• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq inspectors find banned missile system

N8Magic

N8Magic

Lifer
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-576127,00.html

Snippets from the article:

THE chief United Nations weapons inspector will report tomorrow that Iraq has been developing a ballistic missile that is in clear violation of UN restrictions.
The discovery of a banned weapons system on the eve of Hans Blix?s crucial presentation is tantamount to the inspectors finding a ?smoking gun? ? even though it was declared by Iraq to the UN as a legal programme.

He revealed that the liquid-fuel al-Samoud 2 had been test-fired to a distance of 183km and the solid-propellant al-Fatah to a range of 161km ? both beyond the UN limit. He also noted that the al-Samoud?s 760mm diameter was increased from the earlier version, in spite of a directive from the former UN inspector Rolf Ekeus in 1994 that Iraq limit diameters to 600mm. Dr Blix suggested that the missiles also violated a second letter from Dr Ekeus in 1997, which banned the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles in ballistic missiles.

 
Originally posted by: N8Magic
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-576127,00.html

Snippets from the article:

THE chief United Nations weapons inspector will report tomorrow that Iraq has been developing a ballistic missile that is in clear violation of UN restrictions.
The discovery of a banned weapons system on the eve of Hans Blix?s crucial presentation is tantamount to the inspectors finding a ?smoking gun? ? even though it was declared by Iraq to the UN as a legal programme.

He revealed that the liquid-fuel al-Samoud 2 had been test-fired to a distance of 183km and the solid-propellant al-Fatah to a range of 161km ? both beyond the UN limit. He also noted that the al-Samoud?s 760mm diameter was increased from the earlier version, in spite of a directive from the former UN inspector Rolf Ekeus in 1994 that Iraq limit diameters to 600mm. Dr Blix suggested that the missiles also violated a second letter from Dr Ekeus in 1997, which banned the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles in ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

Big surprise.

 
In other news - "The french are still unconvinced, citing that the inspectors clearly need to inspect more"
rolleye.gif
 
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: N8Magic
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-576127,00.html

Snippets from the article:

THE chief United Nations weapons inspector will report tomorrow that Iraq has been developing a ballistic missile that is in clear violation of UN restrictions.
The discovery of a banned weapons system on the eve of Hans Blix?s crucial presentation is tantamount to the inspectors finding a ?smoking gun? ? even though it was declared by Iraq to the UN as a legal programme.

He revealed that the liquid-fuel al-Samoud 2 had been test-fired to a distance of 183km and the solid-propellant al-Fatah to a range of 161km ? both beyond the UN limit. He also noted that the al-Samoud?s 760mm diameter was increased from the earlier version, in spite of a directive from the former UN inspector Rolf Ekeus in 1994 that Iraq limit diameters to 600mm. Dr Blix suggested that the missiles also violated a second letter from Dr Ekeus in 1997, which banned the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles in ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

Big surprise.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
Click to expand...

Maybe we would beleive them if they showed some evidence of the destruction of WMD, but they have offered none.

Trust, but verify.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
Click to expand...

They keep saying they are not in violation of the UN sanctions WHEN THEY ARE!!!!!! The burden of proof that they do not have WMD is on them and they are not cooperating. Time to go in and remove the WMD from them.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: jjsole
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
Click to expand...

They keep saying they are not in violation of the UN sanctions WHEN THEY ARE!!!!!! The burden of proof that they do not have WMD is on them and they are not cooperating. Time to go in and remove the WMD from them.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
 
Originally posted by: N8Magic
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-576127,00.html

Snippets from the article:

THE chief United Nations weapons inspector will report tomorrow that Iraq has been developing a ballistic missile that is in clear violation of UN restrictions.
The discovery of a banned weapons system on the eve of Hans Blix?s crucial presentation is tantamount to the inspectors finding a ?smoking gun? ? even though it was declared by Iraq to the UN as a legal programme.

