm hopeful for a minimum loss of live on BOTH sides, with the Iraqi government surrendering as quickly as possible so that humanitarian aid can be implemented swiftly.




"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1300 times:

so these 120 missiles that are in violation of UN 1441, where did he get them? So he destroyed 40 of them.. that still violates the resolation of disarmament.

Or is that just TOO difficult for some of you to understand?

all of the countries represented in the UN supported 1441 and the rememdies if Saddam violated it. He was caught violating it, the UK and US called him on it, everyone else started pouting.

I think it's the politicians of the world that are loosers, not the US.

But I agree with some of the other "Anti US posts". The US should become isolationist. We should mind our own businesses. Lets leave the Koreas alone and let them level themselves. Lets stay out of the Venezuelan regime. Lets let the Palestineans and Israelis keep blowing eachother up. Lets let India and Pakistan go at it.

If we do all of that, and just sit aside, then 1/2 of the globe will be gone due to war, nuclear devices, etc.

-n


User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

Have you people ignored Dr. Blix's final report? Remember that one...the one that said IN SUBSTANCE no real progress had been made in the time the inspectors were there. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, 4 months was wasted, while France and the like praised every move by Saddam, no matter how deceitful, as progress. France had no intention of seeing 1441 through, and co-opted the so-called peace movement to provde itself cover. No SUBSTANTIAL progress, just a smoke screen. And this is fine and dandy for some of you, I guess.

While going through this report, as Dr. Blix occassionaly dozed off, France, Germany and Russia continued to spew the same old garbage they have been for months now...we need more time, this is working, etc., etc....It was almost funny, yet sad, watching this exercise in futility and irrelavance. Even Kofi Annan is trying to get them off of it, and trying to get them to focus on postwar issues, in an effort to maintain the relevance of the UNSC. Will France even undermine this? All indications are that they are willing to withhold any assistance, and allow a humanitarian disaster to fester, in order to continue their own political posturing.

The wording has always been IMMEDIATE....for 12 years....IMMEDIATE DISARMAMENT....yet, they still have these weapons in working order, and are using them. The only weapins that have been destroyed besides the handful of missles Saddam hand picked for destruction were those fragments of weapons found in ditches that were destroyed by Allied troops in the first Gulf war. For once, wake up to the facts.



Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineAlexG From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1272 times:

L-188,

If he had just obeyed UN instructions, he probably wouldn't be under attack right now.

Right, Iraq wouldn't be under attack of the UN!

But as we all know, Georgie Boy plotted war long before the first UN inspector set foot into Iraq and what's most obvious, he gives a damn about such bureaucracies like UN resolutions as soon as "his" interests are affected.

That really makes me feel less endangered by Bin Laden and Hussein both together than by Bush and the war industry conglomerate behind him.

<sarcasm>
Has anyone checked if the U.S. have WMD's? Maybe it could be better to bomb them away? Just to make sure???
<
/sarcasm>


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

If any of those missiles launched by Iraq are actually confirmed to be 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.

It remains to be seen how many they still have.

Still, nowhere did Blix say that Iraq had indeed disarmed, but was in the process of disarming. Yes, some of you were impatient to see all the missiles deactivated ASAP, but unfortunately this was a long, painful process. Sometimes, however, long painful processes are preferable to war. Furthermore, the presence of Scuds does not indicate that Saddam has nuclear, chemical, or biological weapns. Of course, that remains to be seen as this war progresses.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Iraq was never forced to disarm completly, they were just not allowed to have certain types of weapons. In order to ensure that they disarm completly, the inspectors had been sent in and indeed made progress. They were destroying the El Samud II missiles which had an bigger range than they were allowed. With the threat of an army waiting next door, Iraq complied more and more.

"Have you people ignored Dr. Blix's final report? Remember that one...the one that said IN SUBSTANCE no real progress had been made in the time the inspectors were there."

Nope, but the "final" report never said that, because there never was a final report. The report you're referring to was his second report to the security counsil in the 2nd week of february, after that there was another report which reported about the progress, for example El Samud II destruction and unattended interviews.


User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

"all of the countries represented in the UN supported 1441 and the rememdies if Saddam violated it."

This is not true either. The security council voted unanimously for 1441, but that is far from "all the countries represented in the U.N...15 countries I believe. Once again please refrain from posting misinformation.


User currently offlineDeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1225 times:

You can have missiles without having WMD on them.

Erj190- Resolution 1441 bans missiles with a range of 93+ miles. First of all, the Al Samoud II missiles that Iraq was destroying in such painstakingly slow, defiant fashion violate this rule. On another note, Saddam had "promised" that he had no scud missiles, which have a range of over 300 miles. He has already used at least one of these, so in fact it has already been proven that Saddam was indeed lying.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1208 times:

Germany after WWI was not dis-armed totally, through deception, and lack of follow through from the Allies Germany rebuilt it's war machine and went on to start WWII.

