No Scuds, evaporating chemical factory...

That thread was so unsalvageable you had to start it all over again with the exact same first post?

No shit. Besides, this news is dated. last weekend I heard on more than one network (including the hated Fox News) that the initial missiles fired at Kuwait were actually NOT Scuds.

So, can someone CONFIRM, with all we know, that no SCUDs have been launched at all? In other words, we have zero proof of illegal weapons?

I think many people who've been tossing around the old "liberal media" cliche might be forced to give it a rest when they realize just how much the major news organizations are toeing the party line in this war.

Okay, let me repeat my point -- does it matter if it's called a SCUD or not if it had a range beyond the 95 miles set by the treaty?

No, but we don't have any confirmation that these missiles were fired from a distance greater than 95 miles.

I remember some people here said it had been confirmed it were Scuds. We must not belive anything.

And what about the supposed use of the Silkworm missiles? Has this been confirmed or denied?

Besides, this entire issue is moot. As if the discovery (or lack thereof) of weapons violations or WMD is going to change anyone's minds.

What is found (or not found) will come into play AFTERWARDS when the Coalition confronts the UN, or vice versa.

The more I read this thread, the more I am filled with despair and saddness when I think of all the civilians, innocents and soldiers who have died and will die for no real reason except for Bush/Blairs hidden Agenda. If Iraq has no WMD, then will these guys be tried as war criminals???

Watcher, you're right. This is the worst injustice ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Carl, why the hyperbole?

I feel so hopeless. Devin, you can post and attend alll the protests you want, those against the war can voice their opinions etc but at the end of the day, i really feel there is nothing we can do, the Blair/Bush alliance will carry on with their terror.

If no weapons of mass destruction are found, the government will make sure they 'find' some. If you get my drift. This war would officially be a political and economic nightmare otherwise. The plane would crash into the proverbial fucking mountain.

Why not? It's apparently all anyone in these threads uses. Just trying to fit in.

Bush is a terrorist and Saddam is the new Hitler. THAT is what either side would like us to gleam? Grow up, ALL of you.

Wow, aren't you guys a cheery bunch?

I'm assuming you are all responsible for uncovering the faking of the moon landing, and making sure Elvis and Kennedy are able to live out their lives in peace?

That appears to be whole focus of your posts right? Fiction? Fantasy Land?

There is SO much more at stake here than whether or not we find WMD, or SCUDS, or whatever.

Granted, those are "reason" we are there. On the surface.

We are there to remove a brutal, Stalin-esqe, (his own people's description), dictator from our planet.

This will remove one person (and his regime) who has the funds, land, connections, and insanity to not only support terrorism, but to endorse it.

This really does not have all that much to do with the Trade Towers, 9-11, or any of that.

This has to do with what America does, and has always done!

Keep in mind, WE have a voice in our government. It's called a vote.

Iraqi's, Libyan’s, etc.... do not have this privilege.

So, we are not there to find WMD, or revenge for 9-11. We are there for the 83-year-old grandmother who can't see her grandson 3 towns over because it's controlled by a rival warlord. We are there for the family that has 19 children, and watches them starve because they cannot earn a living to support them due to the fact that they have to tend to the dictators opium field. Etc....

We are there, doing this, because most people can't. We can.

I think that's the Justice League of America you're refering to, not the United States of America.

WW 2
Korea
Viet Nam
Panama

Just to name a few.

All in the name of helping countries that did not have the resources the help themselves.

Why, on these boards, is the U.S. either the source of all evil or an infallible Utopia??

The display of extremes on here is maddening to those of us who are RATIONAL.

This seems a little heavy-handed, don't you think? We're not all spouting left-wing or right-wing sloganeering.

World War 2 started out after America had been hit by a clear and identifiable enemy, right?

I think you need a history lesson.

We helped in WWII because we were attacked.

We helped Korea because we were afraid of the spread of communism.

Ditto Vietnam.

I don't know enough about our 'War in Panama' to talk about it (didn't even know we had one).

We have never gone to war for anything other than our own needs.

WW2 - Perhaps the only war in history in which one side was really a villain. The US got involved only after Pearl Harbor, when it became apparent that its interests were under attack and it faced becoming isolated by a Nazi world order or become a puppet state or even losing territories to the Japanese.

Korea - A war against communist expansion and not on humanitarian grounds. Domino theory in its infancy.

Vietnam - Domino theory enters maturity. And is proved to be a disaster. Same reasons as Korea, but the US actually lost, leaving 60,000 of its own people dead, the public divided back home, killing over 500,000 South-eastern Asians and opening the door to evil bastards like Pol Pot to commit genocide.

Panama - A dictator, who was put in power by the US, stopped being useful for the US. A mini-Saddam.

