***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
When did France dig in and declare the would veto resolutions. I'm at work and can't find the reference right now but I believe the first reference is all the way back in Jan.

No way. Unconditional veto came about some time in late Feb/early March at the earliest. I'm pretty sure about that. I believe they may have said that would veto resolutions that are "sanctioning war" back in January - but IMHO this again was due to the fact that the US/UK were trying to control the timetable for inspections which in effect should have been a decision for the whole UNSC.

Andy

 

[Gaard]

Wasn't the purpose of the doomed 2nd resolution to get approval to use force? So wouldn't that mean that the decision to use force had already been decided upon before France made the decision to veto any 2nd resolution?

Or did you mean Once that was done there was no other choice but non-UN-supported force? Which would still be a matter of debate.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Wasn't the purpose of the doomed 2nd resolution to get approval to use force? So wouldn't that mean that the decision to use force had already been decided upon before France made the decision to veto any 2nd resolution?

Or did you mean Once that was done there was no other choice but non-UN-supported force? Which would still be a matter of debate.

I think that after the "unconditional" veto appeared (not to be confused with a potential veto for other reasons) then non-UN supported force is the meaning implied.

Andy

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: human2k
Support For Bush Grows, 62% Approve of Bush's action, over 49,800 Votes so far.

I wouldn't call it support for Bush; I'd call it patriotism and support for our troops. People, no matter if they're against it or for it are going to support our troops, so hence the high poll numbers.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: human2k
Support For Bush Grows, 62% Approve of Bush's action, over 49,800 Votes so far.

I wouldn't call it support for Bush; I'd call it patriotism and support for our troops. People, no matter if they're against it or for it are going to support our troops, so hence the high poll numbers.

Very true.

Andy

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Gaard
Wasn't the purpose of the doomed 2nd resolution to get approval to use force? So wouldn't that mean that the decision to use force had already been decided upon before France made the decision to veto any 2nd resolution?

Or did you mean Once that was done there was no other choice but non-UN-supported force? Which would still be a matter of debate.

I think that after the "unconditional" veto appeared (not to be confused with a potential veto for other reasons) then non-UN supported force is the meaning implied.

Andy

Andy, please do not try to interpret what I mean, the chances are, as in this case, that you will get it wrong.

The use of force or regime change is implicit in 1441. How else could it be a "final oppurtunity"?

France was aware of that when they signed 1441. They were aware of that when Iraq did not file a full and complete disclosure as required in 1441. That is why France started talking about veto, they knew that Saddam had not complied and the only alternative at that time was the use of force to remove him. Quibble all you wish.

 

[Fencer128]

Andy, please do not try to interpret what I mean, the chances are, as in this case, that you will get it wrong.

Sorry - I wasn't attempting to speak on your behalf - I was just trying to further the debate in your absence.

The use of force or regime change is implicit in 1441. How else could it be a "final oppurtunity"?

Of course. But as I have been argueing - it is the process which was undertaken to get to decide when we had exhausted that final oppotunity that is relevant.

France was aware of that when they signed 1441. They were aware of that when Iraq did not file a full and complete disclosure as required in 1441.

3. The government of Iraq shall provide to Unmovic [the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission], the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material.

At that point - although the document contained nothing new - it was not even conclusively shown that the WMD that we were planning on starting a war to neutralise still existed.

That is why France started talking about veto, they knew that Saddam had not complied and the only alternative at that time was the use of force to remove him. Quibble all you wish.

I will quibble (you see - this bit is and always has been conjecture anyway). I disagree with your assessment there. Until even some evidence had been found by the inspectors I find it difficult to agree that the Iraqi's were in breach of point 3. The first paragraph of 1441.

1. Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions... in particular through Iraq's failure to co-operate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

Was obviously to be settled by the re-establishment of UN inspectors. I believe that the reason France started talking about vetoing was because the US/UK were trying to determine the timetable for this inspection process by themselves. They were unhappy to accept/negotiate around any period of inspections longer than was required to build up a large enough force to attempt military invasion. Once this was clear IMHO that is when veto threatening occured. If you look from this perspective its not difficuly to understand why France would then threaten "unconditional veto" of a 2nd resolution - as this would only be a tool for the US/UK to circumvent this issue.

