u.n. weapons inspections

[crjdriver]

I guess they missed these, along with those scuds [that iraq didn't have] that they have been firing for the last few days.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030324/ts_nm/iraq_chemical_weapons_dc

[drew.]

I dont think the anit-aircraft missles are scuds, but not 100% sure.

[crjdriver]

They [Iraqis] have been firing scuds into Kuwait.

[Fastfly]

Yep...I am glad the Patriot missles are doing so well though.

[Paul Victorey]

A slightly better article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iraqi.plant/index.html

Also, it's not truly been confirmed that Iraq has been firing SCUDs, the official pentagon word was that they were not; the ones who claim the missiles were SCUDs were the Kuwaitis, not the US or British forces. This was from Reuters, yesterday:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/reuters/stories/POLITICS-IRAQ-SCUDS-DC.shtml

It is clear these are some form of ballistic missile, but it's not clear if these missiles exceed the 150 km range which Iraq is allowed to have.

[Eaglefeather]

Don't remember all the details but a couple of days ago the Kuwaitis shot down a missile. It landed in an unpopulated area and they took an NBC reporter out to see the thing.

The markings on the missil clearly stated that it was a SCUD. The NBC camera man got good close up photos of it. So much for speculation on whether he has them and is using them or not.

[Paul Victorey]

Then it's odd that one of the Pentagon's top brass, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, stated yesterday that Iraq had not fired any SCUDs.

Edit: NYTimes reports the missile downed in Kuwait was one of the newer Al Fatah missiles, not a SCUD.

[Andrew Lynch]

If BUSH & BLAIR allowed the UN Wepons Inspectors to finish there work they might have found this so called "chemical wepons plant " and the wepons inspectors were getting results

[morriswindgate]

HAns Blix is both a failure and a fool, before the first gulf war he was in charge of the International Atomic Energy Administration of the UN and was tasked with inspecting Iraq for nuclear weapons. Six months before the war he reported that Iraq was free of such research programs. After the war an extensive development program was found and this was not the first mistake he made.
May I also remind you that in the 1920s and 30s there was the league of nations that were conducting inspections of germany to make sure that they did not possess arms which were prohibited by the surrender terms from World War 1. The inspections as we all know were total failures and in the end the appeasers allowed Hitler to grow in strength and boldness that eventually led to almost 6 years of war that killed tens of millions of people.
At least this time a modern hitler wanna be will be gone in a couple of months.

[Andrew Lynch]

No ones perfect

[drisley]

History has taught those willing to look that inspectors do not work in a country unwilling to cooperate fully. Those who think that these 100+ UN inspectors would be able to play Sherlock Holmes and find all of Iraq's weapons are chasing a pipe dream.

[crjdriver]

Correct. If the U.S., England, and France had made Hitler comply with the Treaty of Versailles, it is possible the Second World War would not have happened. Approximately 50 million died world wide in that conflict; history teaches that inspections do not work, appeasement does not work.

[Paul Victorey]

Bah, if the US, England, and France hadn't made them SIGN the treaty of Versailles, it wouldn't have happened. Once Versailles was signed, there was nothing that could be done to avoid WW2; the Germans would have simply attacked Britain and France faster if they had cared about Czechoslovakia.

[crjdriver]

So let me understand; you are saying the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII? While I do agree that the treaty was somewhat punitive in nature, enforcing it would have prevented Germany from rearming. That is the point, take away the weapons of a dictator and you prevent conflict. Japan attacked China [and later the U.S.] when she saw the success that Hitler had in Europe.

[shazam]

Paul when you loose you no longer dictate.Thats what loosing means. What did you expect us to do? Say nice fight, you loose go back to doing what you where doing. Some kind of a deal is always made. Sometimes not the best. But you try. I have read some of your other posts. So I would like to ask, Has the U.S. ever done anything right?

[Paul Victorey]

The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany beyond the point that it could possibly recover. The incredible poverty of the Germans, coupled with the myth that the Jews were making money hand over fist, led to an explosion of anti-semitism in Germany, which allowed some incredible extremists to take power. Monetary gain is probably the single largest reason for war, and by creating a treaty that could not help but completely bankrupt a nation, we ensured they would initiate another war. Taking away the weapons will only lead to improvisation, either of making weapons without being caught at it, or things like terrorism.

And of course the US has done some incredibly smart moves in war. WW2, with the exception of deliberately targetting civilians, was a good war for us, and our reconstruction programs helped ensure that war would not happen for the same reasons as WW2.

And taking a "vae victus" approach to any war never ends well. Remember, the first person who uttered that phrase ended up eating those words as his entire army was killed to a man.

