aman Posted February 23, 2003 Posted February 23, 2003 Saddam has about 140 missiles he'd sorely love to use against the forces around him. His nuts are in a vice and he better make up his mind to destroy them and if he does that he might as well throw in the towel. I think Powell has asked him politely enough but to humor the people who say we only want war. OK ask him ONE MORE TIME. Then try to surgicaly fight a new kind of war killing only the bad guys to the best of our militarys abilities. Just aman
Glider Posted February 23, 2003 Posted February 23, 2003 This thing with the missiles cracks me up. Apparently, Iraq are allowed to have missiles, as long as they don't exceed about 140 miles in range. The problem was that somebody noticed one that flew about 180 miles. When asked about this, the Iraqis said that this was due to the fact that they didn't actually have a guidence system for the missiles, and so they really had no real control over where they land. So now they're gonna get pounded because the missliles they're allowed to have get good milage. Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to seem a bit surreal, in a tragic kind of way.
fafalone Posted February 23, 2003 Posted February 23, 2003 Like a guidance system would reduce the range. It would probably extend it. They are forbidden from having missiles capable of flying beyond 140 miles; not forbidden from having any missile they want as long as they don't launch it farther.
fafalone Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Saddam Sodom Sound the same Coincidence? I think not.
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 I thought it was 140km since that generally would make any missile fired from Bagdad land generally on the Irqui border. I think he should haul em all out to the desert, something like 150 missiles and 350 extra engines, and let us destroy them. If he takes his time like 1 every day, we will be waiting till hell freezes. Just aman
fafalone Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Which is perfectly acceptable if you're France or Germany!
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Was there ever an independant report done on how many of the caualties in bombing Iraq came from all those missiles and shells the Iraquis put in the air? That was a lot of explosives they put up to rain down wherever. I wonder if the UN would say it was ok if Saddam fired all his missiles and destroyed them over Israel. He'd be complying kinda.:flame: :flame:
Aardvark Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 The French strategy, 1) deny Saddam is a threat, after all he doesnt has nuclear weapons. 2) When he then develops them state, 'well, it's too late to do anything now'. 3) Pick up lucrative oil contracts from Saddam and sell him more weapons to attack his neighbours with.
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 North Korea might start putting some nukes on the market. Saddam still has plenty of money and he just needs a little time. The real market will be for the enriched uranium. Saddam already has the trigger explosives although he said he used his stockpile to make concrete after the inspectors were kicked out. A crude nuclear bomb would be easy even if he was surounded by idiots. Can't give him much more time. Just aman
Glider Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Like a guidance system would reduce the range. It would probably extend it. They are forbidden from having missiles capable of flying beyond 140 miles; not forbidden from having any missile they want as long as they don't launch it farther. I think Aman is right...140km, not miles. I'm not sure how a guidance system could extend range. That would take more fuel. On the other hand if the fuel load was miscalculated even a little bit, in the absence of a guidence system to bring it down before it ran out, the missile would overfly the target (same principle as the V1 rockets).
atinymonkey Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by aman North Korea might start putting some nukes on the market. Saddam still has plenty of money and he just needs a little time. The real market will be for the enriched uranium. ......... Can't give him much more time. Well, seeing as Sadam has been trying to develop nuclear ability since 1978 I don't think a couple more weeks will swing the balance, especially as he has weapon inspectors crawling through his country. Plus where exactly is this 'market' for illegal weapons? I was under the impression that if you wanted weaponry you just approached America, UK or Germany with a wish list. Why would a communist country want to sell nuclear weapons? They are communist, not capitalist. Incidently the range of the missiles was imposed when 1441 was passed, which could explain why they were overlooked as it was a recent change. Plus the missiles are next to useless unless Iraq want to commit suicide by randomly attacking Jordan, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia or god help us Iran.
atinymonkey Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2789355.stm Looks like the American position is becoming untenable. With 70% of the UK public apposed to the war, we may yet withdraw support and leave the US with no viable course of action other than to commit genocide. Again.