Afghanistan - The war on terrorism. Payback for 9/11. Freeing the Afghanis was just a bonus. However, once the Taliban were driven out, the US lost interest and the country is on the brink of civil war, with nasty warlords oppressing the majority and the government incapable of controlling anything beyond Kabul.

It might have been a bit heavy-handed. But indeed there has been much partisan and ideological vitriol from BOTH sides of the spectrum on here. Surely there aren't this many extremsists among us. But it sure as hell looks that way.

Perhaps some are extreme, but i think most are just passionate about their views.

I'm with Carl. The determination to force this none-more-grey conflict into a simple world of black and white, good and evil, by both sides does make it hard to have any discussion last more than a page before it devolves into "Well you must love Saddam" and "You must rape Iraqi children".

Interesting point.

WW 2 had a clear villain.

Why?

What makes him, (Hitler) a clear villain, and others in the world not?

Oh, and I do have an answer for this:

Not really. I think it's more that, clearly, the earth spins around us!

There are many points of view, and rightfully so, everyone thinks theirs is the correct one.

No problem with that, it's all about spirited debate. (and watching liberals dance, of course).

(just kidding, couldn't resist!!)

Actual, you all are great, and I'm having a good time. Glad I happened on this place.

Now, let the games continue!!

Fair enough.

For what it's worth (which appears to be little right now) a General on CNN radio this morning confirmed that different missiles had flown a total of 150-180 kilometers. Of course, this could be the same guy that initially said they were scuds, or it could be the truth.

Well, Kuwait City is at least 80 miles from the Iraqi border.

This is getting extremely tiresome, Star Chamber...

ass-kicking NEVER gets tiresome when one is doing the ass-kicking.

I don't mind glibness or humor when they are actually glib or humorous. Your constant digs at Devin are neither.

And as anyone who frequents these boards knows, I often vehemently disagree with Devin.

And Nelson, if this is "ass kicking", I'm a fucking duck.

I doubt very seriously that Devin is naive enough to take Iraqi information at face value.

I prefer "Daffy", if you don't mind...

ok, you're a duck. howard is thy name!

Ok, we've derailed this thread enough. Back to discussing if the missiles Iraq has launched are indeed in violation...

Jamie, Your my new best friend!

Because we all know how many kids are going to school while their country is being bommbed by the USA.

Man...that point is so petty.

Jamie, being against this war does not mean being pro-Saddam. Show me one instance where Devin (or any anti-war person round these parts) has defended Hussein.

Yes, he's an evil dictator. He's an evil dictator who may have weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? He's an evil dictator who we supported. He's an evil dictator we sold weapons of mass destruction to.

Nobody is under the illusion that he's a nice guy, or that an Iraq without Saddam wouldn't be an improvement. However, there are several important factors to take into account:

1. Removing Saddam does not solve the problem if, as in Afghanistan, the country is left to be picked apart by warlords and civil war. Nothing in the post-invasion plans suggests that post-war Iraq will be in a better position than it is now - especially as some of the key allies in this conflict are serious human rights abusers themselves.

2. While Saddam's removal may be a "good thing", the way in which it has been handled so far has alienated huge swathes of the planet and set a dangerous precedent for the future. Rather than curbing terrorism, the actions of the US and Britain in this affair will do plenty to foster more animosity from Islamic extremists.

3. If the goal of this war is to get rid of Saddam because he is evil, then does that mean that every evil dictatorship, every human rights abusing nation, can expect a visit from the Bush and Blair war wagon? What about North Korea? Iran? What about the risk of nuclear weapons from Pakistan being sold to terrorists? Or the former Soviet Union? What about China, with their totalitarian commie regime? The simple fact is that America cannot afford to keep that many plates spinning, nor should they try.

Do you really want to live in a world where one nation - no matter which nation it is - decides how other nations are run, who gets to stay in power and who is violently overthrown?

America cannot - and should not - police the globe. That's something that many conservatives and liberals agree on.

It's not petty at all, actually.

It speaks to the type of regime that we are facing. The fact that the kids are not stepping over artillery ammo to turn in their homework, is actually quite asinine.

It's the fact that there are weapons, ammo, and military even being stored in hospitals and schools, period.

Cunning? Yup.
Sneaky? Yup
Good tactical planning? Of course.

But you still do not put forth, even the implied intention, of putting "innocents" in harms way.

This guy, and his regime, make a living doing it.

Dan, all good points! Thanks!

And to paraphrase LBJ:
"I will not send American boys, half way around the globe, to do a job Asian boys should be doing for themselves."

America is not a police force, and should not be used as such. Now, just convenience the UN of that, and we are good to go.

90 miles is 150 kilometers.

Oh, I dunno...invading half the world, executing and starving parts of the occupied populations and exterminating 6 million Jews is pretty much villainous stuff.

The thing is that we associate war villains with their ability to hurt us, i.e. how dangerous they are for the rest of the world. That's what justifies foreign involvement.