[crjdriver]

I was told that in college also. I disagree. While the treaty in question required reparations [in gold] from Germany; the world wide depression had more to do with bankrupting Germany than did the Treaty of Versailles. As I recall the German economy was doing all right until the late 1920’s.
As to the U.S. deliberately targeting civilians I do take issue with that statement. Read History the U.S. engaged in daylight bombing of Germany [as opposed to the British who carpet bombed at night] this was done so as to improve bombing accuracy and help limit civilian casualties. The British tried to get us to change our method over to theirs [night bombing] many U.S. bomber crews were lost in daylight raids over Germany in this effort.
While much of this information comes from books, my father has also verified these facts [he flew B-17’s over Germany]
The bombing campaign in Japan had to be conducted differently since Japanese manufacturing was spread out in small machine shops throughout the city; it was different than bombing the industrial Ruhr Valley of Germany. In addition the Japanese were not going to surrender even after it was apparent to their leadership that they had lost the war.

[Paul Victorey]

Germany, though, was hit so much harder than others by the depression because of the reparations they had to pay. They tried to pay by minting more currency, but their currency devalued to the point where it began to cost them more to make the money than it was worth when they were done.

Dresden was an excellent example of the US targetting civilians. The firebombing of Dresden killed a minimum of 35,000 civilians, although some sources estimate it to be as high as 130,000. Dresden had little military value; it was filled with refugees, not soldiers, and it was the site of the most intensive allied bombing in the European theater. Over 80% of the city was destroyed.

In fact, the RAF briefing notes for the mission said one of the goals was to "show the Russians what our bombers can do" -- that is, to awe the Russian army, nearly at Dresden, with the might of their allies. They were also doing this to "cause confusion in the evacuation from the east" -- the evacuation mentioned was not a retreat of the army, but rather civilians fleeing the Russian advance.

Further, there were reports that machine gunners of the British and US armies opened fire on civilians fleeing the city.

[crjdriver]

You do need to review history. It was the RAF night bombing that caused the firestorm. USAAF bombed the next day [during daylight] with HE bomb loads not incendiaries. The HE bomb loads do not cause firestorms. While it is debatable as to the military significance of Dresden, your quote that the U.S. deliberately targeted civilians is wrong.
Again the USAAF engaged in precision daylight bombing; while this incurred more risk to the aircrews, it was thought the increase in bombing accuracy [and less civilian deaths] were worth the risk.

[morriswindgate]

Also I saw a report from an enbedded reporter that he said that where they were they had captured some of the old Soviet Frog 7 Missiles that were illegal for Iraq to have under the UN restrictions due to their ability to carry chemical warheads.
So what due you think of the pure as driven snow, honest Iraqi regime.

[Paul Victorey]

The USAF deliberately participated in an attack on Dresden, a city with virtually no military presence, a city which was packed with civilian refugees. Whether the civilians were burned by the British or blown apart by the USAAF, it's all the same to them, they're still dead.

And morris, nobody aid Iraq was a good government. Good and evil are meaningless to apply to a person, or a government -- people and governments do both good things and bad things. I'd wager anything that the USA also has weapons that it isn't allowed to have.

Further, I agree with Bush's goals, but I think his methods are simply stupid.

[crjdriver]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
The USAF deliberately participated in an attack on Dresden, a city with virtually no military presence, a city which was packed with civilian refugees. Whether the civilians were burned by the British or blown apart by the USAAF, it's all the same to them, they're still dead.


You are not getting the point, in war people die. The USAAF not USAF [it was not USAF until 1947] tried to minimize civilian causalities at greater risk to the aircrews. Did some civilians die, of course they did. Many more would have died if we had engaged in carpet bombing rather than daylight bombing where we at least aimed at military targets.
I am surmising that you have never been in uniform; if you had been you would understand the concept of you go where you are told and do what you are told. From someone who has two younger cousins still in the Air Force [I have been out for a while now flying for the airlines] we do our best not to target civilians. Are we always successful, no; are smart munitions perfect, no. At least we try.

Was the raid on Dresden necessary? That is debatable since supplies were being channeled through there for the German war machine. Germany refused to surrender until both the Russians and American / British were kicking down the door to Berlin and Hitler had shot himself.

[Paul Victorey]

The thing was, we didn't aim at military targets in Dresden.

My info on that was a vet who actually flew over Dresden; I don't think he ever forgave himself until the day he died.

[AlwaysUp]

Paul...you never answered the question shazam put to you above. I too would like to hear your answer.

"I have read some of your other posts. So I would like to ask, Has the U.S. ever done anything right?"