Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > .
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: . Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Mar 24th, 2003 01:13 AM
The_Rorschach Duelly noted Jen.
Mar 24th, 2003 01:11 AM
Jeanette X Thanks for the info.

(BTW, please don't call me "Jen".)
Mar 24th, 2003 12:00 AM
The_Rorschach 'Scud' is Nato terminology, Jen. It's an Iraqi-modified extended-range versions of the Soviet designed R-17 missile (known as the SS-IC Scud B in NATO terminology) called the AI Hussein and the AI Abbas. Some 650 R-17 missiles and 36 MAZ launch vehicles were sold to Iraq by the Soviet Union. By cannibalising R-17 Scud missiles and the indigenous production of some components, the Iraqis were able to build two extended range versions of the 300 km range R-17 - the AI Hussein or AI Hosseih - with a range of 600 to 650 km and the AI Abbas, or AI Hijarah, with a range of 750 km to 900 km. For simplicity's sake, all Iraqi-modified Scud missiles are hereafter refered to by the generic term "Scud."

Likewise, the FROG is an unguided artillary rocket (I'm not sure, but I think they are refering to the ancient Frog-7, with a range of 70 - 80 km) Iraqi-enhanced based upon a Russian design.

Why you want to know this, I have no idea, but for more information check out the Federation of American Scientists site
Mar 23rd, 2003 10:35 PM
VinceZeb Helm, would you like the evidence and offical charter paragraphs from the U.N. that proves this was true? Or do you want to retract your statement about it being stupid.

You can color the truth all you want, the truth will always still be the truth.
Mar 23rd, 2003 10:05 PM
Jeanette X I hope you will forgive my ignorance of military jargon, but what are SCUD and FROG missiles? What do the acronyms stand for? What makes them different from other missiles?
Mar 23rd, 2003 03:57 PM
Helm
Quote:
The UN is worthless, from day one is was made to be anti American and anti-democracy. Why do you think the former Soviet Union had *3* votes compared to the United States' *1*! Why should we have to go through the UN to protect ourselves? When our men and women give service oaths, they give them to protect and serve the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the UNITED NATIONS.
This is the most stupid thing I have seen on this board so far. And that's saying quite a bit. I won't even begin to point out the obvious bullshit in this... 'thing' you posted, because I think that if I read it a second time, my brain will explode. I will, however, from now on completely disregard every and all posts/threads you make.

Thanks for making this easy.
Mar 23rd, 2003 11:47 AM
VinceZeb Yes, the FROG was mistaken for a SCUD. Im not suprised, since both the missle and the French lack direction, but I digress.


We will find the chemical and bio weapons when we get some scientists to talk and when we go into Baghdad. Unfortuantly, the evidence the left needs will be the chemicals rained down on our service men and women when we get there. I pray that is NOT the way we discover his cache.
Mar 23rd, 2003 11:41 AM
theapportioner Will this do?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2429803
Mar 23rd, 2003 11:32 AM
Ronnie Raygun ....of course we need a source....
Mar 23rd, 2003 11:26 AM
theapportioner Just to put this thread in its place, those missiles in question were determined to be FROG missiles, which Iraq is allowed to have.
Mar 23rd, 2003 08:21 AM
VinceZeb The UN is worthless, from day one is was made to be anti American and anti-democracy. Why do you think the former Soviet Union had *3* votes compared to the United States' *1*! Why should we have to go through the UN to protect ourselves? When our men and women give service oaths, they give them to protect and serve the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the UNITED NATIONS.

The UN has proven itself stupid when it cant even enforce it's own laws.

Peace sells, but the US is always buying.
Mar 23rd, 2003 07:15 AM
FS I think it wasn't established whether they were SCUDs or a different kind of missile (possibly a type still permitted by the UN resolution). They must still not be sure, or it would've been slapped all over the news.
Mar 23rd, 2003 07:05 AM
Helm I was under the impression that Iraq has launched a number of SCUD missiles towards Kuwait in the last five days. They've proven ineffective, but still.
Mar 23rd, 2003 03:44 AM
KevinTheOmnivore Better put that smoking gun on ice, sport.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar22.html

washingtonpost.com
No Sign Yet of Scuds or WMD


Reuters

Saturday, March 22, 2003; 8:50 PM


U.S. forces in Iraq have yet to find any evidence of the suspected chemical or biological weapons that prompted the invasion, a U.S. general said.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director for operations on the U.S. military's Joint Staff, also told a briefing that none of the missiles fired by Iraq so far in the war had been a Scud.

Scud missiles, along with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, are among the arms that Iraq was barred from possessing by U.N. resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War.


© 2003 Reuters
Mar 21st, 2003 11:10 AM
Anonymous There are no UN Resolutions stating a cease fire will continue should we not build a house size bomb.
Mar 20th, 2003 11:22 PM
Anonymous Funny, but a part of me doesn't think it does.
Mar 20th, 2003 11:18 PM
El Blanco Depends on warheads, deployment etc.
Mar 20th, 2003 11:17 PM
Anonymous You know, I'm just curious...what does more damage, a SCUD, or that house-sized bomb we just finished building?
Mar 20th, 2003 11:06 PM
ranxer
UN is worthless?!!! gah

the un is worthless to people with the bush mentality of you're with us or your a terrorist. as kevin stated in so many words saddam was not a threat because of the UN and becoming less so.. those that boil this down to simple statements like the UN is worthless because of x are often not worth argueing with. i think they are the ones that yell 'fuck you' out the window at us anti-war people. haha too bad they don't see how many thumbs up we get

diplomacy like the UN requires should be participated with not dictated to.

