No Long-range Missile's in Iraq
 

These missiles you hear of are not long-range.

"Blix reported the newly developed Al Samoud 2 exceeded that limit on 13 test flights, by no more than 20 miles. On 27 of 40 flights, the missile tested short of the permitted threshold, Blix told U.N. diplomats behind closed doors."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...022702958.html

Who thought they were long-range? I've never heard them described that way in any news story.

Well they say they violate the UN specifications because they shoot to far. What have you been hearing?

I´ve just read in a Dutch newspaper that they already have
started to destroy the missiles under auspicien of the UN
weapons inspectors....after they reached an agreement in
a special meeting this morning..........of course this won´t
stop the War Thread. Dubya finds another excuse.

IraQ
     î
El Quada

As you can see in this diagram there is a CLEAR link.

DynaMite :thumbsup

No link between Iraq and Al Queda
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-mullah1...,3525790.story

CIA says there's no link between Iraq and Al Queda
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/in...st/02INTE.html

Iraq says they have no link to Al Queda
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...804575991.html

Even Israel says there's no link between Iraq and Al Queda.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html



I rest my case... lol

Ehh it´s ok if you don´t understand humour.....let me explain this
slowly.......the link I mentioned is because both have the letter
Q in their name.........get it now?

DynaMite :winkwink:

I heard from the beginning that they only shoot a few dozen miles too far (only a little over a hundred miles total). Iraq contends that it's because they were tested without a warhead, but it still appears to be a direct violation.

You guys need to understand that this is not about a dozen missiles that need to be found, this is about intent and opportunity.

The US administration will never allow Saddam's regime to survive because whatever the situation was in 1989, should Saddam remain in power, he will never forget this and will continue to pursue, as is his agenda, a greater Pan-Arab state including Jordan, Kuwait, parts of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel, essentially the entire Levant and with global oil domination by 2030 his sons could get whatever missiles they want. That's the real issue.

Do you believe Saddam's sons would attempt this? Check history of the region, there's some 7000 years worth.

You have it wrong. It's the USA and Israel which are looking to neo-colonialize Iraq. Iraq is in shear defense of keeping their own land. If America was so concerned of a Greater Arab state, they would wait till Iraq makes an aggression. Instead.. America makes the agression in order to make their corporate state bigger.

I might be bright when it comes to politics.. but a little stupid on the home front. lol

Yes, they shot a few dozen miles too far 13 times out of 40 test runs. 27 times they were okay.

You are probably right, but so am I. I simply listed the reasons for current US action, I didn't defend nor endorse. Please respect my neutrality.

I understand what you are saying, but truly believe that's the US's last reason for attacking Iraq.

I posted this before: I think some of you have it wrong.

There are many reasons for what is happening in the world at the moment, think about it... why now? the least obvious yet most accurate is the following:

The US government wants to take out Hussein because; not so long ago he changed the currency of his country's oil reserves from the US dollar to the Euro, by doing this, he has caused major upset in the OPEC community.

The people who are going to benefit most out of this? Iraq, Germany, France, to name just a few... who is going to lose out of this? the US, because it reduces the value of the greenback and drops share price on all US oil stocks.

Americans have figured out that the US mainstream media cannot be trusted. They are turning to foreign sources to find out what is going on.

Everyone needs to get their daily dose of http://whatreallyhappened.com

How does the US know that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction... Because the US sold them to them, How else could they know?!?! Think about it :thumbsup
ZoiNk

The US didn't sell them "weapons of mass destruction" they sold them some left over crap they had, just enough to fight the Kurds. The "weapons of mass destruction" George W is referring to are weapons and small missiles that Sadaam has *possibly* developed recently... which there is NO PROOF he has even developed.

Timothy McVeigh proved that even minor technology could do enough to affect whatever you're trying to achieve... just about every human on earth has access to that kind of technology. A couple buckets of gasoline could do a hell of a lot more to a US water supply than any 1 missile could do to a city.

Oh Christ, please leave the anti-war movement, you're making all of us look dumb. America is not interested in some sort of imperial world domination, and never has been. In the last 100 years we haven't even once colonized a country after attempting to liberate it, despite people like you claiming that we would each time. We haven't, and won't this time.

There are plenty of legit reasons to oppose this war; personally, I do so because I feel that it is the UNs job, not ours, to handle situations like this. Please stick to the facts and not your wild anti-American accusations.

