A Banned Missile

[Cheetah772]

Hello,

Recently the UN inspectors discovered a banned missile that operates outside of permitted range, how significant is this discovery to the USA's efforts to build a "coalition of the willing" across the world?

Of course, Markoy and the rest of Old Europe (anti-Americans) will claim it was planted by CIA, but never mind that one, suppose if it was actually built by Iraqis, will this affect your line of reasoning in avoiding a war with Iraq?

Personally for me, hooray! It proves that Iraq is not cooperating fully with UN inspectors, even after under intense pressure to reveal more details of the Iraqi weapon development programs.

Indeed, I would use this as a vindication of how brutal Iraqi regime is and how it has continuously violated the UN resolutions and how Saddam is aggressive and arrogant to everybody. Though, I admit this is not a smoking gun in any sense, but, you have to admit it's a very incriminating evidence.

It proves that UN inspections aren't working very well, and Iraqi regime has to be ousted by force, at least, in my mind.

Dan

 

[markoy]

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,

Recently the UN inspectors discovered a banned missile that operates outside of permitted range, how significant is this discovery to the USA's efforts to build a "coalition of the willing" across the world?

Of course, Markoy and the rest of Old Europe (anti-Americans) will claim it was planted by CIA, but never mind that one, suppose if it was actually built by Iraqis, will this affect your line of reasoning in avoiding a war with Iraq?

Personally for me, hooray! It proves that Iraq is not cooperating fully with UN inspectors, even after under intense pressure to reveal more details of the Iraqi weapon development programs.

Indeed, I would use this as a vindication of how brutal Iraqi regime is and how it has continuously violated the UN resolutions and how Saddam is aggressive and arrogant to everybody. Though, I admit this is not a smoking gun in any sense, but, you have to admit it's a very incriminating evidence.

It proves that UN inspections aren't working very well, and Iraqi regime has to be ousted by force, at least, in my mind.

Dan

Yet to be verified over here (well by the media), but if it is then I would consider it a material breech and a serious one.

 

[Kraut]

yes, indeed, really scary! The Samoud 2 was able to reach up to 183km instead of the limit of 150km and the Al Fatah reched 161km !! Veery dangerous, indeed The only problem is that not every tested rocket was able to fly these distances, 50% only reached 150km, some more some less. (Out of 40 tested Samoud 2 13 flew longer distances than 150km and out of 33 tested Al Fatah 8 exceeded the 150km limit) This points out more the bad production quality and questionable reliability of these rockets than a real thread to anyone. I don't think this represents a martial breach but to decide that is up to the security council.

 

[Tiberius]

I am curious why it would not constitute a material breach Kraut?
Does it have to do with the effectiveness? Is it not a banned missile that was not disclosed? Maybe they should fire it at Israel, Turkey or Qatar. If it causes damage: material breach. If it misses fine! let them have all they want!

 

[markoy]

I thought this discovery was designed specifically to exceed 150km, that is what I have heard so far. If it is one of the old one's then that don't matter because they are all sh*t anyway. And would probably blow up on firing. Personally I would let Saddam have missiles that could go anywhere. But whom am I ?

 

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I am curious why it would not constitute a material breach Kraut?
Does it have to do with the effectiveness? Is it not a banned missile that was not disclosed? Maybe they should fire it at Israel, Turkey or Qatar. If it causes damage: material breach. If it misses fine! let them have all they want!

Even at 200km the rockets couldn't reach Qatar (minimum distance 500km) or Israel (minimum distance 340 km) and because Turkey joins border with Iraq even 50mm mortar shells could be fired from Iraq into Turkey

I agree that these rockets violate the UN resolution that limits the Iraq to produce only rockets that could max. fly 150km. But why rockets, were 1 out of 40 missiles had a maximum distance of 181 km, should be a martial breach is beyond me. The best way would be to force the Iraq to take measure to make sure that non of his missiles could fly that far (decrease the fuel tank for example) but declaring this a martial breach would be a justification for war.

Do you think that these results justify war ???

