2 banned Al Samoud missiles found

[mrskippy]

Fox News in an exclusive report has found two banned Al Samoud missiles. These are the ones that were supposed to be destroyed.

Both were sitting on the back of a flatbed truck, covered by a tarp and hidden rather well.

A pigeon (yes, a pigeon) and military tests detected no chemical warheads.

But indeed these are the missiles that are illegal to have. They weren't detected at first by helicopters.

Now you have to wonder how many more of these are there and worry that any might have chem-bio warheads.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Fox News. Of course it was Fox News.

[mrskippy]

Uh, they had pictures!!!

[andy m]

maybe they were made of wood. i saw this documentary on world war II in the desert, and montgomery had his troops build an entire formation out of wood and left them there for ages, to fool the germans. if they could do that in world war II, lord knows what they can do these days. maybe even saddam is made out of wood. i just don't know what to believe.

[astralhaze]

Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

[Radii]

If it's about harming civilians or about protests CNN will report it before it's verified and will spin the hell out of it.

If it's about Saddam's inhumanities, or chemical weapons, or things like that, Fox News will report it before it's been verified and will spin the hell out of it.

Fuck the media. This real time minute by minute journalism is just a bad thing.

Not saying what skippy posted isn't true or anything, I'm just disgusted beyond belief with the way the media as a whole is handling this war.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by mrskippy
A pigeon (yes, a pigeon) and military tests detected no chemical warheads.

They have pigeons trained to detect chemical warheads? Man, you thought you had a bad job...

[moriarty]

Well the canaries are relieved.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Your right, I am sure that is the only thing they lied about...oh yeah, we shot women and children yesterday, and the guy who did it, he is celebrating. he is so happy that he has to live with the fact he killed them the rest of his life, he will probably go light some small kids on fire and watch them run around to pass the time.

edit: again cuz i am an idiot, i mixed you up with someone else in the other thread, sorry my bad

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Would it be correct to assume that you would be against the war even if we found thousands of founds of chem. weapons as well?

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Who has said we want to "kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!" I would venture to say if that was our true goal, we would be bombing a lot more, we wouldn't have thousands of POWs and we wouldn't care if a bomb hit a shopping center(although i believe and i could be wrong here, that they determined that one to be an Iraqi sam missle that missed its target).

[Bee]

Does it matter that we found the missiles?

The name of the war seems to be Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

I haven't seen much discussion of the WMDs lately, only about "liberating" the Iraqi oil fields..err Iraqi people.

-explanation for the quick to attack-
That was a joke, I don't believe this war is about oil. It was only a joke. I will now return you to the remainder of my post.

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't found a lot more weapons and chemical weapons. I would have guessed Iraq expected a long air war (seems like a safe bet since most experts here did). That would have led me to believe most of the missiles and chemical warheads they had would have been close to the borders so they could lob them into Kuwait and Israel during the air war. I know there was some concern that the troops on the front might not use them, but you'd still think he could have put some Republican Guards up there for that purpose alone and pull them back when the ground war started. Perhaps they plan to use them in a last ditch effort when we move into Baghdad?

[sachmo71]

Good. I'm glad they found something. That's one fooking debate that innocent bystanders won't be subjected to anymore.
What's next on the list?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sachmo71
What's next on the list?

Super Smart Suicide Monkeys

[JPhillips]

I don't mean to defend Iraq or anything, but is this really a big deal? If my memory is correct we knew he hadn't finished destroying these when the inspectors were pulled. I seem to remember he had thirty or fourty left out of what we had discovered. Only finding two actually seems like a let down.

BTW- If this story came from Geraldo I honestly am suspicious.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Fritz
Super Smart Suicide Monkeys

Oh, that old chestnut. Here is the deal folks; they exist. They are dangerous. They are smart. Super smart. And they are willing to die! Deal with it!

One more to cross off the list!

[RawIsDan]

Originally posted by Fritz
Super Smart Suicide Monkeys

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sachmo71
One more to cross off the list!

What about al queda midget ninja?

[clintl]

I don't think that anyone ever said the Iraqis finished destroying the Al Samoud missiles, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some are found. They were still in the process of destroying them when we launched the war.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Fritz
What about al queda midget ninja?