You are funny. You obviously have no clue what "neo-colonialise" means. lol. I would use a dictionary before you speak.. cause you sound like a retard.

Good point.

I don't know how far the US can go without Turkey's support. The Parliament in Turkey has refused to allow US troops on their land. This is a BIG blow to the US agression on Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/867008.asp?0cv=CA01

Interestingly the only countries that the US occupied for a lengthy period of time (Germany, Japan and South Korea) have all turned out pretty darn well.

lol. neo-colonialism doesn't mean occupation. lol

Who said it did? If the US invades Iraq, the plan is to occupy it fairly long term.

The invasion of Iraq was planned in the year 2000. Dick Cheney commissioned two reports and the administration has been following the recommendations therein by the letter.

If anyone wants to know the full reasons why we are about to attack Iraq, read those reports. I read the reports from a previous thread here on GFY.

Check out this thread. The first few posts have links to the reports. Interesting stuff....


Invasion planned in 2000

you say that anyone cares about missles...

Show me the 3000 pounds of anthrax he's had.

One envelope of that is far of a threat than any missles the bastard has.

the missle thing has all been about showmanship - doesn't mean anything and isn't changing anything.

I love it - world policy by website... :1orglaugh

Who needs the UN - they could all just sit at home and you could tell them the websites to go to and they could solve all the problems.

Friend... Anyone can find Anything on the internet - aren't you a webmaster? - We all are, and we all know that.

and here come the aliens too right?


:thumbsup

you don't really follow this stuff real close do you?


The US has prepared for that possibility from the start.

an inconvenience more than a "big low" I think.....

bwahahahaa:1orglaugh

Anti-War, does not = Pro-Sadaam. I can't believe that this is an argument. The reason people do not want war, is simple. Someone has to say no, someone has to put an end to wars, specifically world wars. This one is special, because it could actually be the start of WWIII.

Neo-Colonialism is an artsy fartsy way of saying "new control", just like when people use the word "savvy" on the net to describe smart business people.

Countries and empires will always lose power to whoever is stronger, wether it be economy or infrastructure... it's the way of the world, for that matter it's the way of nature. It has been happening since way before the Egyptians.

A lot is going on behind closed doors that we do not see, and for that matter, what we do not want to see.

I heard on mainstream news the other day Donald Rumsfeld say "The reason we aren't taking North Korea as seriously as we are Iraq, is because the process only just started with North Korea, Sadaam has been at ends with us since before 1989"

Something is wrong folks. The people that should be entrusted with keeping our welfare safe, are people who don't have corporate interests at heart. Why aren't we hearing anything from people like Norman Schwarzkopf? because they're against this ludicrous unfounded war.

If I got all that - you've said that someone, (you I assume) has to put an end to something you also said has been going on since before the Egyptians and is human nature.

And I guess you've said every war since before the Egyptians was ludicrous and unfounded.


Yep... that's what you said. :1orglaugh

I think the US is more concerned with Iraq creating weapons of mass destruction and then supplying terrorists with them.

No war should take place, the world would be a better place. Until you see with your own eyes what kind of acts are happening (on both sides), you really shouldn't comment on anything "pro-war".

Nothing positive comes from war, nothing. Unless it's an act of self defense or to protect your own people. Every person has the right to defend one's self. Bush isn't protecting anything but his hip pocket, if you believe otherwise, you're being brainwashed.

You guys love using the brainwashed line....

Man you are so far off track I know this is going to be a waste of time...

But the list of the GOOD things that have come out of wars is endless - America for one, every level of freedom ever fought for, Hitler NOT running the world, And like it or not, a LOT of our technological and medical advancements are direct results of war.

I'm NOT defending this war against any other - but to say nothing good has ever come from one is just being blind. - And to think this war is about lining Bush's pocket's - then it's just obvious you just aren't being realistic - and I, nor all the truth and common sense in the world isn't going to keep you from thinking you are right.....

Since when is 2 years "Long term"?
Last I heard, the plan was to overthrow the Iraqi gov't and be there for 2 years rebuilding what we've destroyed and helping to set up a new gov't built on democracy.

It may have changed, but that's the last I heard - and 2 years is NOT long-term. Elephants have pregnancies for that length of time.

Better Check Again.....

They vote again Tuesday

And I'll bet you the US will be in Turkey.....