The Allies (atleast the UK and US) are not going to repeat that mistake and are holding Saddam's feet to the fire, as we speak!



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

From the BBC.com

"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.

One of the missiles landed just 300m from 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.

Scud controversy

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). "



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1170 times:

How do we know that the Iraqis used SCUDs ?

I for one don't take what the Americans and the American media say for granted. They will lie their guts out if needed. That's what they do, that's what they always do, and then they will get some excuse to explain why they had to lie.

This does not mean of course, that I think Saddam is a saint.

I would say that they might still be using the ASTROS systems they purchased in vast quantities in the eighties. This are mobile rocket launchers with a range of up to 60Km are not missiles. Although old, Iraq seems to have the technology to upgrade or maintain the ASTROS operational.

They are very mobile, thus the vehicles are quite difficult to track. They can fire and get out of there at around 90Km/H.


25 Post contains links Krushny : Guys, curiously you find good information on this in Israeli media : http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/275256.html . These FROGS rockets have
26 Post contains links Erj190 : I was talking about this, which is similar to the FROG's, although more recent, because the ASTROS had some computerized guidance system (for the laun
27 Deltaownsall : a) Just because a News agency gets something wrong in the beginning does not mean that they are purposely lying...most likely in the hurry to get as m
28 SegmentKing : I agree that the news are a bit oversensationalized. The fact that we have reporters with US troops bothers me. I really don't want to see this war ev
29 ADG : Just out of interests, who is praying for "heavy american casualties"? ADG
30 B757300 : Just when I didn't think ADG could sink any lower, she never fails to amaze me. All I can say is you're a very sick, umm person, for hoping lots of Am
31 Airplay : B757300 Before you jump on someone, learn to read. ADG was not hoping for American deaths. She is merely asking for clarification of a previous post.
32 L-188 : Roy aka Indianguy, has said he wanted a high american death count.
33 Airhead711 : Everyone in thier right minds knew all along that Saddam was lying about his weapons.Only an idiot would believe him.
34 Post contains images Sabena 690 : And let the exaggeration go on... 3 rockets, and one of them was a SCUD. ONLY ONE! And with the poor installations they have, it felt somewhere in the
35 L-188 : Sabena 690.... I think your attitude might be different if you knew that missile was pointed in your general directions. Doesn't have to be directly a
36 Post contains images Sabena 690 : L-188, it goes about one SCUD, not about a nuclear bomb etc. Would they have fired this also without the intervention of the US? I keep on saying that
37 Cfalk : ADG, I was talking with someone yesterday who said that he hoped that the Americans would suffer a large number of casualties, preferably by chemical
38 L-188 : It doesn't matter if US intervention made them fire it or not. Just possession is a violation. Just like getting stopped with an open container.....I
39 Jaysit : So far, the WMD claim made by the Bush administration seems like the puffery it always was. The Iraqi regime is a broken, pathetic one with one megalo
40 L-188 : Jaysit...The war is still young. I wouldn't claim the French where right just yet.
41 Yyz717 : The Iraqi regime is a broken, pathetic one with one megalomaniac believing he had more than he ever did - more irrefutable proof that the sanctions we
42 Noise : I thought Iraq didn't have an scuds! The inspectors didn't find any! So America was right all along. All who oppose have just been BURNED!
43 ADG : Charles, my mistake I was thinking about the people in the forums.... ADG
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
So U Thought Brussels Was A Nice City?Think Again! posted Wed Nov 15 2006 19:00:58 by VinnieWinnie
Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 17:14:13 by NAV20
Thought Homicide Was Bad, Try Planet Destruction posted Mon Jul 17 2006 15:23:24 by Kieron747
Thought A Felony Was Bad, Try Homicide... posted Mon Jul 17 2006 14:01:03 by Aloges
Iran: A Bigger Threat Than Iraq Was Before War? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 20:48:57 by Virgin744
Just When You Thought It Was..... Pakistanis :( posted Sun May 15 2005 04:35:28 by TedTAce
And You Thought Dubya Was Scary? posted Wed Dec 8 2004 06:18:40 by MxCtrlr
Iraq Was An "Imminent Threat" posted Fri Jul 9 2004 07:36:27 by B757300
Just Saw "Holes," Thought It Was Cool posted Sun Apr 27 2003 07:12:31 by NormalSpeed
Iraq Was A Very Important Place In The Bible posted Fri Feb 14 2003 12:12:56 by MD-90