Quote:
Originally posted by Trooth
Saddam was restricted as to his weapons. But he was always going to have some weapons. The point was that he should not become an offensive threat to his neighbours. The fact that those missiles went a little further than they were designed to do does not, in my mind, show intent to invade his neighbours. After all the range only came to light because of some (not all) test results of some of the missles and that they could fly a little further than the Iraqi's themselves had expected. The warhead limit was imposed by the west, it seems harsh to say therefore it must be for WMD, but i take your point.
|
I do not want to belabour the point but I do want to show you how I arrived at my conclusions. This is a modified Soviet SA-2 SAM. The original warhead size is 12kg. The Iraqis turned it into a "beggar's SCUD" by removing the guidance system and essentially using the extra space for fuel.
Thus, the only guidance system is pure ballastics which means that this thing can't hit a moving target and aims purely at stationary targets such as an HQ. 12 kgs of explosives ain't even going to dent the concrete of a building, especially a surface blast.
So, what kind of warhead would be effective in such situations?
Quote:
Originally posted by Trooth
Don't get me wrong, i support the war for the liberation of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam. I supported further action in GWI and was very upset by the attitude of GB Senior etc. The oversight of allowing the continued use of Helicopters and the incitement of the Iraqi's to overthrow Saddam with the implication that the Allies would come riding to the rescue was terrible.
|
Having seen combat, I can tell you it's the REMFs who decides who won and who lost long after the actions are over. All we know at the time is that the shooting has stopped and we were still alive.
I was at National Defence HQ at the time, monitoring and analysizing the situation and preparing for possible contigencies. All I can tell you at the time was that everyone in the HQ had the same thought - it's over. Of course, it wasn't but there is a sigh of relief that no more blood needed to be bled nor shed.
Was it the right thing to end the Kuwait War (btw, GW1 is the Iran-Iraq War, GW2 is the Kuwait War, and GW3 is the Iraq War) the way it did? Probably not but no one was volunteering to continue the mission.
Quote:
Originally posted by Trooth
However, i do not support the way the current war was put together and remain to be convinced as to the WMD threat that my gonverment sold me to allow it to send my fellow Britons to war.
|
Your gov't and mine have been sending people into harm's way without adequate explaintions to anyone. We served together in UNPROFOR and saw more combat than the Taliban War.
There is no good way to tell people that their sons are going into harm's way. There are never good reasons to goto war. However, there are also plenty of bad reasons to avoid war as well.
I can well understand the US/UK using the WMD issue. It's the simplest to understand, especially after 11 Sept. And explaining complicated issues to the public is the quickest way for them to lose interest.
My reasons for supporting war was that it became a strategic imperative to remove Saddam. 11 Sept gave him enough hints to start thinking about exacting vengence on the US. And his personal history has shown that the idiot never think things through even though they're obvious (Iran-Iraq War, Air War - Kuwait, Ground War - Kuwait, Air War - Iraq No Flight Zones, Assassination Attempt on Bush Sr, Iraq War).
Try explaining that to Joe Canada that war is necessary because some idiot is having wet dreams of 11 Sept.
Quote:
Originally posted by Trooth
Present company excepted of course, sir, but i believe a great many people in the west have a somewhat cavelier attitude to war and to battlefield deaths. Thankfully most people's only sight of such things nowadays is of John Wayne types falling in beautifully ironed shirts or flying in one piece away from a grenade. The reality, as we know, is much, much worse.
However if they have such an attitude i would rather my government did not get in the habit of misrepresenting situations before putting some fine young men and women in harms way and not take advantage of the luxury of peacetime misconceptions.
|
Part of the fault is mine and the rest of the lifers. Essentially we want so overwhelming force that it would be like an arcade game. Only we know it's not but how do you demonstrate confidence to the civies without appearing like John Waynes?
When I assigned tasks to my coy cmdrs, it's because I have complete confidence that they can do the job. I don't second guess myself into thinking that they may be shot up.