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 Back in '98 the inspectors told Saddam that the missiles he was planning to build were in violation of UN sanctions and to stop immediately. He kicked them out and went ahead or did you miss that. Also now supposedly he poured his VX in a hole in the desert. All he needs to do is point where. Just aman
chris Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 well thats cause england is run by a bunch of pansy's. you guys dont have the balls to stop terrorism and we do. well hunt down the terrorists while you brits eat your tea and crumpets. playing cricket and not visiting dentists. thats what america is about...
aman Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Where the hell did that come from. We get more true support from the UK when we need it than from a lot of our misguided pacifists in our own congress. You Brits get in trouble and I'll come help cus we stand for the same thing at heart. Just aman
fafalone Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Because the 5,000 British troops will just be so helpful to our massive army.
aman Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 They worked in the desert east of Baghdad in '91 hunting scuds on the ground besides a lot of other dirty jobs. They aren't sending us back ups but are joining us with some guys with talent. Just aman
Sayonara Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by chris well thats cause england is run by a bunch of pansy's. you guys dont have the balls to stop terrorism and we do. well hunt down the terrorists while you brits eat your tea and crumpets. playing cricket and not visiting dentists. thats what america is about... Why didn't you just post HI, I'M MR IGNORANT? FYI we have been fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and on our own home soil for years, or have you not heard of the IRA? As for your views on what we do with our spare time.... well. With accurate information like that at your fingertips you're qualified to write a Simpsons episode.
Sayonara Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Because the 5,000 British troops will just be so helpful to our massive army. British Armed Forces on standy in the event of Gulf Mobilisation include: ARMY 26,000 troops including 1,400 paratroopers and the 7th Armoured Brigade. 14,000 additional ground troops on reserve. 120 Challenger II Battle Tanks 32 AS 90 self propelled guns and 18 light guns 150 Warrior APCs Support from 33 and 34 Field Hospitals, 4 General Support Medical Regiment, Royal Engineers, Royal Logistics Corps, 12 Engineer Brigade ROYAL NAVY HMS Ark Royal flagship, carrying Sea Harrier FA2 jump jets, RAF Harrier GR7 surface attack planes, Sea King helicopters and Merlin anti-submarine helicopters. Crew 1089. 4 type-42 Destroyers, the HMS Liverpool, HMS Edinburgh, and HMS York. HMS Cardiff is already in the Gulf as part of Operation Armilla. Anti-aircraft capability and Sea Dart medium range anti-air defence and anti-ship missile system, plus carries Lynx helicopters. Crew 300 each. HMS Marlborough Type 23 Duke Class frigate, with a crew of 185, is being sent. HMS Cumberland Type 22 Broadsword Class frigate is already in the Gulf as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Crew 325. HMS Ocean Helicopter Carrier. Transporter for 800 men, artillery, vehicles and stores. Can also carry up to 12 Sea King or Merlin helicopters, plus six more Apaches, Gazelles or Lynx helicopters and four landing craft. Capable of carrying and operating Sea Harrier Aircraft. Crew of 800 including up to 480 Royal Marine Commandoes. 4,000 Royal Marines from 40 and 42 Commando of 3 Commando Brigade - some of the Navy's elite infantry no less. Additional support: Three landing ships, minesweepers, three fleet replenishment ships, one aviation training ship, one strike submarine and however many nuclear subs Tony sees fit to deploy. ROYAL AIR FORCE: 4 Jaguar fighter-bombers already stationed in Turkey. Deployment number not disclosed. 14 Tornado strike aircraft already in Gulf - 8 GR4s in Kuwait and 4 F3s in Saudi Arabia. Deployment number not disclosed. Two VC 10 transport/tanker aircraft. One Tristar tanker already in Bahrain. Deployment number not disclosed. An undisclosed - but probably large - number of Harrier multi-role combat aircraft. Up to four Canberra reconnaisance aircraft, unusual and valuable in that it can gather high quality images from up to 50,000 feet. Undisclosed number of Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol aircraft, used for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. Undisclosed number of Sentry E3D airborne command and control headquarters. Undisclosed number of Hercules C-130J and C-130K tactical transport aircraft. 20 Chinook helicopters and seven Puma helicopters deployed as the RAF element of the Joint Helicopter Command. I would say that's pretty good proof that: (a) Yes we do take terrorism seriously and know how to deal with it, thank-you very much Chris, and... (b) looks like we're more committed to sorting out your mess than you thought, faf.