 

[Deltapooh]

You're right Kraut, a single missile violation doesn't justify war. I believe justification lays not with what we find, but the level of commitment Iraq has to ensuring the success of the inspections. It doesn't matter if Saddam was building WMDs until yesterday, if he works with the inspectors fully, without all the BS, I would be prepared to wait.

The missile discovery, if determined to be a clear violation of UNSC RESO 687, only adds fuel to fire against Saddam. As Markoy said, most of Iraq's medium to long range missiles are crap. In many cases, they Iraqis cut two or three original missiles and stick them together with nuts and bolts to provide longer range. The missiles don't have the sensors, guidance systems, or structure to sustain re-entry and the enornmous stresses that objects must endure on the final leg of the flight path. So they just break apart. So the missiles are not as effective as others in it's class.

The important matter to me is the level of cooperation the Iraqis are giving. They can't half-step, or tell the inspectors to do it themselves. Iraq's role in the disarming process is imperative to success. Only the government knows the truth, and if they are withholding information whether it's out of fear, arrogance, or whatever, this, not Iraq doesn't or does not have, justifies military action.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kraut


The best way would be to force the Iraq to take measure to make sure that non of his missiles could fly that far (decrease the fuel tank for example) but declaring this a martial breach would be a justification for war.

Do you think that these results justify war ???

As you say yourself, if it is a material breach it justifies war.
It seems clear that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of the latest U.N. resolution. If this is not the case I wish someone would explain it to me clearly and without obfuscation.

Did not the resolution call for Saddam Hussein to make a _complete_ and _accurate_ accounting of all of his WMDs?
And then was he supposed to cooperate _fully_ and _immediately_ with the U.N. inspector's attempts to verify this accounting? Did Colin Powell layout clearly that Iraq has not accomplished these things?

I am very interested to have it explained to me why Saddam would be considered not to be in breach of the resolution. I would also like to be educated (because I do not know) about the original U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Did he ever come into compliance to have those sanctions lifted?

 

[Tiberius]

How can we force Iraq to limit the size of his fuel tanks on missiles he is hiding and says he doesn't have? Does anyone _really_ believe that it is possible for inspection teams to find all of Saddam's weapons capability? Especially after the U.N. gave him a clear-cut ultimatum to cooperate and he has not. Oh yeah, the reason he is not cooperating is probably that he believes the U.N. ultimatum has no teeth. Even if he obviously fails to comply (like he is doing) the U.N. is an irrelevant debating society that will never agree to enforce it's 'serious consequences'

 

[Deltapooh]

I am very interested to have it explained to me why Saddam would be considered not to be in breach of the resolution. I would also like to be educated (because I do not know) about the original U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Did he ever come into compliance to have those sanctions lifted?

I'm not saying Iraq would not be in material breach. However, we can't bank our case on one missile. I believe we should focus our argument for war not on what Iraq has or doesn't have, but it's lack of cooperation in cooperating with the UN inspections and resolutions. The missile is just evidence, not justification.

The original sanction were never lifted against Iraq. Resolution 687 determined that the reduction or lifting of sanctions would be based on Iraq's cooperation and compliance with all UNSCRs. That's never happened. Iraq was not suppose to purchase items that had any military use. UNSCR 986 was a kind of "olive branch" (or you can call it appeasement). We allowed Iraq to sell oil to purchase civilian related products such as food, medicine, and agricultural machinery. Saddam immediately began using some of the money to rearm his military. UNSCR 1409 was suppose to patch vulnerabilities in the previous resolution. However, because the UN never could maintain a close observation of Iraq's border, Saddam again exploited the "Food for Oil" program to rebuild his military power.

So in a nutshell, the answer is no. Iraq never came into full compliance. The sanctions have been a source of fierce debate within the UN since the end of the Gulf War. Some wanted to lift many of the sanctions, but the US and UK held firm. We've taken quite a beating for it, including being held responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. I admit, at times I question the justification of some holds on Iraqi humanitarian sells. However, the suspecion was incited by Iraq's usage of the money to purchase military equipment.