Bush's costly blunderous madness has challenged all sane people to remain sane in the face of so much insanity.

IF he doesnt go through with shock and awe some will have more on a case for bush's sanity, if he does go with shock and awe there's no chance for the bush regimes defense if you ask me.

Quote:
Yet I don't remember seeing any of the protesters chanting or waving signs condemning Saddam......
it really sucks that i think our president is such an idiot that i can't go along with most of what he's ever said, so on the face of it i'm balking at attacking saddam for the suspicion that im going along with a fool
gotta say, THANKS George Bush, thanks for making saddam look better than he is to much of the world! damn, the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes!
Mar 20th, 2003 06:29 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Not quite Kev, credit me more than that. They are worthless because they lack the will to backup their main function. If they are supposed to broker peace between all nations, that must be willing to enforce that will. They have shown time and time again entirely too much temerity in restraining rogue states. Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Timor. . .The list goes on.
The UN has excelled in other areas, however. UNICEF is regarded as a fairly successful program, as is the W.H.O. The list of good things they've done ain't too bad, either.

I agree that when it comes to peace keeping and conflict resolution they have dropped the ball. But nobody said international diplomacy WAS easy. The fact of the matter is that the only way the UN can be effective is if they ditch the ugly blue hats and carry a big stick, IOW, form an army. The implications of THAT however are scarier for me then an inept UN (the black choppers! the black choppers!).

Quote:
Maybe, like Israel, he was only keeping them to ensure his own security. Israel is the only country who, illegally and openly, manufactures neutron bombs. . .But the vital difference between the two, is that while Israel never signed the international accord saying they would neither create not use such weapons, Iraq has signed saying that it neither manufactures, possesses or intends to use certain weapons. And he has violated that.
I think your comment on Israel however proves just how absurd this sudden concern over the sanctity of international laws and agreements from the U.S. really is....
Mar 20th, 2003 06:22 PM
The_Rorschach The UN isworthless after a few months of inspections?

Not quite Kev, credit me more than that. They are worthless because they lack the will to backup their main function. If they are supposed to broker peace between all nations, that must be willing to enforce that will. They have shown time and time again entirely too much temerity in restraining rogue states. Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Timor. . .The list goes on.

Was Saddam going to unload his arsenal of WMDs on Kuwait, Israel, and America WHILE inspectors and news media (not to mention
heavy American and Israeli intelligence, I'm sure) were there?

Maybe, like Israel, he was only keeping them to ensure his own security. Israel is the only country who, illegally and openly, manufactures neutron bombs. . .But the vital difference between the two, is that while Israel never signed the international accord saying they would neither create not use such weapons, Iraq has signed saying that it neither manufactures, possesses or intends to use certain weapons. And he has violated that.

The UN inspections were not based on the premise that he didn't have illegal weapons, they were based on the premise that IF he has them, or the capabilities to make/get them, then he needs to divvy up and show us the stash, or when we find them, no cake after dinner. We have skipped that part, assumed the unproven, and gone to the scolding. This strikes me as wrong, sorry.

Unless, and this is a stretch I know. Bush actually DID know what he was talking about, had proof, and the UN simply didn't buy it. While unlikely, it is possible given the world view of the US.

Well, Hawaii time, I'm in the middle of March Madness, and I have to meet some friends at Dave and Busters (one of the only bars open before noon with satellite) so I have to cut this short. I'll be back tonight though.
Mar 20th, 2003 06:12 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Actually Kev, when Bush first started this, his purpose was "regime change" in Iraq, which legally morally or even technically, is not something we can dictate. Every motivation he has offered since then has pretty much been bullshit, meant to placate the more saavy motherfuckers paying attention to him. Thats neither here nor there.
This was a part of the war on terrorism. Lets remember that....

Quote:
WMD and illegal munitions have been the charges we brought to the UN to illustrate his violation of the post-Gulf accords. If these SCUD attacks are substantiated, it will show that the UN is. . . Well worthless, and in the wrong.
The UN isworthless after a few months of inspections? Was Saddam going to unload his arsenal of WMDs on Kuwait, Israel, and America WHILE inspectors and news media (not to mention heavy American and Israeli intelligence, I'm sure) were there? The UN inspections were not based on the premise that he didn't have illegal weapons, they were based on the premise that IF he has them, or the capabilities to make/get them, then he needs to divvy up and show us the stash, or when we find them, no cake after dinner. We have skipped that part, assumed the unproven, and gone to the scolding. This strikes me as wrong, sorry.
Mar 20th, 2003 05:23 PM
The_Rorschach Actually Kev, when Bush first started this, his purpose was "regime change" in Iraq, which legally morally or even technically, is not something we can dictate. Every motivation he has offered since then has pretty much been bullshit, meant to placate the more saavy motherfuckers paying attention to him. Thats neither here nor there.

WMD and illegal munitions have been the charges we brought to the UN to illustrate his violation of the post-Gulf accords. If these SCUD attacks are substantiated, it will show that the UN is. . . Well worthless, and in the wrong.
Mar 20th, 2003 05:19 PM
KevinTheOmnivore They were likewise technically in breach w/ the missiles that could go a little further, yet would be lucky if they ever touched Israeli soil.

There's relevant justification and desperate justification. We're attacking him on the MAIN premise, with all the other talk aside, that he is a theat to our security. The display of these missiles today, be them SCUD or not, is in fact proving how much he is NOT a threat to us.
Mar 20th, 2003 05:18 PM
glowbelly You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.