Eat this Saddam lovers

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Theben, the bastard wasn't supposed to have weapons that had range.

Dude, every weapon has range. Even a sword has range if you throw it. Iraq was prohibited from having missiles that could go more than 150K. These missiles could only go 7K. 150 - 7 =143. So these missiles had a range of 143k under what was allowed.

Can I make it any simpler for you?

[Theben]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Good. Join the peckerhead crowd over there on the Extreme Left side of the room.

Yah, Beserker is known for his radical left-wing extremism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TCO
And the support for Pinochet is more of a popular myth in the Che-fringe than a reality.

Which is why Kissinger fled France to keep from being deposed in a case involving the Chilean coup? Oh wait, what was it Kissinger said about Chile,"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communiwt because of the irresponsibility of its own people." The coup only started in the town where the U.S. Navy was posted offshore (supposedly to particpate in joint excercises). There was so much American activity in CHile while the coup was going on only a great fool would believe the U.S. played no major role.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TCO
He made agreements . . . He blew them off.

Does this mean the U.S. should be attacked for all it's treaty violations?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Fighting Saddam in 2003 would have been like fighting Germany in 1930.

No, Germany in 1919.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why defend Poland and not Czechoslovakia?

Because Czechoslovakia is too easy to defend with all those nice fortifications in the mountains. Poland is much harder. An honourable athlete would wait for the harder challenge.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The intel assessment at the time, by all agencies, was that Saddam was just saber rattling and trying to intimidate the Kuwaitis and make the rest of the nearby Arab League members nervous.

Not true. Several times during the month leading up to the invasion, the CIA reported that Iraq was definately going to invade Kuwait. The U.S. began moving naval forces into the region in July. And, anecdotally, the army began gearing up for a major deployement.

I know you've addressed these before (the CIA says lots of things, often contradictory--the U.S. had ships stationed in the Gulf to protect shipping--individual anecdotes don't prove anything). Maybe that's true or maybe there's some fire causing that smoke. It shouldn't be dismissed sumarily.

[Theben]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not true. Several times during the month leading up to the invasion, the CIA reported that Iraq was definately going to invade Kuwait.

Not to disprove you bro, but the interview took place earlier in the summer of 1990.

[chequita guevara]

Not that much earlier, July, IIRC.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Does this mean the U.S. should be attacked for all it's treaty violations?

Various Amerindian groups would answer in the affirmative.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Spencer -

If that explanation doesn't hold water, how do you explain the apparent absence of WMD? The Iranians wouldn't know what he had, that was kind of the point of obfuscating - pretend you have them or at least leave neighbors with that impression. If you were legitimately worried about a neighbor, would you want them knowing you're darn near defenseless?

You cant bluff if everybody knows your hand. Sure it's a potential explanation, but it 's not a compelling one. The use of chem weapons by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war was not decisive strategic factor in the war. For example, chem weapons did not stop the Iranian advance into Iraq even when the Iraqis had considerable stockpiles of the weapons. There are accounts that chem weapons were used effectively on an operational/tactical level during 1987-88 though.

If the Iranians wanted to move into Iraq again, why would they hesitate knowing that the majority of those weapons (that were ineffectual from a strategic standpoint anyway) were no longer available?

[MikeH]

Ah sod it, the post I responded to is 3 pages back now.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Hardy har..NOT

Keep up with the news. The sole piece of "evidence" the admin. could claim and even that fell apart. How pityfull.

Your zealotry speaks volumes. Rather than read and regurgitate the tabloid trash, as you appear to do, I suggest that you critically read better source material. If you have questions about technical details you can always ask them here.

You you dont need a trailer that size to haul a hydrogen-production plant (we use a Humvee). What do you think the life expectancy of a vehicle that size producing hydrogen in a combat zone would be?

As for the DIA engineer 'experts' who passed their opinions to the NYT (isnt that treason BTW ?), at best they had their heads up their asses. One of their major concerns, apparently, was the lack of an autoclave (for sterilization). There are lots of ways to sterilize a surface besides heat. In fact sodium azide was detected on the trailer indicating it had been decontaminated before we captured it. Why would you decontaminate a hydrogen-production plant do you think?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
You you dont need a trailer that size to haul a hydrogen-production plant (we use a Humvee).

In case you hadn't noticed, we are technically superior to the Iraqis, and that was old rusted equipment.

As for the DIA engineer 'experts' who passed their opinions to the NYT (isnt that treason BTW ?),

Not anymore than leaking the Pentagon Papers was, which is to say, not at all.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by SpencerH
You you dont need a trailer that size to haul a hydrogen-production plant (we use a Humvee).

In case you hadn't noticed, we are technically superior to the Iraqis, and that was old rusted equipment.

As for the DIA engineer 'experts' who passed their opinions to the NYT (isnt that treason BTW ?),

Not anymore than leaking the Pentagon Papers was, which is to say, not at all.

Making hydrogen is not 'rocket science'. In any case you obviously havent looked at pictures of the equipment since you describe it as "old and rusted". It looks very well maintained to me.

You obviously live in a parallel universe where disclosing classified documents is the accepted norm. I come from another place than that.