 

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Tiberius


As you say yourself, if it is a material breach it justifies war.
It seems clear that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of the latest U.N. resolution. If this is not the case I wish someone would explain it to me clearly and without obfuscation.

Did not the resolution call for Saddam Hussein to make a _complete_ and _accurate_ accounting of all of his WMDs?
And then was he supposed to cooperate _fully_ and _immediately_ with the U.N. inspector's attempts to verify this accounting? Did Colin Powell layout clearly that Iraq has not accomplished these things?

I am very interested to have it explained to me why Saddam would be considered not to be in breach of the resolution. I would also like to be educated (because I do not know) about the original U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Did he ever come into compliance to have those sanctions lifted?

OK, I try to explain my point of view.
Well, what is a merterial breach ? Lets look at the complete and accurate accounting: Was the report Iraq gave on his WMDs inaccurate ? Yes, because later they found these 12 empty missiles that could be filled with chemicals and used as c-weapons. Did the Iraq purposely hide these rockets ? If yes it would be a material breach if he really forgot about them and they were just laying around in that bunker i wouldn't call it a material breach. Iraq is no high technology country, most of its infrastructure was destroyed in GW I and with no money available because they couldn't sell their oil it couldn't be rebuild. In a land were thousands of children starve to death and many more die because the Iraq lacks propper medicine I wouldn't expect their first priority to be correct assountancy. So I think Iraqs version that they simply forgot about these missiles (and indeed they weren't hidden but just lie in that bunker) and I therefor don't call this a meterial breach.

If anything would happen that could be declared a material breach that woul instantly result in an US attack therefore on has to be delicate with what is a breach (as the above mentioned missiles) and what is a _material_ breach.

I'd say a material breach would be anything were Iraq purposly denies cooperation or me discover something were he purposely has lied in the UN-report. If inspectors aren't allowed to visit a facility they want to inspect... that would be a material breach. If the mobile chemcal labs the US suspects are somewhere in Iraq are found... that is a material breach. If rockets, that the Iraq is allowed to have and to continue production, are discovered to be so unreliable that some of them fly way longer than others is no material breach because the Iraq hasn't produced these rockets with the intention to break the UN resolution with them, if so most of the tested rockets would have flown longer distances and not just 1-2. And if Iraq would really have wanted to break the UN resolution, don't you think they would habe develeoped something 'usefull' for them, say rockets that could attack the american base in Qatar or threaten Israel ?

What about the missing datas about Iraqs WMD that are still not accountant for? Iraq claims that the documents and the bombs were destroyed by the coalition during DW I. OK could be, but as we know that Iraqs bio and chem weapons have a limited lifespan of 3-5 years all these missing weapons would be useless now anyway and there would be no need for the Iraq to hide them. Thats why I don't see these mission weapons as a problem, a real problem would be if Iraq had secretly manufactured new WMDs from 1988-2002, that would be a material breach.

So from my point the Iraq is cooperating (weapon inspectors are not hindered, U2-planes allowed to fly, scientists can be interviewed without party members listening etc..) there might be still room for improvements but in general the Iraq is complying. Thats why I say that Iraq hasn't material breached UN resolutions untill now.

(and I've commented on Powells report already, have a look here )

 

[Deltapooh]

Kraut, then what about those documents about unilateral destruction of chemical and biological weapons? If the stuff is useless anyway, why is Iraq not providing proof of its destruction?

I disagree with the opinion that Iraq is cooperating. It's level of support is designed to present the appearance of cooperation on the surface, but is otherwise being non-compliant. The most visible signs of support like allowing inspectors to search locations, U-2 survelliance flights, etc; are indeed nice. However, more is needed. Now Iraq wants to provide personnel in place of documents. Normally, I would say this is great. Yet, each name given to the inspectors is known to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi personnel who worked on WMD projects are fully aware of the consequences of devulging evidence. So they will go along with whatever the government's position is, which has already been outlined to the world. The witnesses will only discuss dates and quanities destroyed, but likely little else.

