Quote:
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Trooth,
You've touched on several issues here.
|
Yeah sorry my laser sight is broken
Quote:
1) W Bush and Blair's WND issue. On this, I was convinced of Saddam's WMD not by what Washington DC nor what London said but by Saddam's very own actions.
A) The AS (modified AS2) missiles
|
I am assuming these are the missiles that operated beyond the mandated range? I do not disagree that it is a material breach. However if i remember it came to light in the test results of the issles in amongst the documentation supplied by Iraq to the US/UN. As i understand it the Iraqis had found some of their missles were more efficient than they had thought. Also as i understand it the extra 30km was not tactically significant? I design things everyday, and i have bought other peoples designs, and i have stuff that works better than it is supposed to and i have Friday afternoon specials that don't. My understanding of it at the time was that it was not a strategic advantage, just well engineered. But others will be able to correct me.
The crucial thing, for me is the intent. Did they intend to make those missles fliy further or did they just perform better than expected. Why does it matter? Well in the build up to the war there was a lot made of Iraq's intentions to kill everyone with WMD.
Quote:
|
B) 12 chemical artillery shells
|
Are these the 12 that are in good nick, but empty, or the ones that were buried that the Danish found? The latter were proved not to contain WMD.
12 is not the massive arsenal that was portrayed. Again a material breach, but see intent above.
Quote:
|
C) His 3rd Ring of Death around Baghdad (aka chemical weapons release point).
|
Which appears to have been a bluff. The intelligence should have known this.
Quote:
|
D) His release orders authorizing his generals to use chemical weapons.
|
All who have been questioned so far say they were authorised to use chemical wepaons, but that their units didn't have them. They were all told that the nearby units had them, however. Another bluff.
Quote:
|
I do not see how I could have made any other conclusions.
|
I agree. And this is somewhat my point. On the evidence we were presented, it was clear cut, open and shut. We had to get him now, because he is gonna kill every last one of us with his massive arsenal of WMD. But someone was either deliberately telling porkies, or was failing in their job of gathering intelligence
Quote:
|
People make mistakes, even leaders. However, what I do demand is that they own up to their mistakes.
|
Its a brave new world. It might happen .....
Quote:
|
As for OBL, Dean is absolutely wrong. This ain't a crime. It's a war. By definition, OBL is a combattant, not a criminal. Meaning that he is subject to military Rules of Engagement, not a Court of Law. OBL declared war, not us. We don't have to prove his guilt. He has to prove his innocense.
|
If trials were good enough for the Nazis and the Japs i fail to see why OBL should be let off lightly.
I am not (and i do not believe Dean was either) saying that OBL is innocent. I am simply saying that if OBL wants to declare western society to be barbaric, uncivilised etc, we should use the utmost principled way of dealing with him and afford every right available to him. He'll still be convicted but it will show those parts of the world that hate us that we are not the devils we are portrayed.
As people are fond of saying, we are in a new type of war here and as i am fond of saying, it is a hearts and minds war. It won't be solved by shooting alone.