I guess you guys can still argue that one...but I WILL NOT rest until the truth is uncovered about that rumor!

[Easy Mac]

dont forget about the underwater bomb sniffing coalition sea lions.

These should be the names of sports teams.

[mrskippy]

I think if Saddam launched a chem-bio weapon against Israel, Kuwait or US troops ... Astralhaze, John Galt, and most of the anti-war group would still be against the war.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I think if Saddam launched a chem-bio weapon against Israel, Kuwait or US troops ... Astralhaze, John Galt, and most of the anti-war group would still be against the war.

Wow, how unnecessary was that? Why don't you stop goading people into arguments?

[mrskippy]

sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!

Violations are violations, except when Israel is continuing to build settlements and violate human rights norms.

Violations are violations, except when Saudi Arabia continues to violate almost every major human rights convention.

Violations are violations, except when the U.S. is in violation of UN rules on a regular basis.

Violations are violations when 2 missiles are found that were only recently found to be in violation and had yet to be destroyed.

Violations are violations.

[mrskippy]

Violations are violations, except when Israel is continuing to build settlements and violate human rights norms.

Yeah and the Palestinians are innocent. Those young girls who strap bombs to themselves. Ah, poor people.

Israel has every right to defend itself. I finally heard the justification for the settlements:

The settlements are built in high places around Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and Gaza for purely defensive purposes. The golden rule of battle -- built the fortress in a high place. And that's what Israel is doing.

If Israel doesn't do it, Palestinians would and Israel would cease to exist as we know it.

Israel is doing what it has to do defend itself. You've probably never been to Israel. It's tiny.

The problem is the UN is anti-semitic.

Violations are violations, except when Saudi Arabia continues to violate almost every major human rights convention.

Islamic law my friend. Islamic law. Don't agree with it, but you know what you're getting when you live there.

Violations are violations, except when the U.S. is in violation of UN rules on a regular basis.

Uh, uh, uh, whaaaaa???? What UN rules has the United States violations. And, uh ... what kind of American are you to attack to say that?

Violations are violations when 2 missiles are found that were only recently found to be in violation and had yet to be destroyed.

They aren't supposed to have these missiles. And if two have been found like this, there probably are more. Saddam said recently he had/would destroy them. However, he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by mrskippy
sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!

I take issue with you calling out individual memebers. Hell, you may even be right about their response, but I can't quite figure out the point of your post, other than to start another tiresome argument about the same subject. Truth or not, you are trying to start a fight. Why not take the high road and not try to start a fight? Wouldn't the be the christian thing to do?

[mrskippy]

Perhaps the pacifists should form their own country and than we can attack it. They won't fight and we'll win.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Yeah and the Palestinians are innocent. Those young girls who strap bombs to themselves. Ah, poor people.

Israel has every right to defend itself. I finally heard the justification for the settlements:

The settlements are built in high places around Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and Gaza for purely defensive purposes. The golden rule of battle -- built the fortress in a high place. And that's what Israel is doing.

If Israel doesn't do it, Palestinians would and Israel would cease to exist as we know it.

Israel is doing what it has to do defend itself. You've probably never been to Israel. It's tiny.

The problem is the UN is anti-semitic.



Islamic law my friend. Islamic law. Don't agree with it, but you know what you're getting when you live there.



Uh, uh, uh, whaaaaa???? What UN rules has the United States violations. And, uh ... what kind of American are you to attack to say that?



They aren't supposed to have these missiles. And if two have been found like this, there probably are more. Saddam said recently he had/would destroy them. However, he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

Skippy, don't you understand? It makes no sense to appeal to limited, technical violations of UN resolutions, when you support such violations on a regular basis.

And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

[sachmo71]

In Mrs. Kippys world, you either agree with him or you move to Iraq.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

How very trusting you are on this point

Originally posted by John Galt
And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusR...&Body1=inspect

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm

point out the desires of the UN please. I can't find them. (this is no dig, I cna't find where "The UN" has passed a resolution on anything but humanitarian aid.)

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Perhaps the pacifists should form their own country and than we can attack it. They won't fight and we'll win.