EDIT: I forgot to add that this is also the view shared by my French friends who suported this stance.

I do not think (at least for many years) either or any of us will ever get to the bottom of this debate - as after all we are speculating on the reasons behind these decisions without having access to virtually any hard facts. Oh well!

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Gaard
Wasn't the purpose of the doomed 2nd resolution to get approval to use force? So wouldn't that mean that the decision to use force had already been decided upon before France made the decision to veto any 2nd resolution?

Or did you mean Once that was done there was no other choice but non-UN-supported force? Which would still be a matter of debate.

I think that after the "unconditional" veto appeared (not to be confused with a potential veto for other reasons) then non-UN supported force is the meaning implied.

Andy

Andy, please do not try to interpret what I mean, the chances are, as in this case, that you will get it wrong.

The use of force or regime change is implicit in 1441. How else could it be a "final oppurtunity"?

France was aware of that when they signed 1441. They were aware of that when Iraq did not file a full and complete disclosure as required in 1441. That is why France started talking about veto, they knew that Saddam had not complied and the only alternative at that time was the use of force to remove him. Quibble all you wish.

I don't regard it as quibbling. I'm just trying to understand what your saying. By reading your words, I come to the conclusion that you believe that because of the fact that France was going to veto any resolution calling for force, the use of force was our only other option. That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that if we had called for a vote authorizing force, and France had voted yes, that force wouldn't have been used? My head is spinning trying to comprehend your statement. In essence, your blaming France (by saying they will veto any resolution calling for force) for us using force?

This is what you said...

Resolution 1441 had the words "final chance" in it. How does a timetable fit into a final chance? Iraq was either going to meet the requirements or not. They didn't. Dragging it out further,giving the impression of a split UN., declaring that force would not be used under any circumstance undermined the entire process. Once that was done there was no other choice but force.

Please show me where I'm going wrong. Obviously, you don't mean that France is the reason for using force, do you?

 

[arynn]

We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

 

[arynn]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

I fully agree that the inspections would never have found the SCUDs. I also don't think they would have found the chemical plant. I heard on the news that they inspected a concrete plant in the same town as the chemical plant. The inspections, as implemented, were never anything more than a farce. Furthermore, one could argue that even if no WMDs are found after the invasion is complete the war is justified since Iraq certainly violated the UN resolutions. (It would be an extremely unpopular, rarely made argument but it would have some validity.)

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

Yup, they were. Proof

here and

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

 

[Fencer128]

Wait until the war's over - and the facts come out. As of now some source's say they are, then they aren't, then they are again. Some other sources (notably the BBC) have very carefully worded their language so that they are being non-committal.
I just remember what was being claimed as "patriot intercepts" in the last gulf war came *slightly* under that claimed in the post analysis.

Wait and see.

Andy

 

[arynn]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

The day after the initial launch, the Pentagon stated that they had not yet determined if the launched missiles were SCUDs. I haven't heard of any statement from them regarding the missiles. One of the reporters on the news stated that after inspection of the debris, at least two of the missiles were determined to be SCUDs. Some of the reporters refer to all of the launched missiles as SCUDs, while others indicate that some were SCUDs and others were Al Samoud missiles.

 

[SP33Demon]

Well, every news channel/article that I've read said they were Scuds, or at least one was a Scud. So unless I hear otherwise, I'm thinking they're Scuds. You can make your own judgements!

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Maybe I missed it but I couldn't see a reference to scud in your first link

EDIT: Found it, although it does say "apparently"

here and

In this one do they not use the word "appear" at the beginning of the article?

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

I still think there is too much confusion here. Personally I'm awaiting the end of the war, proper inspection of the debris/facts and the lack of a propaganda onslought to make my decisions.

It seems that "scud" has become the generic "surface-surface" missile. Any missile strike seems to be a scud until proven otherwise. I guess that as soon as those things are fired they can track back to the launcher and destroy it pretty quick. That would be good evidence. Is that not what they did in the last gulf war?

Andy

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

Maybe I missed it but I couldn't see a reference to scud in your first link

EDIT: Found it, although it does say "apparently"

here and

In this one do they not use the word "appear" at the beginning of the article?