He revealed that the liquid-fuel al-Samoud 2 had been test-fired to a distance of 183km and the solid-propellant al-Fatah to a range of 161km ? both beyond the UN limit. He also noted that the al-Samoud?s 760mm diameter was increased from the earlier version, in spite of a directive from the former UN inspector Rolf Ekeus in 1994 that Iraq limit diameters to 600mm. Dr Blix suggested that the missiles also violated a second letter from Dr Ekeus in 1997, which banned the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles in ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
It is very likely that Iraq have something to begin with, but it isn't big enough to built a solid case against Saddam, therefore Bush/administration held this information back waiting for something bigger to validate their goal for war.
Since they can?t find any thing better than this they are pulling it out to get public opinion behind them in this 11 hour.

This evident is weak if this is the best that the US government has as a reason for war. I don?t believe that this is enough to turn the world opinion to the American side.

 
Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they drop it right on your head.

 
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: jjsole
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
Click to expand...

They keep saying they are not in violation of the UN sanctions WHEN THEY ARE!!!!!! The burden of proof that they do not have WMD is on them and they are not cooperating. Time to go in and remove the WMD from them.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
Click to expand...

The USA never said that they have nukes. We said they are trying to acquire them. No one, to my knowledge, denies that they had bio and chem weapons. Do you truly believe it when Saddam says "We destroyed it all, and no we dont have any evidence of this"? The reason that Iraq is not supposed to have ballistic missiles is because they are very good carriers for chem and bio weapons.

 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they drop it right on your head.
Click to expand...

That would be great.
 
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they drop it right on your head.
Click to expand...

That would be great.
Click to expand...

Considering the sophisication of the Iraqi nuclear program, any nuclear bomb they produce will weigh enough to crush you.
 
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: jjsole
Banned? sounds like it. wmd? not.

Where's the proof of this administrations claims of their wmd program. This was the supposed reason for a war.
Click to expand...

They keep saying they are not in violation of the UN sanctions WHEN THEY ARE!!!!!! The burden of proof that they do not have WMD is on them and they are not cooperating. Time to go in and remove the WMD from them.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't the US show us that they have WMD and get it over with? I'm beginning to think that they don't even have anything because they are starting to make things up about Osama and Saddam etc... with 0 evidence. Show me one nuke.
Click to expand...

The USA never said that they have nukes. We said they are trying to acquire them. No one, to my knowledge, denies that they had bio and chem weapons. Do you truly believe it when Saddam says "We destroyed it all, and no we dont have any evidence of this"? The reason that Iraq is not supposed to have ballistic missiles is because they are very good carriers for chem and bio weapons.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I always felt camelback was the best way to deliver chemical and biological weapons.
Maybe I'm old fashioned....

😀
 
Its not a missile thats banned. Its part of Iraq's new mail delivery system. Why don't you leave Iraq alone and work on the educational system this way more people like MoonBeam don't happen.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You know if they had a missile 160 mm oversized, we should kill thousands of their children.
Click to expand...

Considering the advanced weapon systems fo today, that statement is all but assinine.
A laser guided bomb doesnt just "Oops!" and fly towards a schoolyard. And generally, the military tries its damnedest to taget only military installations. Resulting in very few civilian casualties
I personally say save us some bucks and do carpet bombing of WWII. THEN see if people complain about 2 children and 3 adults getting killed by an errent missle...Screw that, firebomb a entire city and watch'm bitch. 🙂
 
You know, Moonie is actually starting to convince me that war with Saddam shouldn't be our first priority. I am beginning to think we have much bigger problems at home. Anybody else think that we should go to war with the apparently socialist stronghold of San Francisco? 😕
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Jmman
You know, Moonie is actually starting to convince me that war with Saddam shouldn't be our first priority. I am beginning to think we have much bigger problems at home. Anybody else think that we should go to war with the apparently socialist stronghold of San Francisco? 😕
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...



😕
rolleye.gif
Something about those two smileys together makes me laugh.
 
It's Soddam fun to kill people. I just hate it when some jerk remind me I'm OK with killing kids. Shut up already. I didn't jump on the partiot wagon to be called and actually help support murder. STFU Idiot. Let me kill with a clean conscience like the bad guys do. For Gods sake. Oh wait, lets not think about God either. Geez I hate it when people point out my cowardly willingness to kill so I don't have to worry at night about some filthy terrorist under my beddy-bye or in the closet. Those kids will just grow up to be terrorists anyway. And besides 800 cruise missiles in two days won't hurt anybody. I'm really a good person. Honest I am. I'm just so scared and fear makes me engaged. Now who can I dump on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top