This needs to be a QOTM if there is any justice at all.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
How very trusting you are on this point




http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusR...&Body1=inspect

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm

point out the desires of the UN please. I can't find them. (this is no dig, I cna't find where "The UN" has passed a resolution on anything but humanitarian aid.)

I use the word "desires" because there were no resolutions against the war. However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I use the word "desires" because there were no resolutions against the war. However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage.

In the same fashion, the UN desires us to continue because they will never be able to get a resolution to pass asking us to stop.

In both cases we are talking about the Security Council.

[mrskippy]

Skippy, don't you understand? It makes no sense to appeal to limited, technical violations of UN resolutions, when you support such violations on a regular basis.

Technically, I don't think Israel is violating an UN resolutions. It legally still is at war with the Palestinians. And the acts of war give Israel the right to remain in the West Bank and Gaza.

Again ... the Arab-Israeli war isn't over and never stopped being over.

BTW Watched a good Discovery Channel program that basically said the Palestinians didn't care about having their own state until the Brits prepared to pull out. The Arab connection to Israel had been with the Turks, not the Palestinians. Nobody wants to admit that.

And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

Actually it's distance and not speed. And while they were recently found, Saddam said he didn't have them. And he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

He was in violation and that's that.

And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

Why would you want to say the US is violating the UN? Wouldn't you want to defend your country? Or are you willing to let others rule you?

The Resolutions allowed the US to take action without UN approval, thanks to several loopholes. International law also does.

And with the finding of Al Quida material in Iraq, the connection has been established and the US now is even more in the right.

BTW ...

If the US is violating UN resolutions, what should be done about it?

Sanctions?

I'd laugh my ass off and dance in the street if they place sanctions against us. No foreign aid. A buy American attitude. More money for America. Lower taxes. Yeah baby!!!

[ACStrider]

John G, name me another country that has approached the UN regarding use of force apart from the US. We have all the justification that we need, and approaching the UN in the first place was unnecessary if you ask me. Yeah, we didn't bring the issue to a vote, but name me a country that has.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
In the same fashion, the UN desires us to continue because they will never be able to get a resolution to pass asking us to stop.

In both cases we are talking about the Security Council.

I'm not defending the UN in any of this (I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."

As for your point, I think the UN general assembly and the Security Council would both be able to get majorities against the war if they had the political will do it. I think doing so (and then not being able to stop the US) would prove the UN's growing irrelevance so they won't. I don't think that means their silence supports the war.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Technically, I don't think Israel is violating an UN resolutions. It legally still is at war with the Palestinians. And the acts of war give Israel the right to remain in the West Bank and Gaza.

Again ... the Arab-Israeli war isn't over and never stopped being over.

BTW Watched a good Discovery Channel program that basically said the Palestinians didn't care about having their own state until the Brits prepared to pull out. The Arab connection to Israel had been with the Turks, not the Palestinians. Nobody wants to admit that.



Actually it's distance and not speed. And while they were recently found, Saddam said he didn't have them. And he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

He was in violation and that's that.



Why would you want to say the US is violating the UN? Wouldn't you want to defend your country? Or are you willing to let others rule you?

The Resolutions allowed the US to take action without UN approval, thanks to several loopholes. International law also does.

And with the finding of Al Quida material in Iraq, the connection has been established and the US now is even more in the right.

BTW ...

If the US is violating UN resolutions, what should be done about it?

Sanctions?

I'd laugh my ass off and dance in the street if they place sanctions against us. No foreign aid. A buy American attitude. More money for America. Lower taxes. Yeah baby!!!

The war never stopped? Israel not in violation of UN resolutions? Skippy, at least try to stay in realm of reality.

And your Al Qaeda link article proves nothing yet - it is unconfirmed (like the chemical plant before it), talks about 1 group that is "alleged" to have ties to Al Qaeda (meaning it is not Al Qaeda itself), and does not establish a Saddam/Iraqi government connection.

