Breaking News - Gas attacks by Iraq on Kuwait City

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 10:41am

Fucking stupid media. Just heard that the 3rd light attack regiment (3rd light armored recon) just engaged the enemy. Don't these people think before they speak!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 10:45am

Stormbringer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote: They said it was an Al-Samoud II.
Weren't they supposed to get rid of those?
Yes they were. They supposedly did but they offered no proof and the UN didn't push them on it. Guess that goes to show you what a trustworthy guy Hussien is.

Wrong. You'd do well to do a little research on Iraq and the Al-Samoud II before making any further comments.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 10:49am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Weren't they supposed to get rid of those?
Yes they were. They supposedly did but they offered no proof and the UN didn't push them on it. Guess that goes to show you what a trustworthy guy Hussien is.
Wrong. You'd do well to do a little research on Iraq and the Al-Samoud II before making any further comments.

Actually , your both right. The Al-Samoud was supposed to be destroyed, and something in the neigborhood of 50 were destroyed. The UN was there to verify them getting the axe (bulldozer) but only about 1/2 were destroyed before the end of diplomatic actions and the comencement of hostilities.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-20 11:01am

By the terms of the cease-fire, they were never supposed to build them in the first place.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:05am

Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Yes they were. They supposedly did but they offered no proof and the UN didn't push them on it. Guess that goes to show you what a trustworthy guy Hussien is.
Wrong. You'd do well to do a little research on Iraq and the Al-Samoud II before making any further comments.
Actually , your both right. The Al-Samoud was supposed to be destroyed, and something in the neigborhood of 50 were destroyed. The UN was there to verify them getting the axe (bulldozer) but only about 1/2 were destroyed before the end of diplomatic actions and the comencement of hostilities.

Because the US attacked before Iraq could finish destroying the missiles, having them now doesn't implicate Iraq in any way. He's also wrong about Iraq offering no proof: the missiles where being destroyed in the presense of UNSCOM inspectors.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:07am

Well, they are saying now, that two to three oil fields in southern Iraq have been set ablaze by the Iraqi's. Didn't see that coming

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:09am

RedImperator wrote:By the terms of the cease-fire, they were never supposed to build them in the first place.

If you're refering to the illegal range, that's debatable. The Iraqis claimed with a guidance system, the missile would not have exceeded it.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:10am

Because the US attacked before Iraq could finish destroying the missiles, having them now doesn't implicate Iraq in any way. He's also wrong about Iraq offering no proof: the missiles where being destroyed in the presense of UNSCOM inspectors.

Which was what I was pointing out. The missiles were being destroyed and the UN was verifing it. That is the part that you were right about and he was wrong about.

You are wrong in that they were not suppost to have them in the first place and Saddam lied about the whole thing, which by you statment, I take it that you implied that he didn't. I may have misunderstood you, but your post implied that.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:12am

BoredShirtless wrote:
RedImperator wrote:By the terms of the cease-fire, they were never supposed to build them in the first place.
If you're refering to the illegal range, that's debatable. The Iraqis claimed with a guidance system, the missile would not have exceeded it.

But the almighty UN said they were illegal. They are the one's who are suppost to be judging these things and they said "NO".

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-20 11:20am

Knife wrote: You are wrong in that they were not suppost to have them in the first place and Saddam lied about the whole thing, which by you statment, I take it that you implied that he didn't. I may have misunderstood you, but your post implied that.

Clearly the Al-Samoud II was an attempt to bypass UN restrictions.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-20 11:21am

Vympel wrote: While a nuke warhead is an option, all SUNBURNs are first and foremost, conventional, precision strike anti-ship missiles. Regardless- Iraq does not have them.

FOX still says that a ASM was shot down on their ticker...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:21am

Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
RedImperator wrote:By the terms of the cease-fire, they were never supposed to build them in the first place.
If you're refering to the illegal range, that's debatable. The Iraqis claimed with a guidance system, the missile would not have exceeded it.
But the almighty UN said they were illegal. They are the one's who are suppost to be judging these things and they said "NO".

To verify they were illegal, the UN would have tested the missiles with guidance systems. I think it was a case of "just destroy them if you know what's good for you".

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-20 11:21am

Knife wrote:Fucking stupid media. Just heard that the 3rd light attack regiment (3rd light armored recon) just engaged the enemy. Don't these people think before they speak!

At least they aren't giving GPS coordinates.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:25am

Zoink wrote:
Knife wrote:Fucking stupid media. Just heard that the 3rd light attack regiment (3rd light armored recon) just engaged the enemy. Don't these people think before they speak!
At least they aren't giving GPS coordinates.

Which is something that I am concerned about. I realize that having reporters with them is a necassary thing ( I don't want to sound to rightwing nutballish) but all these reporters sending out cell and satelite signals from there equipment, I gotta believe that all that electronic traffic can be monitered and tracked or used to determin ally positions.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:27am

Knife wrote:
Because the US attacked before Iraq could finish destroying the missiles, having them now doesn't implicate Iraq in any way. He's also wrong about Iraq offering no proof: the missiles where being destroyed in the presense of UNSCOM inspectors.
Which was what I was pointing out. The missiles were being destroyed and the UN was verifing it. That is the part that you were right about and he was wrong about.

