Smoking Gun

Were the smoking guns in Iraq planted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 16 61.5%

  • Total voters
    26

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Now that America have apparently found evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I thought I'd do this poll. I reckon everyone will vote no, but I just want to see what you all say.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Huh? What evidence would that be? All I can find in the news is something about a missile that's 113 miles in range. Sure, that's more than the 93 mile limit Iraq is supposed to obey, but only by 20 miles. In other words, they're not supposed to have it, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction.
 

Lynx

Spaceman
I wonder who used the word "smoking guns" in this context. I could still laugh my ass off.

Anyway, Hans Blix ad his staff didn't found real evidence on WMD's. They want to prolong their mission, to look further into it.
Let them continue. That's the most reasonable solution.
 

Wulf

Vice Admiral
Yes, let them continue forever and ever until Saddam kills off the Israelis and French.
 

junior

Spaceman
The current situation is more or less exactly the same as it was when Resolution 1441 was passed. With the noteable exception of some small items (Personally, I'm not certain why 93 miles is the magic number on missile ranges. Anyone care to fill me in? Otherwise, I'm not overly concerned about a missile that can go 20 miles further.), nothing has really changed. Nothing new was discovered, but nothing old was resolved, either.
While the burden was on the inspectors to sniff out any new weapons, it was also on Iraq to demonstrate that it had dealt with the things we already knew about.
Although I believe it unlikely, it is indeed possible that Iraq has had absolutely no WMD development in the last few years. In such a case, the inspectors will "fail" no matter what as there will be nothing to find (and by definition, inspectors only succeed when they find something).
On the other hand, Iraq has failed as well by not providing evidence of the destruction of the weapons we had prior knowledge of.

Ultimately, in order to avert a war, the inspectors must "fail", and Iraq must "succeed".
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
I'm in no hurry to start this war. As an Australian, I feel that we have to support America because it has done so much for us. (And most of the world, I feel). But as being part Dutch, I think that's right in saying that I'm part Belgium, and as a strong supporter of the UN, I don't believe in taking part in an unprovoked, unsactioned war. But with the evidence of these missiles, and supposedly more (there's meant to be an update from the weapons inspectors) evidence of the World Massecring Devices and the link to terrorism, Topgun, you are right, Bush, and I think I speak for a number of Americans, are still so incensed over September 11 that if they believe that Saddam had something to do with it, then they are willing to go over there. The same would apply to some of the Australians taking part, and the Bali bombing.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by junior
(Personally, I'm not certain why 93 miles is the magic number on missile ranges. Anyone care to fill me in? Otherwise, I'm not overly concerned about a missile that can go 20 miles further.)
Oh, well, the magic number is actually 150km (and the missile in question flew 183km in a test run). I don't know why that's the limit. The distance to Israel is a bit more than twice that limit, so maybe that had something to do with it.

The funny thing is, this was just a test, without warheads, which obviously would weigh the missile down a bit. This missile, armed sufficiently to do damage, would most likely have a range of 150km or less. In other words, this "smoking gun" is more like a straw that someone is grasping at.

Phillip... "World Massacring Devices"? Did I miss something? :)
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
What I call weapons of mass destruction, particularly nukes. Apart from the fact they destroy lives not involved in the conflict they are used in from radiation, we are at this point in time at the stage where I feel that if one person uses a nuke to settle some old score then everyone else who has nukes will use them as well. Plus there was the Mutually Assured Destruction during the Gulf War. America and Russia I believe had some doomsday device in the event either of them launched a nuclear war.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Doomsday device? No, Phillip, that's from Dr. Strangelove :p. In the real world, the closest either side had to a doomsday device was the simple fact that even in the case of an all-out attack, they'd have enough time before impact to launch an all-out counter-attack. Which was more than enough to keep people sane.
 

Wulf

Vice Admiral
Actually, the former Soviet Union did have such a device, but not as to scale in Dr. Strangelove. When China started bulking up their army, Russia buried somewhere around 500 nukes along the Russian-Chinese border with interlinking and synchronized computers. Supposedly, they either did not trust the Chinese at one point, or just weren't sure of their intentions. So, if they ever blitzed across the border...K-BOOM. When I first heard about this, it was very scary. Should those 500 had gone up, it probably would have had enough fallout to spread over vast areas.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Quarto
In the real world, the closest either side had to a doomsday device was the simple fact that even in the case of an all-out attack, they'd have enough time before impact to launch an all-out counter-attack.
And even if they didn't have time, they would still have submarines and other deployment options to launch an all out counter attack. Deterrance!
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Hey, I heard that the UN weapons inspectors have come back with nothing. What they found, the missiles and such, apparently not classed as WMD's. That hasn't stopped the call for war though.
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Wulf
Supposedly, they either did not trust the Chinese at one point, or just weren't sure of their intentions.
At one point? :) Go read about the Sino-Soviet Split... They really didn't get along too well for a while.
 

Dominator

Rear Admiral
During peak of Cold War in 50`- 60` it was planned to put so called nuclear mines on the border between Eastern and Western Germany (there were even prepared places for them, it is possible that they were put there) to virtually destroy 1st wave of soviet blitzkrieg into west and make it very difficult for the subsequent waves from Poland and USSR to continue attack. NATO resigned from this plan when they developed better strategic and tactical nukes, and because Germans were not happy about blowing part of their country. Second plan from 70`- 80`relied on big number of ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs - they were to be used along Vistula river (in Poland) to block movement of armored armies (main soviet force was stationed in mainland, forces in Germany were only vanguard), repalcements, equipment, supplies from Beylorussia and Ukraine. Answer of soviets was construction of tanks that were able to survive in highly radiated terrain.
 

Wulf

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by TC
At one point? :) Go read about the Sino-Soviet Split... They really didn't get along too well for a while.
Well, heck, I don't know. I'm ignorant about Soviet foreign policy as far as China is concerned.
 

Happy

Spaceman
if u go back and listen to Blix, and substitute the word "proscribed" for "forbidden" u get a wierd conclusion.
he basisically hear him say, we found nothing they were not susposed to have, but here is a list of the things we found that they were not susposed to have. i know that makes no sence what-so ever, but it is what happened. u may ask, so what if he has missles that fly 20 miles farther than they are allowed having, but they had that limit thrust upon them as they proved to the wolrd that they were unfit/untrustable with missles of greater ranges. ie scuds at israel. and if u keep inching back the limits, there are no reason to even place limits. it is increasingly more clear to me that the UN has no real force in the world, it is nothing more that a place for public opinion and gossip.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
It reminds me of a story about two warring armies fighting over the country they live in. One fights for a unified country of democracy, the other fights for a single, dominent rule that will wash out all the petty bickering and infighting. Neither side is essentially bad, they simply fight for what they believe in. I can sort of see the situation with Iraq in that context. The United Nations, as Happy said, is a place for public opinions and gossip. But how many old grudges are still held, I wonder. I think maybe America, in a way, sees itself as wanting the world to be ruled by them, one dominent superpower. Not because they want power, or glory, but because they feel that under one all powerful leadership, they can wash out the petty diffirences each country has, and that they are the only ones capeable of doing it.
 
Top