Glider Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by chris well thats cause england is run by a bunch of pansy's. you guys dont have the balls to stop terrorism and we do. well hunt down the terrorists while you brits eat your tea and crumpets. playing cricket and not visiting dentists. thats what america is about... Well Chris, whilst I appreciate your sentiments concerning what America is about, it would appear that America is not unanimous in that view. I got a spam e-mail this morning. Let me quote some of it for you: "ARE YOU PREPARED FOR WAR? In our world today, Anything can happen. We must embrace one another in the midst of our frequent "Orange Alerts" here in our United States, and the ongoing acts of terror which continue in our world today. The question we must ask ourselves is: Am I prepared for for a terrorist attack on the USA? The simple answer is NO. We have a simple & safe solution for you and your family to be prepared in the unfortunate event of a terrorist attack. Our Solution is FDA approved & scientifically proven to work. It then directs you to a website offering small bottles of potassium iodide for $49.95 each. http://www.software-is-fun.com/affiliate16/ Potassium Iodide blocks the thyroid's absorption of cancer-causing radioactive iodine released from a nuclear power plant or nuclear bomb. Click here & Find out how! What does this suggest America is about? Is it the expression of mawkish sentiment to attract a quick buck? Could it be to assist terrorists by spreading alarm through the implication that the next terrorist attack is likely to be nuclear? Is it to incite fear in order to sell a product? Or is it simply to prey on the existing fears of people for financial gain? So, Chris, do you think it would be reasonable for people to draw inferences concerning your whole country on the basis of this kind trash? For that matter, would you consider it reasonable for the British to draw inferences concerning your whole country on the basis of your post? In my opinion, you do your country a disservice. I would like to think America as a whole is better than that, so why are you spending your time reinforcing the worst stereotypes of Americans and not encouraging the best?
atinymonkey Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Because the 5,000 British troops will just be so helpful to our massive army. More British troops were killed in the last conflict in Iraq by Americans than by the Iraqis. Think yourselves lucky that we will still turn up in the same country at all! The liaisons between the UK military forces and the Americans are strong and dependable because we a long history of working together in exercises as well as conflicts. The American military rely on the British for training the 'elite' squadrons such as the Delta Force as the SAS is a world renowned organisation, for instance they planted 70% of the targeting devices that the smart bombs homed in on in the last conflict. Plus they speak english, which is a plus for the Americans. The UK army is trained in a variety of enviorments such as desert warfare in Turkey, Cyprus and North Africa, whereas the US army is trained in Montanna and the like (which just isn't the same effect). Just ask a member of the US forces how they view the UK and you'll find that they admire the UK and respect their abilities. I'm not being nationalistic here, it's just we have one of the superior armed forces in the world. It just happens to be smaller than America! If you want size, go size up China and Russia.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Thats true gotta give it to the antimonkey the SAS is truly the best in special forces.
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Well, I guess the answer is Yes to war, since it will be a cold day in hell before Saddam steps down like Bush will be demanding tonight.
rahul_rudani Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 Well, I think war is the best way to get Saddam out of Iraq. He has always been a bad dictator. People are fed up of him. Whatever Mr. President is doing, is right for everyone in Iraq and outside Iraq. But still one question remains ! -How is he going to rebuild Iraq ??? Why is he destroying Iraq and going to rebuild it again ??? :feedback:
Matzi Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 Good question! First destruction of Iraq, then rebuilding the country. Not very rational ... it's Bush who wants to do that Ok, I think, that would allow the US to have the advantages of the country. I mean, freeing them from Saddam, destroying the country, which could not be avoided due to the aim, rebuilding the country. What do you think is Iraq doing with its oil afterwards? It's all strategy...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now