And no - if the US is in violation of UN resolutions, why would I "defend" us - I would say truthfully we are in violation. Whether we should comply is a whole separate question, but I won't lie about our country in regards to the UN.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by ACStrider
John G, name me another country that has approached the UN regarding use of force apart from the US. We have all the justification that we need, and approaching the UN in the first place was unnecessary if you ask me. Yeah, we didn't bring the issue to a vote, but name me a country that has.

What does another country have to do with anything?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not defending the UN in any of this (I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."

I do not disagree.

Originally posted by John Galt
As for your point, I think the UN general assembly and the Security Council would both be able to get majorities against the war if they had the political will do it. I think doing so (and then not being able to stop the US) would prove the UN's growing irrelevance so they won't. I don't think that means their silence supports the war.

The rules of the UN suggest that they show their desire by passing resolutions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."

...and exactly WHEN did you start taking him seriously???

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
I do not disagree.



The rules of the UN suggest that they show their desire by passing resolutions.

And I'm saying that the UN is like every other political body - it won't pass resolutions that prove its own irrelevance. Do you really think a majority of the General Assembly would support the US? If the answer is yes (which is debatable), do you really think a majority would support the US if voting were blind and the US didn't know who was opposing it)?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...and exactly WHEN did you start taking him seriously???

when my work is so boring that even a pointless argument with skippy is more entertaining.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
And I'm saying that the UN is like every other political body - it won't pass resolutions that prove its own irrelevance. Do you really think a majority of the General Assembly would support the US? If the answer is yes (which is debatable), do you really think a majority would support the US if voting were blind and the US didn't know who was opposing it)?

I don't think the General Assembly represents the UN in this matter, the Security Council does. The Security Council will not pass a resolution condeming the action vs Iraq. You can pharse things however you like, but that is how the oraganization's system works.

The blind voting test that you propose is something to think about. One has to wonder how many resolutions would have failed had blind voting been part of the system.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't think the General Assembly represents the UN in this matter, the Security Council does. The Security Council will not pass a resolution condeming the action vs Iraq. You can pharse things however you like, but that is how the oraganization's system works.

The blind voting test that you propose is something to think about. One has to wonder how many resolutions would have failed had blind voting been part of the system.

The Security Council is an even worse case, though, because the US can veto any resolution. Who would propse a resolution that would just piss of the US and not even pass? (Maybe France - I wonder if they did propose one)

[mrskippy]

So John Galt... you don't think the Arabs and Israelis are at war? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

The day the Arabs and Israelis actually are truly at peace, just go ask an evangelical Christian what that means.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
The Security Council is an even worse case, though, because the US can veto any resolution. Who would propse a resolution that would just piss of the US and not even pass? (Maybe France - I wonder if they did propose one)

You were showing the US not submitting a final resolution because of certain failure as "desire" of the SC.

"However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage. "

But of course the US was certain of the failure because France declared their intent to veto any resolution.

If you want to use that logic, then the SC has no desire to stop the action. I don't even think the US would have to use a veto.

The FACT is that the UN has not stated any desires, except for humanitarian aid to resume. You can look that one up.

[mrskippy]

AP is apparently reporting that the Muslims are asking Kofi Annan to stop the war and possibly force a resolution on the matter. I smell sanctions. Bring it on!!! That resolution will be blocked by any country that gets aid from us.

Only the Arabs, France, Germany, Russia and China would support it. So go ahead ... do it Kofi ... screw with the US and see what happens.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
So John Galt... you don't think the Arabs and Israelis are at war? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

The day the Arabs and Israelis actually are truly at peace, just go ask an evangelical Christian what that means.

Skippy, I know this is pointless, but let's try this:

What countries has Israel declared war on? What countries have declared war on Israel?

Egypt and Israel have been at peace since Camp David. Israel and Jordan finished up their peace process a while ago. The Oslo Accords created the tenuous situation that exists with the PNA today.

There is fighting, but there is no "war." And none of what you have said changes the fact that Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for years (and they would be in violation of the Geneva Convention on a regular basis but they refused to sign it).

[Bee]

Originally posted by John Galt
And none of what you have said changes the fact that Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for years (and they would be in violation of the Geneva Convention on a regular basis but they refused to sign it).

A large number of resolutions that have been brought forward by various countries and coalitions to condemn or take action against Israel were vetoed by the US.