I don't believe Iraq is being compliant. Whatever cooperation we are seeing now will likely evaporate once the heat cools down. There is not suppose to be a gradual build-up in the area of cooperation. The Iraqis are suppose to be fully compliant from day one. It has not, and continues to hang on to the ideal that classifying thousands of tons of material as "unaccounted for" is enough. Iraq has disclosed small amounts of Mustard Gas and turned that over to the UN if I'm not mistaken. That in itself suggest the Iraqis are either mistaken, or misleading the UN.

There are too many questions Iraq needed to answer, but has failed to do so in an conclusive manner. We can't hope that in another three months, we'll find more out. The inspectors will never be able to complete their mission without Iraq providing a more complete, and conclusive explanation.

Also, the US and its allies can't just attack Iraq on the fly. We lacked the forces to jump in and just attack Iraq. The centerpiece of our argument is if there are clear material breaches, which there are, it illustrates Iraq's lack of cooperation. Without complete, unconditional compliance, the inspector's mission will fail.

We should go to war.

 

[markoy]

Originally posted by Deltapooh
[B
our argument is if there are clear material breaches, which there are [/B]

So if Hans Blix is saying there are NO material breeches you are calling him either a liar or incompetent at his job. When was the last time you went to weapons inspections school ? My money is on Blix, if he says no WMD then you really should beleive him. No WMD, then no WAR. NO WMD NO WAR. Otherwise its a US led tryannical invasion of a third world country.

 

[Tzar]

Originally posted by markoy


So if Hans Blix is saying there are NO material breeches you are calling him either a liar or incompetent at his job.

Hans Blix is not saying that there are no material breeches. He said today that although no WMDs have been found so far, he can't rule out the possibility that there could be. So Iraq could be in material breech, but he does not know at this point. He wants more time to pursue the inspection process.

As far as Iraqi cooperation's is concerned, I have the definite impression that Iraq is cooperating only when the U.S. (or the world) gets the water hot enough for Saddam.

Every time the pressure is cranked up one notch, Iraq feels it and decides to crank up the cooperation one notch too to get itself temporarily out of trouble. Basically, if the U.S. were not threatening, Bagdad would not cooperate at all.
Saddam only understands the language of force and violence, and since he is seeing a lot of force and potential violence packing near its borders, this is why he cooperates. But he is always doing the minimum and every time there is something he thinks he can get away with, he continues to hide it and refuse to show it until the inspector publicly request it and the U.S. or other countries put the pressure on.

This is not what I call good faith cooperation, and it is understandable that people are very, very skeptical about Iraq.

 

[markoy]

Originally posted by Tzar


Hans Blix is not saying that there are no material breeches. He said today that although no WMDs have been found so far, he can't rule out the possibility that there could be. So Iraq could be in material breech, but he does not know at this point. He wants more time to pursue the inspection process.

As far as Iraqi cooperation's is concerned, I have the definite impression that Iraq is cooperating only when the U.S. (or the world) gets the water hot enough for Saddam.

Every time the pressure is cranked up one notch, Iraq feels it and decides to crank up the cooperation one notch too to get itself temporarily out of trouble. Basically, if the U.S. were not threatening, Bagdad would not cooperate at all.
Saddam only understands the language of force and violence, and since he is seeing a lot of force and potential violence packing near its borders, this is why he cooperates. But he is always doing the minimum and every time there is something he thinks he can get away with, he continues to hide it and refuse to show it until the inspector publicly request it and the U.S. or other countries put the pressure on.

This is not what I call good faith cooperation, and it is understandable that people are very, very skeptical about Iraq.

Of course the pressure makes Iraq comply, so keep the pressure up and voila...the problem is sorted. Bombing the sh*t out of Iraq and its civvies will do nothing for no-one.

 

[Mantis]

The 'pressure' is the US buildup around Iraq itself. Were this not happening, Iraq would not comply - period. The pressure cannot be maintained. The US must either attack, or not. After an attack (or in the case of no attack) the buildup will be reversed. The situation not only must, but will be resolved by then.

And THEN it's end of problem.