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

I still think there is too much confusion here. Personally I'm awaiting the end of the war, proper inspection of the debris/facts and the lack of a propaganda onslought to make my decisions.

It seems that "scud" has become the generic "surface-surface" missile. Any missile strike seems to be a scud until proven otherwise. I guess that as soon as those things are fired they can track back to the launcher and destroy it pretty quick. That would be good evidence. Is that not what they did in the last gulf war?

Andy

Yes, those articles were pulled from a quick google search. Maybe you can find something better?

I assure you these will be the least of the violations we will find in Iraq...

UPDATE: I did some searching on cnn.com, and according to Wolf Blitzer: "So far, by the way, none of the Iraqi ground-to-ground missiles have been Scuds. They have been shorter-range missiles. All of them, so far, have had conventional warheads. Fortunately, the fear of Iraqis firing missiles with chemical or biological warheads has not materialized. Let's hope it stays that way."

From here:

Link

Not sure of the validity of this report, but Wolf is usually well informed...

 

[Fencer128]

I assure you these will be the least of the violations we will find in Iraq...

UPDATE: I did some searching on cnn.com, and according to Wolf Blitzer: "So far, by the way, none of the Iraqi ground-to-ground missiles have been Scuds. They have been shorter-range missiles. All of them, so far, have had conventional warheads. Fortunately, the fear of Iraqis firing missiles with chemical or biological warheads has not materialized. Let's hope it stays that way."

From here:

Link

Not sure of the validity of this report, but Wolf is usually well informed...

I hope that's the best they've got - but as you say - I guess the worst may be yet to come.

Andy

 

[Tab]

I have a question for everone, why did Iraq fire a missle into Iran? It has been confirmend that it was a Iraqi and not a American Missle. I seriously Saddam would want to add Iran to collation.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I have a question for everone, why did Iraq fire a missle into Iran? It has been confirmend that it was a Iraqi and not a American Missle. I seriously Saddam would want to add Iran to collation.

Did it miss Kuwait?

Andy

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I have a question for everone, why did Iraq fire a missle into Iran? It has been confirmend that it was a Iraqi and not a American Missle. I seriously Saddam would want to add Iran to collation.

Maybe becvause the Iraqi Military are a bunch of incompetent Wags and can only inflict causulties on their enemies by deciet and ruses.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

Yup, they were. Proof

here and

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

Not SCUDs. These articles are old(in relative terms) all those "SCUDs" are Al Samoud/2.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

Yup, they were. Proof

here and

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

Not SCUDs. These articles are old(in relative terms) all those "SCUDs" are Al Samoud/2.

It all seems to depend on who you ask.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: arynn
We will not have to wait for many years for a resolution to this debate. The invasion will either yield evidence of WMDs, or it won't. (We may not know for sure whether or not Iraq has WMD for a while, but I don't think it will take years.) Once they have been discovered, all necessary evidence to finalize our opinions will be available. Certainly some will argue that the discovery of WMDs would not justifiy the war as the inspectors would have found them.

I think the reason the US and UK so staunchly opposed the time table proposed by France and others on the security council was the simple fact that an invasion in the heat of the summer would be far more difficult than one now. I think they actually waited too long and should have pressed for an earlier time to avoid heat they're dealing with now (unless [as is likely] the invasion forces were not ready until last week). If France had offered to pay the money to keep our troops in the Persian Gulf until it cooled down in the fall, the US/UK may have allowed an extended timetable (even though it would have given Saddam even more time to prepare for an invasion). As that was not offered, France's opinion was disregarded as irrelevant.

According to Hans Blix, there is no guarantee the inspectors probably would have found them.

From the New York Post, March 18th: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.
"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Imagine that? And now we know they WERE IN FACT SCUDS. Blix also admits that even months more of inspections might not have been enough to turn up hidden Scuds:

"Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles. "I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said."

Were they SCUDS? I know it's old news, but I thought it was established that they weren't.

Yup, they were. Proof

here and

here.

To quote: "On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of two incoming Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles."

Not SCUDs. These articles are old(in relative terms) all those "SCUDs" are Al Samoud/2.

the sames one that were getting destroyed before we went in?