You are wrong in that they were not suppost to have them in the first place and Saddam lied about the whole thing, which by you statment, I take it that you implied that he didn't. I may have misunderstood you, but your post implied that.

I meant that Iraq shouldn't be found guilty of any "crimes" if she uses these missiles now, seeing as she was in the middle of destroying them, never having the chance to finish.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:28am

Cpt_Frank wrote:
Knife wrote: You are wrong in that they were not suppost to have them in the first place and Saddam lied about the whole thing, which by you statment, I take it that you implied that he didn't. I may have misunderstood you, but your post implied that.
Clearly the Al-Samoud II was an attempt to bypass UN restrictions.

Really? Based on what?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:29am

That is still iffy. One, he wasn't suppost to have them in the first place. Two, it will depend (weather they are charged with 'crimes') on what targets and what warheads, they use.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-20 11:33am

Knife wrote:Fucking stupid media. Just heard that the 3rd light attack regiment (3rd light armored recon) just engaged the enemy. Don't these people think before they speak!

Was it this guy?

Fox just had a fascinating report from their correspondent with the Marines going in right now and engaging Iraqi forces on the border. You could hear the Cobra's firing Hellfire missiles as the Marines were moving forward. The report ended abrubtly with the correspondent saying "Oh I'm told we're moving out right now..." and the line went dead.

A great report.

This correspondent (Rick Leventhal) is with the Marine 3rd Light Armored Recon Battalion. His reports are outstanding. Tremendous air and artillery campaign going on in the south of Iraq right this moment.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:39am

Quote:
This correspondent (Rick Leventhal) is with the Marine 3rd Light Armored Recon Battalion. His reports are outstanding. Tremendous air and artillery campaign going on in the south of Iraq right this moment

Thats the one, the anchor (John Scott) said it was the 3rd light attack regiment. I heard it, I am not crazy, I heard it.........

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-20 11:40am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:I'm watching the live BBC TV news stream now. No talk of any gas attacks whatsoever.

The Faux News headline is now returning a 404 error...
I dont know Fox news, is it safe to say they are idiots?

They are not idiots. They simply do not lean so far to the left in their reporting as CNN, MSNBC, and the three networks, so to people like Ted and Enlightenment who are rather far to the left of the political spectrum (putting it politely), that makes them rabid right wing tabloid trash.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-20 11:41am

Knife wrote:That is still iffy. One, he wasn't suppost to have them in the first place. Two, it will depend (weather they are charged with 'crimes') on what targets and what warheads, they use.

Argh! The missiles maximum range may have been under the proscribed limit with a guidance system! So it's debatable whether he was right to have them.

When I put "crimes" in quotes I refer to the "crime" of breaching one of the conditions of cease fire laid down in 91, i.e. the max range.

Naturally anyone violating international law will be held accountable...*scratches nose*

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:44am

Argh! The missiles maximum range may have been under the proscribed limit with a guidance system! So it's debatable whether he was right to have them.

But the UN inspectors (they are the authority here, aren't they?) decided that, in accordence with the information they had about it, it was illegal for him to have them. Its not really that dabateable. The people who are suppost to make those calls, made those calls and Iraq came up short.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-20 11:47am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Knife wrote:
Because the US attacked before Iraq could finish destroying the missiles, having them now doesn't implicate Iraq in any way. He's also wrong about Iraq offering no proof: the missiles where being destroyed in the presense of UNSCOM inspectors.
Which was what I was pointing out. The missiles were being destroyed and the UN was verifing it. That is the part that you were right about and he was wrong about.

You are wrong in that they were not suppost to have them in the first place and Saddam lied about the whole thing, which by you statment, I take it that you implied that he didn't. I may have misunderstood you, but your post implied that.
.

yeah, they were destroying them at a rip-roaring pace of 3 a day. that was pure public relations bullshit, they can say they are destroying them at a pace just high enough to satisfy Hans "Mr Magoo" Blix, but not high enough to make a dent in the arsenal.
I meant that Iraq shouldn't be found guilty of any "crimes" if she uses these missiles now, seeing as she was in the middle of destroying them, never having the chance to finish

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-20 11:55am

Knife wrote: Thats the one, the anchor (John Scott) said it was the 3rd light attack regiment. I heard it, I am not crazy, I heard it.........

Well, he's on FOX again, with night vision of the MARINES going forward
and shelling the EYE-RAKIS with 155mm rounds.

Now it's cut to a UH-60 settling down, and he says he and his unit are at
MOPP level 1.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-20 11:56am

MKSheppard wrote:
Knife wrote: Thats the one, the anchor (John Scott) said it was the 3rd light attack regiment. I heard it, I am not crazy, I heard it.........
Well, he's on FOX again, with night vision of the MARINES going forward
and shelling the EYE-RAKIS with 155mm rounds

Yeah, I am watching. Right now they have the SPA from the 3rd Infantry Div on the TV. Pretty impressive.