• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

Except that they weren't even close to being a V-2.

I was actually making fun of the scud missle. But, really, it was based on the V-2, and was a clunky, innacurate thing. The site I linked to earlier goes through a little of the scud timeline.
 
It says plainly in my (properly linked) post that McPeak used a variety of coalition sources. Like I said, I'll trust his numbers over your (unlinked) source, and they prove out what I said earlier.

Here is the link since your seem to find it hard to except the fact I might know a tad more on this subject then everyone in this thread,

Information Paper

Section 4 Deals with the actual number of Skuds fired and a break down on some of the attacks.

Section 4

Feel free to ask me anything else you would like about the report.
 
There's no point in talking to you if you think the threat of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was in any way equivalent to Hitler and Hirohito circa 1941. There was no similarity.

Are you deliberatly obtuse, or...

People in America during WW2 believed we were safe, due to the ocean.

They were wrong.

You believe that Saddam, based on information we knew for certain prior to the war, had no way of threatening us.

You are wrong. If he had WMD, he wouldn't need an entire army to deliver them here. So, your false argument that Saddam's military couldn't have been the equivelant of Hirohito is just inane chatter.

The conversation started with your supposition that if Saddam weren't lying, and had actually had WMD, his threat was equivelant to the falling of the sky.
 
Last edited:
Here is the link since your seem to find it hard to except the fact I might know a tad more on this subject then everyone in this thread,

Information Paper

Section 4 Deals with the actual number of Skuds fired and a break down on some of the attacks.

Section 4

Feel free to ask me anything else you would like about the report.

In Table 2, from your link (finally, thank you), there are 8 sources of information referenced, and the sources with full data all agree with me.

Also, there's this sentence:

...In reassessing unclassified or declassified material on individual attacks, we can now account for the 46 Scuds that attacked the KTO but only 41 of the 42 Scuds that struck in or near Israel...

Section 4
 
Are you deliberatly obtuse, or...

People in America during WW2 believed we were safe, due to the ocean.

They were wrong.

You believe that Saddam, based on information we knew for certain prior to the war, had no way of threatening us.

You are wrong. If he had WMD, he wouldn't need an entire army to deliver them here. So, your false argument that Saddam's military couldn't have been the equivelant of Hirohito is just inane chatter.

The conversation started with your supposition that if Saddam weren't lying, and had actually had WMD, his threat was equivelant to the falling of the sky.

No, the falling of the sky line was a jab at you and your 'what if' strategy.

Anyway, what we should have been afraid of in 2003 was 'Alternative Intelligence,' the dubious Curve Ball, mushroom cloud hyperbole, and our President's desire to start a pre-emptive war with a country his father had already defeated.
 
In Table 2, from your link (finally, thank you), there are 8 sources of information referenced, and the sources with full data all agree with me.

Also, there's this sentence:

...In reassessing unclassified or declassified material on individual attacks, we can now account for the 46 Scuds that attacked the KTO but only 41 of the 42 Scuds that struck in or near Israel...

Section 4

Yes I have already stated that I also said that 6 Skuds were launch against the Countries of Qatar and Bahrain which leaves only 40 Skuds left that were launch against The Kingdom. Also found in section 4 towards the lower half of the report is an outline of a few of the attacks on Dhahran area.

Also I would like to point out this report came out in the spring of 2000 so the information is a tad old.
 
Yes I have already stated that I also said that 6 Skuds were launch against the Countries of Qatar and Bahrain which leaves only 40 Skuds left that were launch against The Kingdom. Also found in section 4 towards the lower half of the report is an outline of a few of the attacks on Dhahran area.

Also I would like to point out this report came out in the spring of 2000 so the information is a tad old.

We are beating a dead horse here, but I have one more clarification, then I'm going to bed.

The best estimates from your link:

Bahrain
Best Estimate - 3 scuds (alt reports 1,2)

Qatar
Best Estimate - 1 scud (alt reports 3)
 
Here is the link since your seem to find it hard to except the fact I might know a tad more on this subject then everyone in this thread,

Feel free to ask me anything else you would like about the report.

Yes, how come you don't know how to spell Scud?
 
No, the falling of the sky line was a jab at you and your 'what if' strategy.

It wasn't my comment - maybe you can take a cue from your name.
 
Yes, how come you don't know how to spell Scud?

Well we spell it the way the Russian abbreviated smart ass any other question or you going to be just another ****ing jackass.
 
The bottom line is this. We could debate for the next 50 years whether the the U.S. should have gone into Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The history is written. Less partisan eyes will judge the wisdom of the move decades from now.

It's 2009 and we have a new president who's charged with keeping Iraq free and with keeping terrorists at bay there, as well as in Afghanistan and around the globe. How he goes about solving that terrorist threat is much more important than dissecting the nuances and minutia of the WMD debate yet again.

Obama owns Iraq and Afghanistan now. It's his front to win or lose.

..
 
Well we spell it the way the Russian abbreviated smart ass any other question or you going to be just another ****ing jackass.

Oh no, I wouldn't dream of getting in your way on that one, Mr. "test pilot instructor".
 
Hey, Reverend! What if the sky is falling?!?

That's as believable as the threats of a militarily impotent liar.




You mean the same one who invaded Kuwait? Fought a war of attrition with Iran? You mean that same one?


I think you need to consult your history book. :2wave:
 
Well we spell it the way the Russian abbreviated smart ass any other question or you going to be just another ****ing jackass.

By the way, SCUD is not a Russian name, it is the code name assigned to the missile series in 1951 by NATO. (thought you were an expert?)
 
Oxy and Garza,

Yes, it could be settled in another way.
Yes, the operation itself could go smoother.
But that's all in the past now, let the results speak for themselves.
The dictator was brought into justice for his deeds, and now Iraq is becoming more and more of a democracy, a good thing, yes?

The Dictators being brought to justice has not relation to our interests, Iraq becoming a Democracy is at least a decade away, even though great success has been had so far. Basically this operation was not in the best interest of the US the way it was carried out, even though the act itself did have majour implications.
 
The Dictators being brought to justice has not relation to our interests, Iraq becoming a Democracy is at least a decade away, even though great success has been had so far. Basically this operation was not in the best interest of the US the way it was carried out, even though the act itself did have majour implications.

Can we agree in saying that the resulting consequences are increased terrorist activity worldwide?
 
Can we agree in saying that the resulting consequences are increased terrorist activity worldwide?

Well there is not enough evidence to correlate the two events.
What I will say is that if the Iraq war was handled properly we would be in a far better position Geopolitically, and our security would be better off.
 
The Dictators being brought to justice has not relation to our interests, Iraq becoming a Democracy is at least a decade away, even though great success has been had so far. Basically this operation was not in the best interest of the US the way it was carried out, even though the act itself did have majour implications.
Indeed, Saddam's trial wasn't really an American interest, but wars aren't being justified by interests alone.
Also, I believe that spreading democracy is one of the biggest American interests there are.
What I will say is that if the Iraq war was handled properly we would be in a far better position Geopolitically, and our security would be better off.
What should have been done, in your opinion, for it to have been "properly handled"?
 
What should have been done, in your opinion, for it to have been "properly handled"?

I think de-Baathification should not have been undertaken. That was perhaps the biggest mistake of the invasion and occupation, other than Rumsfields ignorance of using too few soldiers.

In a nutshell, if we could go back, use surge troop numbers and never de-Baathify Iraq, the whole thing would have been ten times more successful.
 
Wow. Saddam really ****ed the White House on this one.
 
Indeed, Saddam's trial wasn't really an American interest, but wars aren't being justified by interests alone.

Yes they are, and any other kind of war is either ill concieved or pure treason.


Also, I believe that spreading democracy is one of the biggest American interests there are.

Why? I agree it would be good, but it doesnt override other interests.

What should have been done, in your opinion, for it to have been "properly handled"?

1. Not rush into the war, time was on our side. As Sun Tzu said patience is a virtue of the succesful General. We could have waited to get more nations on board, wait for the UN to fail in its inept glory, 1 year wouldnt have changed anything but put us into a better position to strike.

2. More forces, especially after the fall of Saddam to secure the Nation. We took out too many troops to fast before we established security.

3. Not forgetting about Afganistan that one year delay of action in Iraq could have put us in a far superior position there, perhaps even capture Bin Laden.

4. Not disband the Iraqi military.

5. Leave some Baat officials so as to avoid chaos in the bureacracy structure.

Some ideas.
 
Yes they are, and any other kind of war is either ill concieved or pure treason.
Pardon?
I haven't said that interests shouldn't be the reason behind a war, but that interests don't justify a war.
Those are two different things.
Why? I agree it would be good, but it doesnt override other interests.
The same reason why the USSR worked so hard to spread communism.
If they share your ideology, they share your values; and if they share your values, there's a good chance for them to side with you in any future conflict, or simply on the international ground.
1. Not rush into the war, time was on our side. As Sun Tzu said patience is a virtue of the succesful General. We could have waited to get more nations on board, wait for the UN to fail in its inept glory, 1 year wouldnt have changed anything but put us into a better position to strike.
You don't know how waiting a year would effect the area.
It might have done better and it might have not.
I believe the people at the top who take the decisions had an access to the best intelligence resources, unlike us.
 
You don't know how waiting a year would effect the area.
It might have done better and it might have not.
I believe the people at the top who take the decisions had an access to the best intelligence resources, unlike us.

Yes, they had information from Iraqi exiles who wanted Hussein dead ASAP. That is completely credible, despite the fact that we had no one in the ground in Iraq. We also had incompetent leaders, as in they throw us into a war, then leave a small amount of our troops to watch the ground.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn't know what they were getting us into when thye attacked Hussein, and if they had thought about it for even a few months more, while we were invading and smashing Afghanistan, everything would have been better off. We would have been able to put more boots on the ground where Bin Laden was, we could have had Afghanistan nearly secured by now, and then we could have gone into Iraq.
 
Pardon?
I haven't said that interests shouldn't be the reason behind a war, but that interests don't justify a war.

It really depends what those interests are.

The same reason why the USSR worked so hard to spread communism.
If they share your ideology, they share your values; and if they share your values, there's a good chance for them to side with you in any future conflict, or simply on the international ground.

Im yet to see evidence of this. Your summing up the heat between the USSR and the US purely on communism/capitalism. They where both superpowers in a region they both shared an interest in, which caused the friction. Otherwise, you cannot proove this. You also cannot say the US doesnt have better interests then spreading democracy, such as combating terrorism and ending war crimes and violence everywhere.

You don't know how waiting a year would effect the area.
It might have done better and it might have not.

Yeah, its a risk to wait. It was an even bigger risk to jump in there the way we all, as NATO, did.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom