StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Next of Kin, this is not debt it is cash flow from the sale of oil to rebuild and remodel. I don't think carpet bombing is going to happen. This is not 1944. As for Korea it has been war free for those 50 years. That cannot be said for a lot of the world.

theski wrote:Next of Kin, this is not debt it is cash flow from the sale of oil to rebuild and remodel. I don't think carpet bombing is going to happen.

That can all depend on how long it takes to rebuild. Even if the U.S. doesn't target infrastructure, Saddam has shown a willingness to burn oil fields destroy his own infrastructure. I think in time, yes, the U.S. will be able to re-invest in iraq and and output more oil to sell as it is the spoils of war. However, this rebuilding is not going to happen overnight and will take time. Of course, this might show the rest of the countries in the region that the war was not about Saddam, not about weapons, but about oil all the time.

theski wrote:As for Korea it has been war free for those 50 years. That cannot be said for a lot of the world.

True, but North Korea looks to have more teeth than Iraq.

'Suspected' is for Fox News pundits.

It’s also for those who seek security in an uncertain world.

Saddam is a documented source of training and arms for terrorists active in the Middle East – and particularly in Israel, where they have by extension had access to al-Qaeda on a personal basis and subsequently pledged their support to Osama Bin Laden’s organization – as was the case with the criminal recently convicted and sentenced in the United Kingdom. A clear progression that via Hussein’s ouster could be eliminated in large part.

According to the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism [U.S.A.], a branch of the Office of the Secretary of State of the United States of America, the Republic of Iraq under Saddam Hussein “issues public statements endorsing terrorism is a legitimate tactic” subsequent to “the formation of an international coalition against the invasion of Kuwait.” The data contained in their overview includes coverage of events by which American and other foreign citizens became unwilling human shields and contains additional information regarding Iraq’s previous links to both the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) and the Palestinian Liberation Front. “Even before the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq provided safehaven, training, and other support to Palestinian groups with a history of terrorist actions,” according to the site’s historical record.

There is currently evidence to support indirect links or possible association of Iraqi moneys and training, via Palestinian organizations, to al-Qaeda members personally. It is not inconceivable that information, weaponry, or funds handed down from Baghdad to HAMAS, the Islamic Jihad, or other Palestinian organizations to which he pledges current support might “trickle down” on certain levels to al-Qaeda and thus support the terrorism which is hallmark of that organization, even if unintentionally. According to an article published by the British Broadcasting Company on 3 February, 2003, “An Israeli military court has sentenced a man to twenty-seven (27) years in prison for training in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. […] ‘Nabil Okal, twenty-nine (29), learned bomb-making at an al-Qaeda training camp in 1998,’ prosecutors said.” The Asia Times Online, in an article penned by correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad provides similar evidence in the form of the following statement: “The fundamentalist group HAMAS, many of whose members are a part of the al-Qaeda network of Islamic groups, has claimed responsibility for the recent deadly wave of suicide bombings in Israel […].” Although links first drawn between al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah at a meeting out of Beirut last March (2002) were proven ultimately false by American intelligence, other links remain. A TIME.com article of 30 November 2002 also implied that al-Qaeda was seeking to capitalize off ties with Palestinian terror despite “wide rebuffs.” It suggested that Osama Bin Laden’s network is currently seeking a means by which to identify its position with those of HAMAS and Hizbollah, a pair of the most radical Islamic groups now active against Israel but still tentative over whether or not to associate themselves with al-Qaeda’s “global Jihad against America.” All of this evidence implies a trend by which al-Qaeda is seeking to make good alliances – on an individual level and on a wider scale as well – with Palestinian terrorist organizations who already enjoy a modicum of monetary support, training, and sanction from Iraq. Via their entanglement, al-Qaeda could easily capitalize on these newfound clients, drawing strength not merely from the ranks of already-violent militant organizations, but also from Iraqi patronage of such groups in the first place – intended or not. Officially, HAMAS and Hizbollah are fully independent with al-Qaeda and insist that their goals are far from one and the same. Unofficially, members of both groups with Iraqi expertise have begun crossing the line into al-Qaeda’s service. It is a clear and present danger that one can hardly ignore.

Oh? I've never heard anything of the sort. In fact, as I've already pointed out, what we've heard from the US is that there is no evidence of any links.

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice regularly intimate that al-Qaeda has received support from the current Iraqi régime.

So Yemen acquiring SCUDs from North Korea is an indicator for a nuclear program now? Tactical ballistic missiles do have their uses apart from nuclear weapons- demonstrated amply in 1991 and 1944-45.

North Korea is acknowledged to possess nuclear weaponry. Tactical ballistic missiles are not necessarily the tools I would best like in the hands of men such as Kim Jong-Il or Saddam Hussein if at all possible.

Incorrect. It's range is 183km.

Its total range is some 300km according to this source: http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pictur ... 293,00.gif .

You haven't shown 'indirect' ties either.

Try the British case posted above. I’m not willing to take the risk that it doesn’t happen on a regular basis.

Who cares? What the hell does Israel have to do with the security of the United States? They can plenty take care of themselves- this is a red herring. Considering the way the IDF behaves towards the Palestinians- I really could care less.

The point is that Iraqi support to Palestinian terrorist groups is empowering certain splinters to break off into the arms of al-Qaeda organizations. Not to mention that attacks on Israeli targets have resulted directly in the deaths of American citizens and might help to prompt nuclear retaliation should they reach a higher level.

So Blix proved their desire to do so now?

Clearly Iraq desires to possess weapons of mass destruction. We recently uncovered new weaponry complicit in their deployment.

Every country that is attacked has 'designs' on the invadings troops.

But what would have happened if, say, the United Nations “compromise” resolution had been adopted under a Franco-German aegis and British or American troops were subsequently attacked for remaining in place to provide a “necessary threat for compliance?” as requested?

They are unsuitable for a nuclear program. How does the evidence not add up?

Unsuitable? Yes. But could they be, if machined? Indeed.

The evidence “doesn’t add up” because after two decades – portions of it outside the arms embargo – and following contact with Russians, Chinese, and South Africans – all experts in rocketry themselves, and some with existing 81mm systems -, Iraq’s program somehow failed.

Because they were simply purchasing foreign systems before the sanctions. They are now trying to develop their own. And if there's an 81mm Soviet system still in service, I've never heard of it.

Incorrect. Reports by Mohammed El-Baradei himself suggest that Iraq has been developing the rocket-artillery for up to two decades. That would imply a starting date of 1983. And we both know that South Africa, Russia, and China each had illicit connections with Hussein after sanctions were officially enacted.

The 81mm Soviet system disperses smoke from infantry fighting vehicles.

Yes, that's the reason why people get them.

You really want Hussein to be in Kim Jong-Il’s position before we act?

Previous inspections destroyed many thousands of tons of WMD. They only failed because of the US manipulating the process by seeding spies in the inspection teams in 1998.

But previous inspections had not cleared Iraq of all its weapons – nor did they stop the development of technology such as drones. It’s a fact: until we have régime-change, Saddam will remain a clear and present danger to the United States of America and its allies.

I don't follow.

Saddam’s UAVs won’t always be intercepted.

When you have a battle between two patrol boats using just guns- during a situation that wouldn't arise in a wartime situation (i.e.- how close was the NK boat allowed to get)- you're hardly in a position to exploit your overmatch. A border skirmish between coast guard ships is hardly indicative of the quality of the NK navy.

The battle was a reflection of the quality of the vessels and troops involved. Obviously, South Korea didn’t have the aptitude and fighting capabilities everybody is now assuming. North Korea was able to win an isolated victory.

North Korea's primitive army will be bombed to oblivion as easily as any other if they try and fight it out (and as for conducting guerilla warfare with tanks- that's just not on). Their air defense is pathetic, their air force anemic, and they might as well not use their equipment quite frankly.

Most North Korean troops will be safe in subterranean bunkers. It will also be quite difficult (and significantly deadly) to provide close ground support for combat troops in too close a proximity for higher-level bombing. Their air defense is pathetic from a technological point of view. The mass of guns is sufficient to fill the sky with enough flak to bring down even the A-10 ‘Warthog’ or F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’.

The danger to Seoul is vastly overstated. Only a portion of NKs heaviest artillery is in range of Seoul- the city will be hit, but it won't be levelled, not to mention that these artillery positions will be wiped out within minutes if they're brought out of their shelters.

Tens of thousands of North Korean rockets and artillery tubes are sited on Seoul at any one time. I seriously contest that the city would still be standing even if we initiated the war with a preemptive strike targeting those same batteries. There are too many guns in place to hit them all before they begin the barrage.

That wasn't my point. It'll be a foot-mobile, poorly equipped infantry force (without even effective RPGs to pierce an M2A2/A3) versus elite mechanized infantry.

The M2A2/3 are quite vulnerable from behind or above. Their treads can be immobilized. The North Koreans will import a substantial amount of modern rocketry from China during any war – with or without official sanction. The “foot-mobile, poorly-equipped force” you speak of will be quite effective on the defensive.

Nonsense. Seoul will take a few artillery shells from the portion of the heavy NK guns in range, and then it will be safe. Counter-battery fire and air strikes will destroy any guns that are wheeled out for use.

Incorrect. North Korea has too many guns in place to spare Seoul an earth and fiery death.

They don't have the anti-ship missile capability to damage any American ships.

They’ve tested two such missiles in recent days. In order to be successful, all they need is a handful of duds to go with them.

No, you vastly overstate it.

You vastly understate it.

From where?

There are reports that only the Special Republican Guard will put up very much of a fight, and only then in about brigade strength. If I knew from where I’d heard it, I would have cited you a source.

Not only do they not have the range to hit LA (their longest range missile that isn't ready yet only has a range of 6,000km- enough to hit Alaska, barely) but their nuclear forces are tiny enough to be wiped out by strategic bomber forces (B-2s.)

Their nuclear forces are underground – beyond the reach, I have heard, of nuclear weapons or conventional bombs – and their power plants are too “dirty” to consider destroying outright.

Remember that South Korea doesn’t want this war. You plan to force it on them?

Vympel wrote:
The danger to Seoul is vastly overstated. Only a portion of NKs heaviest artillery is in range of Seoul- the city will be hit, but it won't be levelled, not to mention that these artillery positions will be wiped out within minutes if they're brought out of their shelters.

By what? South Korea doesn't have anything capable of eliminating them quickly, and the US forces there aren't supplied well enough to eliminate them "within minutes." Seoul would be heavily damaged before the artillery could be silenced...assuming the first shot wasn't a nuclear ballistic missile.

That wasn't my point. It'll be a foot-mobile, poorly equipped infantry force (without even effective RPGs to pierce an M2A2/A3) versus elite mechanized infantry.

We're certain the NKs don't have RPGs, despite the fact that they're friendly with China, a nation that sells $6,000,000,000 (6 billion dollars) of weapons illegally each year? We do know they have Snapper and Sagger missiles, and it wouldn't be terribly difficult to develop a decent unguided rocket based off the aerodynamic profiles of those.

And what of the Ukraine, selling T-84s and not telling who they're selling to? We don't know where all of their thirty-three billion dollars in arms sales went. I'll admit it's likely that their best armor consists of the ~700 T-62s they've had for years, but the -62 is still a decent tank (and is not a "cheap knock-off" of the -54/55). They do still use T-34s, though they also have T-54/55s, PT-76, and Type-59. We can't be certain they don't have better, though.

Nonsense. Seoul will take a few artillery shells from the portion of the heavy NK guns in range, and then it will be safe. Counter-battery fire and air strikes will destroy any guns that are wheeled out for use.

Maybe. I'm doubtful as to whether the South Korean military is really that good. Particularly when 70%+ of North Korea's military is within 90 miles of the DMZ. That's maybe three hours warning of a strike on Seoul. Maybe. If the North Koreans move slow. If they decided on just an airstrike instead, half of their aircraft could be over Seoul in 6 minutes.

They don't have the anti-ship missile capability to damage any American ships.

No, but China has Silkworms. They'd probably sell the 'worms and claim NK spies had stolen them somehow.

No, you vastly overstate it.

IMO, it's understated overall. If NK does have nuclear warheads, we know they have missiles capable of hitting portions of Japan. None of South Korea is safe from such weapons. They have at least 500 Scuds, and the Taepo Dong 1 has been successfully tested, with its 2000 kilometer range.

Not only do they not have the range to hit LA (their longest range missile that isn't ready yet only has a range of 6,000km- enough to hit Alaska, barely) but their nuclear forces are tiny enough to be wiped out by strategic bomber forces (B-2s.)

IF we can locate them precisely enough to be eliminated by Spirits. We can hit at most 11 sites before losing the advantage of surprise (that's how many B-2s there are). Unless we get both potential weapons in those 11 strikes, NK will be warned and able to launch nuclear weapons. We might be able to add the Nighthawks, but that still doesn't amount to many aircraft. And I'd worry about them surviving the return, since NK has 10,000 SAM launchers (combined man-portable and installation type) and 8,800 air defense guns ranging from 14.5mm to 100mm. The F-4 pilots in 'Nam thought they were untouchable too until they got shot down by rifles.

You may not take North Korea seriously, but Japan is worried enough about them to consider eliminating the non-aggression clause in their Constitution in order to take pre-emptive action against North Korea if they become any more aggressive.

Possibly the most dangerous part of North Korea would be their Special Operations forces. They have 130 ACVs capable of landing a platoon for operations, and 300 AN-2 biplanes capable of flying below radar coverage and transporting roughly 10 operatives each. The possibility of a few thousand Special Operations personnel operating in South Korea would make me extremely nervous were I in the region.


[edit]Forgot to talk about the main point: Iraq. I personally don't agree with this war. If we could, I would say just eliminate Hussein. Difficult, but it should be possible. I don't trust our government's motives in this war. Shrubby has traditionally shown himself to be motivated only by what big business wants, and cheap oil is good for big business. Unfortunately, anytime someone starts talking common sense in America these days, it gets shouted down as unpatriotic. So we're going to go to war without a scrap of empirical evidence that Hussein does still have weapons. Instead of threatening Iraq, we should be telling the European countries to stop their illegal deals with Iraq. Unfortunately, that would be bad for business, since it would piss Europe off even more, so that won't be done by our current government.[/edit]

jegs2 wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

jegs2 wrote:Concession accepted.

Fuck off slap head, you still havent given an acceptable answer, I should be accepting you concession as you patently cannot and will not answer my question.

Good job! Way to demonstrate that intelligence -- keep up the good work!

ps.- Were you born an idiot, or did you go to school for it? Just curious, because your level of rampant stupidity is quite impressive...

I will say it again, as you seemed to have missed it. who do you think you are to tell another person how he/she may or may not answer a question?

Axis Kast wrote:
It’s also for those who seek security in an uncertain world.

Or those who like to go to war without evidence. Just emit a steady stream of unverifiable accusations repeatedly, never provide proof, and watch as they sink into the public conciousness and develop into fact. It's called propaganda.

Saddam is a documented source of training and arms for terrorists active in the Middle East – and particularly in Israel, where they have by extension had access to al-Qaeda on a personal basis and subsequently pledged their support to Osama Bin Laden’s organization – as was the case with the criminal recently convicted and sentenced in the United Kingdom. A clear progression that via Hussein’s ouster could be eliminated in large part.

More accusations. You must SHOW that Saddam supports Al-Queda, not make giant leaps from 'money to Palestinian bereaved' to 'Al-Queda' and expect anyone to think it makes sense.

According to the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism ... snip.

Don't repost that bullshit. It was a red herring then, and it's a red herring now.

There is currently evidence to support indirect links or possible association of Iraqi moneys and training, via Palestinian organizations, to al-Qaeda members personally.

What evidence?

It is not inconceivable that information, weaponry, or funds handed down from Baghdad to HAMAS, the Islamic Jihad, or other Palestinian organizations to which he pledges current support might “trickle down” on certain levels to al-Qaeda and thus support the terrorism which is hallmark of that organization, even if unintentionally.

Patently absurd. So if a Russian T-55 provided to the Northern Alliance comes into posession of the Taliban, Russia is supporting terror?

According to an article published by the British Broadcasting Company on 3 February, 2003, “An Israeli military court has sentenced a man to twenty-seven (27) years in prison for training in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network .... SNIP

You wouldn't happen to know anyone called Darkstar, would you? Your mega posts of material totally irrelevant to the debate is an obvious red herring and probably an attempt to make this debate not worth continuing. Your scatter-gun tactics are transparent: 'individual level' and 'unofficially' and a variety of other totally unverifiable claims.

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice regularly intimate that al-Qaeda has received support from the current Iraqi régime.

No, they have said 'he probably does' and have never provided a shred of proof, and are constantly contradicted by their own intelligence services.

North Korea is acknowledged to possess nuclear weaponry. Tactical ballistic missiles are not necessarily the tools I would best like in the hands of men such as Kim Jong-Il or Saddam Hussein if at all possible.

Red herring. You reasoned that tactical ballistic missiles necessarily= nuclear program. I used an example to demonstrate this was not so.

Its total range is some 300km according to this source: http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pictur ... 293,00.gif .

And it's wrong. Do not go to the Times for military analysis. They can't tell a rocket from a grenade (neither can you, it seems- see below).

Try the British case posted above. I’m not willing to take the risk that it doesn’t happen on a regular basis.

That 'British case' you posted basically makes no claim that Iraq supports Al-Quaeda, nor does it provide evidence "It is not inconceivable" ... A lot of things are conceivable, thanks very much, but you don't see me going off to kill thousands of people over them. That you insist on contradicting the best sources on whether there is any connection or not and instead posting unverifiable, speculative nonsense and 'what if' 'it's possible' scenarios speaks to the strength of your argument.

The point is that Iraqi support to Palestinian terrorist groups is empowering certain splinters to break off into the arms of al-Qaeda organizations. Not to mention that attacks on Israeli targets have resulted directly in the deaths of American citizens and might help to prompt nuclear retaliation should they reach a higher level.

hahahah, your case is water tight! I haven't seen this much ado about nothing in a long time. I guess Russia is, by virtue of it's support to warlords who fought against the Taliban, is now supporting terror and must be invaded because some of this support may indirectly, without any input from Russia, end up in the hands of unsavory groups with whom it has no dealings! BRILLIANT! Are you a contortionist?!

Clearly Iraq desires to possess weapons of mass destruction. We recently uncovered new weaponry complicit in their deployment.

Red herring. I asked you if Blix proved the desire to use such drones in that manner, forgetting of course that they can also be used, and are used, for reconnaisance. You changed the subject.

But what would have happened if, say, the United Nations “compromise” resolution had been adopted under a Franco-German aegis and British or American troops were subsequently attacked for remaining in place to provide a “necessary threat for compliance?” as requested?

I was waiting for the 'what ifs' to start. WHY would Saddam Hussein even TRY to infect a bunch of NBC protected troops, considering that even if he was successful he has nothing to gain and everything to lose?!

Unsuitable? Yes. But could they be, if machined? Indeed.

Source. The US administration has mumbled and grumbled that they're sorry their information was wrong. They fit better as artillery rockets.

The evidence “doesn’t add up” because after two decades – portions of it outside the arms embargo – and following contact with Russians, Chinese, and South Africans – all experts in rocketry themselves, and some with existing 81mm systems -, Iraq’s program somehow failed.

See below

Incorrect. Reports by Mohammed El-Baradei himself suggest that Iraq has been developing the rocket-artillery for up to two decades. That would imply a starting date of 1983. And we both know that South Africa, Russia, and China each had illicit connections with Hussein after sanctions were officially enacted.

So what? Iraqi incompetence is evidence for aluminim tubing that isn't even suitable for the job being really for a nuclear program?! It took America 17 years, and 14 billion dollars, to field one armored fighting vehicle. Procurement boondoggles are not new, and considering the effect of sanctions for half that period, your case holds no water.

The 81mm Soviet system disperses smoke from infantry fighting vehicles.

Ok, you clearly don't know what you're on about. The 81mm launchers on Soviet tanks and IFVs/APCs are *smoke grenades*. They have nothing to do with rocket artillery. Modern rocket artillery:

BM-21 Grad
9K57 Urugan
9K58 Smerch
MLRS
etc etc etc

Considering that Iraq had large amounts of foreign rocket artillery on hand, it makes sense that their indigenous program to make their own wasn't extremely high priority- or, they could've just been incompetent. And again, I point to sanctions.

You really want Hussein to be in Kim Jong-Il’s position before we act?

Should we have invaded the Soviet Union to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons? What's wrong with containment? It saves lives.

But previous inspections had not cleared Iraq of all its weapons – nor did they stop the development of technology such as drones. It’s a fact: until we have régime-change, Saddam will remain a clear and present danger to the United States of America and its allies.

No, it's not a fact, it's absolute hysteria. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever.

Saddam’s UAVs won’t always be intercepted.

Treating your conclusion as a premise. I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these drones would be used in such a pathetic paranoid techno-thriller manner. I love how all these go to war arguments are based on the most improbable, ludicrous scenarios imaginable. No one EVER answers this question: what the hell has he got to gain!?!?!?

The battle was a reflection of the quality of the vessels and troops involved. Obviously, South Korea didn’t have the aptitude and fighting capabilities everybody is now assuming. North Korea was able to win an isolated victory.

Repeating yourself? Fine, I guess I'll have to mock your reasoning:

"A Russian coast guard ship won a victory against a US coast guard ship. Clearly, the US Navy is not as superior as the Russian Navy!"

Most North Korean troops will be safe in subterranean bunkers.

No one ever won a war that way.

It will also be quite difficult (and significantly deadly) to provide close ground support for combat troops in too close a proximity for higher-level bombing.

No, it won't be deadly at all. NK lacks the SAM systems, especially effective MANPADs, to pose a significant threat to US aircraft.

heir air defense is pathetic from a technological point of view. The mass of guns is sufficient to fill the sky with enough flak to bring down even the A-10 ‘Warthog’ or F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’.

Assuming of course, that this archaic mass of WW2 AA guns will just sit there, and not be attacked And no, they cannot reach, or hope to hit, a Super Hornet.

Tens of thousands of North Korean rockets and artillery tubes are sited on Seoul at any one time. I seriously contest that the city would still be standing even if we initiated the war with a preemptive strike targeting those same batteries. There are too many guns in place to hit them all before they begin the barrage.

Did you hear what I said? Only a small portion of NKs guns are in range. Not all.

The M2A2/3 are quite vulnerable from behind or above. Their treads can be immobilized. The North Koreans will import a substantial amount of modern rocketry from China during any war – with or without official sanction.

Speculating again? This seems to be a habit for you.

The “foot-mobile, poorly-equipped force” you speak of will be quite effective on the defensive.

Against crack mechanized infantry from the world's only superpower, with ludicrous overmatch in firepower, protection, and situational awareness? Ha.

Incorrect. North Korea has too many guns in place to spare Seoul an earth and fiery death.

Prove it.

"A target of high priority would be the North Korean artillery corps deployed north of the DMZ where it could fire due south toward Seoul. Many of North Korea's 10,600 artillery pieces are old and have limited range but about 200 multiple rocket launchers of 240 millimeters could hit Seoul to inflict severe damage. They are at the top of the target list.

Much of that artillery is parked in underground shelters that have been spotted by U.S. intelligence satellites and aircraft. Those guns must be pulled out to fire and thus become vulnerable. They can also be neutralized by bombing exits before they emerge. "We can bury them," said a military planner."

They’ve tested two such missiles in recent days. In order to be successful, all they need is a handful of duds to go with them.

They don't have the range.

You vastly understate it.

Oh look, a you too argument. You've made so many embarassing mistakes in this thread I really don't think you're an authority on anything. That you repeat the 'Seoul flattened by NK artillery' myth is even more ample evidence of this.

There are reports that only the Special Republican Guard will put up very much of a fight, and only then in about brigade strength. If I knew from where I’d heard it, I would have cited you a source.

And those reports are wrong- if they even exist. The Republican Guard stood and fought in 1991. The Special Republican Guard is irrelevant.

Their nuclear forces are underground – beyond the reach, I have heard, of nuclear weapons or conventional bombs – and their power plants are too “dirty” to consider destroying outright.

Remember that South Korea doesn’t want this war. You plan to force it on them?

And again, you pretend as if I'm arguing for war with NK. I'm not. I'm just dispelling this 'powerful NK' myth that you've swallowed whole.

The Dark wrote: By what? South Korea doesn't have anything capable of eliminating them quickly, and the US forces there aren't supplied well enough to eliminate them "within minutes." Seoul would be heavily damaged before the artillery could be silenced...assuming the first shot wasn't a nuclear ballistic missile.

Counter-battery radar and artillery fires, and not to mention the ace in the hole- B-1B and B-52 bombers equipped with JDAMs. Some B-1Bs there are deployed in the region even as we speak. There artillery will be wiped out. As to nuclear ballistic missiles- explain why North Korea would destroy what it wants to unify with? It gets better if America strikes first. There won't even be a first shot by NK.

We're certain the NKs don't have RPGs, despite the fact that they're friendly with China, a nation that sells $6,000,000,000 (6 billion dollars) of weapons illegally each year?

The M2A3 has considerable applique armor (steel/spaced/ etc). The only RPG rounds capable of killing it, guaranteeed, from the front and side, are the modern Russian ones. China has no such RPG rockets.

We do know they have Snapper and Sagger missiles, and it wouldn't be terribly difficult to develop a decent unguided rocket based off the aerodynamic profiles of those.

Horribly inefficient. Snapper and Sagger are as old as the hills, are rated at about the same (in the case of Snapper- worse) as a 1980s Russian RPG round, and are too large to make an effective manpack anti-tank weapon.

I really didn't think I'd be arguing such an insignificant point.

And what of the Ukraine, selling T-84s and not telling who they're selling to? We don't know where all of their thirty-three billion dollars in arms sales went.

Sorry, if Ukraine sold T-84s to North Korea, everyone would know about it, because Kharkov would advertise it. Just like they did when they sold T-80Us to Pakistan. Not to mention that in order to train with them, you have to take them out for a spin- where they can be seen. You're just being silly.

I'll admit it's likely that their best armor consists of the ~700 T-62s they've had for years, but the -62 is still a decent tank (and is not a "cheap knock-off" of the -54/55).

I love tanks- obviously. I like the T-62. However, it is obsolete. It is no match in firepower, armor, fire control or mobility for the South Koreans armor (which includes Russian T-80Us as well as their own K1 series), let alone M1 tanks. Their 115mm guns are utterly incapable of posing a serious threat. Not to mention they don't have the fire control to hit us before we hit them.

They do still use T-34s, though they also have T-54/55s, PT-76, and Type-59. We can't be certain they don't have better, though.

We can be certain. Intelligence comes out about new weapons all the time- and they also show their stuff on parades- this is how we come to find out about their arty pieces, for example. Believe me, they don't have anything better. Guaranteed. They can't afford it for one, and even if they could, they wouldn't have enough to make a smidgen of difference.

Maybe. I'm doubtful as to whether the South Korean military is really that good. Particularly when 70%+ of North Korea's military is within 90 miles of the DMZ. That's maybe three hours warning of a strike on Seoul. Maybe. If the North Koreans move slow. If they decided on just an airstrike instead, half of their aircraft could be over Seoul in 6 minutes.

Their aircraft suck. The South Korean airforce, as well as SAM systems, will have a field day.

No, but China has Silkworms. They'd probably sell the 'worms and claim NK spies had stolen them somehow.

Silkworms don't have the range. They are also too slow. And not to mention they're ancient copies of long obsolete Russian STYX missiles.

IMO, it's understated overall. If NK does have nuclear warheads, we know they have missiles capable of hitting portions of Japan. None of South Korea is safe from such weapons. They have at least 500 Scuds, and the Taepo Dong 1 has been successfully tested, with its 2000 kilometer range.

Patriot PAC-3 can deal with that (PAC-2 was ineffective)- or perhaps the South Koreans will buy some more Russian systems- the S-300V and the new S-300VM version are more capable than PAC-3. SCUDs aren't a super-weapon. They're a terror weapon incapable of causing massive destruction.

IF we can locate them precisely enough to be eliminated by Spirits. We can hit at most 11 sites before losing the advantage of surprise (that's how many B-2s there are). Unless we get both potential weapons in those 11 strikes, NK will be warned and able to launch nuclear weapons.

Assuming that NK would use them in the first place. Why is it inconceivable that NK would want them as a deterrent to being attacked? I am now talking about the 'what if' scenario of NK attacking SK. I don't advocate an attack on NK. But, IMO- the US will slice through them.

And I'd worry about them surviving the return, since NK has 10,000 SAM launchers (combined man-portable and installation type) and 8,800 air defense guns ranging from 14.5mm to 100mm. The F-4 pilots in 'Nam thought they were untouchable too until they got shot down by rifles.

This isn't Vietnam. They might as well fire blind. Even that many guns are incapable of covering any meaningful sector of the sky, considering that they're not all concentrated at a single point- and America's stealth bombers are accompanied by electronic warfare aircraft that will make NKs primitive 1960s SAMs basically useless, and strike packages to make it safe. Manportable weapons are also not an issue for bombers flying that high.

You may not take North Korea seriously, but Japan is worried enough about them to consider eliminating the non-aggression clause in their Constitution in order to take pre-emptive action against North Korea if they become any more aggressive.

Oh, I take them seriously. What I contest is that they're tough to beat.

Possibly the most dangerous part of North Korea would be their Special Operations forces. They have 130 ACVs capable of landing a platoon for operations, and 300 AN-2 biplanes capable of flying below radar coverage and transporting roughly 10 operatives each. The possibility of a few thousand Special Operations personnel operating in South Korea would make me extremely nervous were I in the region.

Sounds like Battle of the Bulge to me. If they keep their heads and don't get paranoid, they'd be rounded up and shot in short order.

Forgot to talk about the main point: Iraq. I personally don't agree with this war. If we could, I would say just eliminate Hussein. Difficult, but it should be possible. I don't trust our government's motives in this war. Shrubby has traditionally shown himself to be motivated only by what big business wants, and cheap oil is good for big business. Unfortunately, anytime someone starts talking common sense in America these days, it gets shouted down as unpatriotic. So we're going to go to war without a scrap of empirical evidence that Hussein does still have weapons. Instead of threatening Iraq, we should be telling the European countries to stop their illegal deals with Iraq. Unfortunately, that would be bad for business, since it would piss Europe off even more, so that won't be done by our current government.

I agree.

[quote[Or those who like to go to war without evidence. Just emit a steady stream of unverifiable accusations repeatedly, never provide proof, and watch as they sink into the public conciousness and develop into fact. It's called propaganda.[/quote]

Hardly. I have provided you with sufficient circumstantial evidence. You accuse me of moving too quickly, just as I accuse you of not wanting to move at all.

More accusations. You must SHOW that Saddam supports Al-Queda, not make giant leaps from 'money to Palestinian bereaved' to 'Al-Queda' and expect anyone to think it makes sense.

I have proven to you how in the case of a young British agitator, Hussein’s training and resources ended up in the hands of the al-Qaeda network.

Don't repost that bullshit. It was a red herring then, and it's a red herring now.

A “red herring?” I’d hardly call documents published in 1990 by the Office of the Secretary of State “red herring.” You dismiss them merely because they do not conform to your outlook.

Patently absurd. So if a Russian T-55 provided to the Northern Alliance comes into posession of the Taliban, Russia is supporting terror?

Yes. Whether or not we can do anything about that threat is another matter entirely. If Hussein’s flow of resources – which we can now afford to stop – is supporting the al-Qaeda network, why not eliminate the patron?

Your scatter-gun tactics are transparent: 'individual level' and 'unofficially' and a variety of other totally unverifiable claims.

My “scatter-gun tactics?” Ignore the article all you like. It’s proof of a connection.

Red herring. You reasoned that tactical ballistic missiles necessarily= nuclear program. I used an example to demonstrate this was not so.

North Korea is currently in possession of nuclear weapons. What part of this statement do you fail to understand?

And it's wrong. Do not go to the Times for military analysis.

Wrong on which counts? Provide evidence of your own.

That 'British case' you posted basically makes no claim that Iraq supports Al-Quaeda, nor does it provide evidence "It is not inconceivable" ... A lot of things are conceivable, thanks very much, but you don't see me going off to kill thousands of people over them. That you insist on contradicting the best sources on whether there is any connection or not and instead posting unverifiable, speculative nonsense and 'what if' 'it's possible' scenarios speaks to the strength of your argument.

It is within the President’s right as protector of the American people to speculate reasonably about whether support is moving from Iraq to the al-Qaeda network, even if unofficially. If Hussein cannot staunch that flow – intended or not -, we must do so for him as a measure of personal defense.

I haven't seen this much ado about nothing in a long time. I guess Russia is, by virtue of it's support to warlords who fought against the Taliban, is now supporting terror and must be invaded because some of this support may indirectly, without any input from Russia, end up in the hands of unsavory groups with whom it has no dealings! BRILLIANT! Are you a contortionist?!

If Russian equipment began falling into the hands of the Taliban on a large scale, it would indicate that Russia should cut the flow of arms to their Northern Alliance allies, no? Invade Russia? We cannot afford to do that. Invade Iraq? Utterly within our capabilities.

Red herring. I asked you if Blix proved the desire to use such drones in that manner, forgetting of course that they can also be used, and are used, for reconnaisance. You changed the subject.

Why else would they have chemical drop-tanks? Blix’s own report stated that the drones could be used to disperse chemicals over troop deployments. I’m not quite so optimistic as you.

I was waiting for the 'what ifs' to start. WHY would Saddam Hussein even TRY to infect a bunch of NBC protected troops, considering that even if he was successful he has nothing to gain and everything to lose?!

Because according to Saddam Hussein, this war is inevitable. It always has been.

And it isn’t merely Hussein, but also possible al-Qaeda operatives within his territory no longer being effectively tracked. We have the power to put an end to that sort of thing.

Our troops have limited NBC protection outside their vehicles. Many would die even if gas masks were available.

Source. The US administration has mumbled and grumbled that they're sorry their information was wrong. They fit better as artillery rockets.

Just because they “fit better” doesn’t eliminate their being turned to other uses.

Mohammed El-Baradei’s own 7 March report tells us that much.

So what? Iraqi incompetence is evidence for aluminum tubing that isn't even suitable for the job being really for a nuclear program?! It took America 17 years, and 14 billion dollars, to field one armored fighting vehicle. Procurement boondoggles are not new, and considering the effect of sanctions for half that period, your case holds no water.

My case holds plenty of water considering that even during periods in which it fell under sanction, Iraq had strong ties with Russia, South Africa, and China. Again, these countries are all recognized leaders in the field of rocketry.

Considering that Iraq had large amounts of foreign rocket artillery on hand, it makes sense that their indigenous program to make their own wasn't extremely high priority- or, they could've just been incompetent. And again, I point to sanctions.

Sanctions account for a fraction of the material in question.

The Iraqi program should not have failed given two decades and at times, unfettered access to giants in that type of armaments production.

Should we have invaded the Soviet Union to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons? What's wrong with containment? It saves lives.

Containment isn’t foolproof. It saves lives only so long as it works. I don’t count on it to work in Hussein’s case. As for North Korea? There’s currently no better way. That’s unfortunate.

No, it's not a fact, it's absolute hysteria. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever.

That’s opinion, clear and simple.

Treating your conclusion as a premise. I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these drones would be used in such a pathetic paranoid techno-thriller manner. I love how all these go to war arguments are based on the most improbable, ludicrous scenarios imaginable. No one EVER answers this question: what the hell has he got to gain!?!?!?

Saddam could always pass this equipment on to third parties. In fact, he likely one day will. North Korea did even before it acquired a confirmed nuclear deterrent.

A Russian coast guard ship won a victory against a US coast guard ship. Clearly, the US Navy is not as superior as the Russian Navy!

No, but the Russian ship clearly wasn’t the old tin can with the piss-poor crew everybody expected.

No one ever won a war that way.

I agree. They avoided death by high-altitude bombing though.

No, it won't be deadly at all. NK lacks the SAM systems, especially effective MANPADs, to pose a significant threat to US aircraft.

All it’s got to do is fill the sky with flak. We’re talking about a nation with tens of thousands of guns in an incredibly small radius.

Assuming of course, that this archaic mass of WW2 AA guns will just sit there, and not be attacked.

They’ll fall under attack, but as I’ve said before, there are tens of thousands of them in service. North Korea also possesses a series of hand-held, man-portable surface-to-air missile systems.

It’s going to be difficult for an F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’ to target effectively certain smaller formations without dropping down into the flak envelope, no matter how high-tech its observation systems. And as I’ve said, these people make an art of the bunker.

Speculating again? This seems to be a habit for you.

You’re going to deny that the ‘Bradley’ is in this way vulnerable?

Of course it’s speculation. How else are we supposed to discuss something that hasn’t happened yet?

Against crack mechanized infantry from the world's only superpower, with ludicrous overmatch in firepower, protection, and situational awareness? Ha.

Protection is technically irrelevant considering we’ll be primarily using soft-skinned vehicles (the ‘Bradley’ isn’t a paragon of protection) and manpower.

I’ll acknowledge that North Korea has inferior situational awareness, but it’s also got far more troops than Hussein could ever hope to deploy.

"A target of high priority would be the North Korean artillery corps deployed north of the DMZ where it could fire due south toward Seoul. Many of North Korea's 10,600 artillery pieces are old and have limited range but about 200 multiple rocket launchers of 240 millimeters could hit Seoul to inflict severe damage. They are at the top of the target list.

Much of that artillery is parked in underground shelters that have been spotted by U.S. intelligence satellites and aircraft. Those guns must be pulled out to fire and thus become vulnerable. They can also be neutralized by bombing exits before they emerge. "We can bury them," said a military planner."

So we’re going to simultaneously destroy thousands of individual fire positions, bunkers, and trench networks with absolute accuracy?

It could happen, but the likelihood is close to none. I find this scenario contrived.

They don't have the range.

They can hit the Sea of Japan. That’s where our troops are stationed. I wouldn’t take the bets you’re offering.

Axis Kast wrote: I have proven to you how in the case of a young British agitator, Hussein’s training and resources ended up in the hands of the al-Qaeda network.

Al-Qaeda funding comes from many places both legit and illegit including the U.S. Should I conclude then that George Bush sponsors terrorism?

Axis Kast wrote:Yes. Whether or not we can do anything about that threat is another matter entirely. If Hussein’s flow of resources – which we can now afford to stop – is supporting the al-Qaeda network, why not eliminate the patron?

Again, deliver the proof for this accusation. Let's that Saddam was directly funding Al-Qaeda by taking him out of the picture you'd still have funds coming in from legitimate businesses, charities, and illegitimate means. Taking out one source will not stop Al-Qaeda altogether.

Axis Kast wrote:It is within the President’s right as protector of the American people to speculate reasonably about whether support is moving from Iraq to the al-Qaeda network, even if unofficially. If Hussein cannot staunch that flow – intended or not -, we must do so for him as a measure of personal defense.

Without proof, you're right, it is just speculation based on paranoia.

Axis Kast wrote:And it isn’t merely Hussein, but also possible al-Qaeda operatives within his territory no longer being effectively tracked. We have the power to put an end to that sort of thing.

Again, offer proof to support your claim. Where are these Al-Qaeda agents that are being tracked, who has tracked them and discovered the link between Hussein and Bin Laden?

Axis Kast wrote:Saddam could always pass this equipment on to third parties. In fact, he likely one day will. North Korea did even before it acquired a confirmed nuclear deterrent.

Speculation...

Speculating again? This seems to be a habit for you.

A habit that he quite well at!






[/quote]

Axis Kast wrote:
Hardly. I have provided you with sufficient circumstantial evidence. You accuse me of moving too quickly, just as I accuse you of not wanting to move at all.

No, you have provided evidence that in no way proves Iraqi support for Al-Quadea, and have invented the knew criteria of guilt by unknowing association.

I have proven to you how in the case of a young British agitator, Hussein’s training and resources ended up in the hands of the al-Qaeda network.

More on this when I cover the ludicrous stance you take below.

A “red herring?” I’d hardly call documents published in 1990 by the Office of the Secretary of State “red herring.” You dismiss them merely because they do not conform to your outlook.

If you knew what a red herring was, you'd know it was one. Israel is irrelevant to this discussion. Your imaginary dotted triangle between Palestine, Iraq and Al-Qaudea (fucken spelling) does not exist.

Yes.

You sir, are an idiot. Obviously you have no fucking grasp of the concept of 'knowledge' and 'intent'.

Whether or not we can do anything about that threat is another matter entirely. If Hussein’s flow of resources – which we can now afford to stop – is supporting the al-Qaeda network, why not eliminate the patron?

You have *speculated* that the 'resources' Hussein may provide 'trickle down' to Al-Qaeda. By all means, invade on the strength of this rampant speculation that you have discovered. Of course, money from US nationals may 'trickle down' to Al-Qaeda too- maybe they should be declared unlawful combatants.

My “scatter-gun tactics?” Ignore the article all you like. It’s proof of a connection.

Unlike you, I read the articles people post. There was nothing there in the paragraphh that I snipped that proved an Iraqi connection, AT ALL.

North Korea is currently in possession of nuclear weapons. What part of this statement do you fail to understand?

What part of tactical-ballistic missiles does not necessarily= nuclear program do you not fucking understand? There's no necessary connection between the two!

Wrong on which counts? Provide evidence of your own.

"The range for the nominal mission with the nominal warhead of 300kg is nearly 125km; the theoretical maximum range for a zero payload exceed that of the 300km mark and shows that even this small rocket can cover a significant distance.

However, this 300km-range figure must be used with some caution. Warhead mass off-loading for range increase represents an engineering means that must be considered mainly as a working procedure and can only be performed within certain limits. A significant mass reduction may lead to an unacceptable shift of the center-of-gravity, resulting in stability problems that often cannot be compensated for by the thrust vector control system alone, and which may, therefore, require additional modifications to the missile. Thus the 300km maximum range for a zero payload represents a theoretical figure that cannot be used for sincere considerations."

It is within the President’s right as protector of the American people to speculate reasonably about whether support is moving from Iraq to the al-Qaeda network, even if unofficially.

Translation: it is within the President's right to attack whatever nation he sees fit, on the basis of speculation. Good to know your worldview.

If Hussein cannot staunch that flow – intended or not -, we must do so for him as a measure of personal defense.

Assuming your speculation as a premise in your argument again, I see.

If Russian equipment began falling into the hands of the Taliban on a large scale, it would indicate that Russia should cut the flow of arms to their Northern Alliance allies, no? Invade Russia? We cannot afford to do that. Invade Iraq? Utterly within our capabilities.

You have not shown 'large scale' whatsoever. You previously speculated a 'trickle down' effect from 'splinter groups' (with no proof, of course). You seem to have a very ... versatile positon.

Why else would they have chemical drop-tanks?

The drone doesn't have chemical drop tanks. In addition- the capabilities of this drone are unknown.

Blix’s own report stated that the drones could be used to disperse chemicals over troop deployments. I’m not quite so optimistic as you.

Operative word: 'could'- not 'are' or 'designed for'. Indeed, you're incredibly paranoid and willing to murder thousands on the basis of bad Tom Clancy speculation. I will reemphasize- many countries have drones, all of them for reconaissance purposes. Why should Iraq's UAV be any different? The only issue that has yet to be decided is the range of this aircraft.

Because according to Saddam Hussein, this war is inevitable. It always has been.

Nice to know you're including what Hussein *might* do if he's attacked by the US (which is the side that has seen war as inevitable, ever since it adopted 'regime change' as it's policy, not the other way round) as a reason to attack!

And of course, let's forget about him not using any WMD in the first Gulf War, when the most powerful Army in the world crushed his troops- it hurts our techno thriller speculation.

And it isn’t merely Hussein, but also possible al-Qaeda operatives within his territory no longer being effectively tracked. We have the power to put an end to that sort of thing.

Maybe you should try that in every other country where 'possible' (lovely, more speculation!) al-Qaeda operatives 'might' be. Oh wait- your entire world view is based on ad hoc rationalizations for a predetermined course of action, and does not apply anywhere else.

Our troops have limited NBC protection outside their vehicles. Many would die even if gas masks were available.

Using what might happen if we invade Iraq as a reason for why we should invade Iraq yet again, I see.

Just because they “fit better” doesn’t eliminate their being turned to other uses.

Of course not- based on your conduct in this thread, any possibility, no matter how implausible, no matter how flimsy, is justification for attack.

Mohammed El-Baradei’s own 7 March report tells us that much.

The IAEA has the responsibility to inform the UN of all possible contigencies. They also gave their expert opinion on the aluminum tubes. But let's forget about that part

My case holds plenty of water considering that even during periods in which it fell under sanction, Iraq had strong ties with Russia, South Africa, and China. Again, these countries are all recognized leaders in the field of rocketry.

*sigh* Please provide your reasoning as to why these nations are obligated to provide Iraq with rocket technology. Oh wait! I know! They might have!

Sanctions account for a fraction of the material in question.

The Iraqi program should not have failed given two decades and at times, unfettered access to giants in that type of armaments production.

Repeating yourself in the face of a rebuttal is extremely poor form.

Therefore, I repeat myself again:

- Procurement fuck-ups are not rare, indeed, they are COMMON, and I can point to a multitude of examples.
- Iraq had purchased foreign multiple rocket launchers, making an indigenous program not high priority- this is the unfettered access they had
- Sanctions would, and obviously have, complicated Iraq's weapons programs.

Containment isn’t foolproof. It saves lives only so long as it works. I don’t count on it to work in Hussein’s case. As for North Korea? There’s currently no better way. That’s unfortunate.

Why shouldn't it work in Hussein's case? Give reasoning.

That’s opinion, clear and simple.

So was yours- not a fact.

Saddam could always pass this equipment on to third parties. In fact, he likely one day will. North Korea did even before it acquired a confirmed nuclear deterrent.

Shifting the goal posts again, eh?

WHICH third parties? Terrorists? Brilliant! Pass on a drone that everyone knows is of an Iraqi design to terrorists, thereby guranteeing Saddam's removal from power

No, but the Russian ship clearly wasn’t the old tin can with the piss-poor crew everybody expected.

Strawman. As I said before- the NK navy is Harpoon fodder. That's still true.

All it’s got to do is fill the sky with flak. We’re talking about a nation with tens of thousands of guns in an incredibly small radius.

Modern strike aircraft can fly above the heaviest flak- and the bonus is that this gives their weapons more range and stand-off capability than if they were flying low.

They’ll fall under attack, but as I’ve said before, there are tens of thousands of them in service. North Korea also possesses a series of hand-held, man-portable surface-to-air missile systems.

The USAF has plenty of experience dealing with MANPADs- especially considering that the majority of NKs holdings are of the obsolete Strela-2M variety instead of the modern Igla.

It’s going to be difficult for an F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’ to target effectively certain smaller formations without dropping down into the flak envelope, no matter how high-tech its observation systems. And as I’ve said, these people make an art of the bunker.

A Super Hornet, or any other USAF aircraft used in the theatre (besides Harriers and A-10s) will be making huge use of JDAMs. All these require is transmitted GPS coordinates. The Iraqis were quite proud of their bunkers before they were blown to smithereens in 1991 as well.

You’re going to deny that the ‘Bradley’ is in this way vulnerable?
Of course it’s speculation. How else are we supposed to discuss something that hasn’t happened yet?

No, I'm talking about your assertion that they would somehow get modern equipment from China (which even China does not have).

Protection is technically irrelevant considering we’ll be primarily using soft-skinned vehicles (the ‘Bradley’ isn’t a paragon of protection) and manpower.

No, actually the Bradley is one of the most well protected infantry fighting vehicles in service anywhere. It weighs 33 tons. In its original form it weighed 20. Almost all the weight over the upgraded configurations has been applique armor. Of course, there's no need to even discuss the M1 Abrams.

I’ll acknowledge that North Korea has inferior situational awareness, but it’s also got far more troops than Hussein could ever hope to deploy.

Cannon fodder, not up to the quality of US infantry. Superior training and superior weapons have a geometric effect on overall military strength, to borrow a phrase I once heard

So we’re going to simultaneously destroy thousands of individual fire positions, bunkers, and trench networks with absolute accuracy?

Read it again. Of those 10,600 artillery pieces, only a tiny portion are actually capable of striking Seoul, not to mention that their positions are pre-targeted- every centimetre of that border is mapped. They've been staring down each other for 50 years.

It could happen, but the likelihood is close to none. I find this scenario contrived.

That's because you don't know the facts.

They can hit the Sea of Japan. That’s where our troops are stationed. I wouldn’t take the bets you’re offering.

The SILKWORM has a range of 100km. Is it your assertion that our troops are going to be sitting 100km off the coast of North Korea so they can take pot shots at them with Chinese STYX ripoffs?!

Stuart Mackey wrote:I will say it again, as you seemed to have missed it. who do you think you are to tell another person how he/she may or may not answer a question?

Eh, no more flames (I'm almost disappointed, since I was almost beginning to enjoy this...) Well, to the point:

It is common procedure for one to offer an alternative to that which one has taken time to voice opposition, unless........ one has nothing to do but gripe and moan. For example, if I went to my commander to complain about a procedure, here is how I would be expected to do it:

"Sir, I don't believe we should carry out COA 1, because ____ . However, I believe we can successfully meet the same objective by carrying out COA 2. Would you like to hear the details, sir?"

Notice how an alternative to the rejected COA was offered. Had I not offered an alternative course of action, I would have been seen as a whiny idiot who doesn't grasp the concept of following orders. However, since I offered an intelligent alternative, I'm seen as a "go getter" who can get things done a better way. Similar procedures take place within the civilian community, and those who offer only complaints without recommended solutions are seen only as whining dolts with too much time on their hands. They are replaced by more capable men who can offer viable courses of action. As the saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets replaced."

Now, I was too harsh on Spyder, but that is perhaps because I normally launch into people in my line of work who complain without offering solutions. Realizing that he should not be held to those standards, I apologized to him, and he subsequently offered an alternative course of action.

Al-Qaeda funding comes from many places both legit and illegit including the U.S. Should I conclude then that George Bush sponsors terrorism?

The United States at one time supported the predecessors of al-Qaeda. This, we acknowledge, is truth. It should have no bearing however on our desire to limit all the support we possibly can for that same group in the present day.

Whether or not the United States or Russia supported the Taliban in past times is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is that by effecting régime-change in Iraq, we can cut down on al-Qaeda’s ability do us damage in the here and now.

Again, deliver the proof for this accusation. Let's that Saddam was directly funding Al-Qaeda by taking him out of the picture you'd still have funds coming in from legitimate businesses, charities, and illegitimate means. Taking out one source will not stop Al-Qaeda altogether.

You are making no kind of point at all other than to say, “Iraq is only part of the job.” We already acknowledge that his is so. Iraq is the first of several steps (and the only one involving military force). But why not limit al-Qaeda wherever possible if we can’t deal a single deathblow?

Without proof, you're right, it is just speculation based on paranoia.

We have the proof of the arrest in Israel. And when, exactly, did speculation lose its usefulness? If we go only on verifiable fact as opposed to circumstantial evidence, there may be nothing left to defend at all. One takes inherent risks in tracking international terrorism. Better to end the rule of a man like Hussein – armed as he is with weapons of mass destruction – and likely disrupt al-Qaeda as well than not act at all on the fear that we might somehow have been wrong.

Again, offer proof to support your claim. Where are these Al-Qaeda agents that are being tracked, who has tracked them and discovered the link between Hussein and Bin Laden?

Again, the BBC article chronicling Israel’s arrest of a Palestinian militant who enjoyed training in Iraq and subsequently joined the al-Qaeda network.

No, you have provided evidence that in no way proves Iraqi support for Al-Quadea, and have invented the knew criteria of guilt by unknowing association.

Guilt by unknowing association is quite valid. If Saddam’s resources, in flowing to Palestine, flow also to al-Qaeda, then we must end that flow.

If you knew what a red herring was, you'd know it was one. Israel is irrelevant to this discussion. Your imaginary dotted triangle between Palestine, Iraq and Al-Qaudea (fucken spelling) does not exist.

It certainly does according to the Department of State.

You have *speculated* that the 'resources' Hussein may provide 'trickle down' to Al-Qaeda. By all means, invade on the strength of this rampant speculation that you have discovered. Of course, money from US nationals may 'trickle down' to Al-Qaeda too- maybe they should be declared unlawful combatants.

I fail to see the argument against stopping whatever resources we possibly can from “trickling down.” Why not oust Hussein if we know his support ends up in hands that then turn them on the United States?

What part of tactical-ballistic missiles does not necessarily= nuclear program do you not fucking understand? There's no necessary connection between the two!

North Korea has nuclear weapons. What part of this statement do you not fucking understand?

However, this 300km-range figure must be used with some caution. Warhead mass off-loading for range increase represents an engineering means that must be considered mainly as a working procedure and can only be performed within certain limits. A significant mass reduction may lead to an unacceptable shift of the center-of-gravity, resulting in stability problems that often cannot be compensated for by the thrust vector control system alone, and which may, therefore, require additional modifications to the missile. Thus the 300km maximum range for a zero payload represents a theoretical figure that cannot be used for sincere considerations.

That 300km maximum range for a zero-payload missile is still beyond what Iraq should be arming itself with.

You have not shown 'large scale' whatsoever. You previously speculated a 'trickle down' effect from 'splinter groups' (with no proof, of course). You seem to have a very ... versatile positon.

You don’t believe that other Palestinians who received training from and enjoy the support of Iraq are now dealing with al-Qaeda and turning their specialties toward American targets?

The drone doesn't have chemical drop tanks. In addition- the capabilities of this drone are unknown.

According to Hans Blix, the drones could potentially be armed with spray canisters.

Operative word: 'could'- not 'are' or 'designed for'. Indeed, you're incredibly paranoid and willing to murder thousands on the basis of bad Tom Clancy speculation. I will reemphasize- many countries have drones, all of them for reconaissance purposes. Why should Iraq's UAV be any different? The only issue that has yet to be decided is the range of this aircraft.

This drone’s range is estimated to be beyond permitted specification. It’s a prohibited vehicle with or without the chemical tanks.

Nice to know you're including what Hussein *might* do if he's attacked by the US (which is the side that has seen war as inevitable, ever since it adopted 'regime change' as it's policy, not the other way round) as a reason to attack!

No. I’m telling you that Iraq or al-Qaeda might launch strikes on British or American targets even if we were in the region merely to enforce his compliance with the proposed Franco-German inspection régime. What then?

Of course not- based on your conduct in this thread, any possibility, no matter how implausible, no matter how flimsy, is justification for attack.

Your insistence that Hussein spent twenty-four years developing rockets on his own when he had knowing access to other leads in that sort of field is equally as flimsy.

The IAEA has the responsibility to inform the UN of all possible contigencies. They also gave their expert opinion on the aluminum tubes.

The IAEA has missed warning signs before. They still haven’t answered the question of, “Why twenty-four years of no progress at all?”

Repeating yourself in the face of a rebuttal is extremely poor form.

Therefore, I repeat myself again:

- Procurement fuck-ups are not rare, indeed, they are COMMON, and I can point to a multitude of examples.
- Iraq had purchased foreign multiple rocket launchers, making an indigenous program not high priority- this is the unfettered access they had
- Sanctions would, and obviously have, complicated Iraq's weapons programs.

You’re repeating the same arguments as well.

“Procurement fuck-ups?” I’m not willing to go on in good faith under the assumption that Iraq hasn’t intended to turn those toward a nuclear program all alone. Too many other pieces of the puzzle don’t fit either.

Iraq began working on this system in 1983 - eight years before sanctions were even laid down.

Sanctions didn’t stop Iraq from importing French weaponry as early as last January, did they?

Why shouldn't it work in Hussein's case? Give reasoning.

It hasn’t worked in Israel, Iran, North Korea, or South Africa. The man is already taking small steps of non-compliance. This should be total disarmament, not a pulling of teeth.

WHICH third parties? Terrorists? Brilliant! Pass on a drone that everyone knows is of an Iraqi design to terrorists.

It isn’t just the drone. We’re talking about chemicals, uranium, and other stockpiles. Hell, they’re doing this already with the Palestinians.

Strawman. As I said before- the NK navy is Harpoon fodder. That's still true.

You’ve jumped the argument. We were focused on the fact that the North Korean navy isn’t exactly the tin can formation everyone suspected.

Modern strike aircraft can fly above the heaviest flak- and the bonus is that this gives their weapons more range and stand-off capability than if they were flying low.

I don’t trust hem to be able to hit thousands of positions before Seoul is flattened.

The USAF has plenty of experience dealing with MANPADs- especially considering that the majority of NKs holdings are of the obsolete Strela-2M variety instead of the modern Igla.

I doubt USAF aircraft will fly close enough to the ground to merit being hit. But again, their ability to locate and destroy certain fortified targets will suffer.

No, I'm talking about your assertion that they would somehow get modern equipment from China (which even China does not have).

We’re talking not merely from China, but also through China.

No, actually the Bradley is one of the most well protected infantry fighting vehicles in service anywhere. It weighs 33 tons. In its original form it weighed 20. Almost all the weight over the upgraded configurations has been applique armor. Of course, there's no need to even discuss the M1 Abrams.

Hit a Bradley in the treads and you’re out of luck. I agree about the Abrams, but I doubt it will find much use on the paddies or in the mountains of North Korea.

Cannon fodder, not up to the quality of US infantry.

North Korea will lose, yes. But this won’t be the nice cakewalk Iraq is almost guaranteed to be.

Read it again. Of those 10,600 artillery pieces, only a tiny portion are actually capable of striking Seoul, not to mention that their positions are pre-targeted- every centimetre of that border is mapped. They've been staring down each other for 50 years.

I doubt whether even a preemptive strike could destroy thousands of guns – some likely armed with gas or biologicals.

Axis Kast wrote: The fact of the matter is that by effecting régime-change in Iraq, we can cut down on al-Qaeda’s ability do us damage in the here and now.

Keep repeating that to yourself over and over again. How many times must you be told that Al-Qaeda's source of revenue comes from a variety of sources. You take out one potential source and yet you still have all the others remaining. How does this create a death blow for Al-Qaeda? Elaborate.

Axis Kast wrote:
You are making no kind of point at all other than to say, “Iraq is only part of the job.” We already acknowledge that his is so. Iraq is the first of several steps (and the only one involving military force). But why not limit al-Qaeda wherever possible if we can’t deal a single deathblow?

Hello!?! I was merely pointing out that IF Iraq was part of the funding formula then you still have other sources still pouring into Al-Qaeda! Taking out one piece of the puzzle doesn't cause a death blow.

Axis Kast wrote:
We have the proof of the arrest in Israel.

Okay, your example from the Sydney Morning Herald points out that some money was filtered into Palestine from Iraq. Does your evidence state where the money came from? No, it doesn't. Does your evidence state that the check was written in Saddam's own blood? No it doesn't. Didn't you stop to think that this source of funding could come from a wealthy finacier or a charity, business, or the sale of drugs. If the money for these Palestinian groups came from the U.S. could I claim that George W. Bush supports terrorism?? Have you established that this money that supposedly came from Saddam went to Al-qaeda and then to Hamas, etc. No, once again Axis Kast you have not.

Axis Kast wrote:
And when, exactly, did speculation lose its usefulness? If we go only on verifiable fact as opposed to circumstantial evidence, there may be nothing left to defend at all. One takes inherent risks in tracking international terrorism.

This isn't the futures market!!! We're not speculating on the price of pork bellies! If you're ready to go to war and potential cause the loss of lives then you better have some hard evidence over paranoid speculation which is all you bring to the table.

Axis Kast wrote:
Better to end the rule of a man like Hussein – armed as he is with weapons of mass destruction – and likely disrupt al-Qaeda as well than not act at all on the fear that we might somehow have been wrong.

Why not stop there? Go after Russia and China too? They're potential threats in that they could potentially harm the world and they're better equiped than Saddam and co.

Axis Kast wrote:
Again, the BBC article chronicling Israel’s arrest of a Palestinian militant who enjoyed training in Iraq and subsequently joined the al-Qaeda network.

That does not establish a link between Saddam Hussein's government and Al-Qaeda. The terrorists involved in 9-11 trained in the U.S. for part of their terrible deeds. That doesn't indicate that the U.S. government was sponsoring them!

Axis Kast wrote:
Guilt by unknowing association is quite valid. If Saddam’s resources, in flowing to Palestine, flow also to al-Qaeda, then we must end that flow.

Oh bouy! You better go after George W. Bush too. Funds from Islamic charities have trickled into Al-Qaeda's pockets. Bush and co. didn't stop this flow so he's guilty by association according to your thinking!

[/b][/quote]

Keep repeating that to yourself over and over again. How many times must you be told that Al-Qaeda's source of revenue comes from a variety of sources. You take out one potential source and yet you still have all the others remaining. How does this create a death blow for Al-Qaeda? Elaborate.

Al-Qaeda enjoys lifelines to a variety of benefactors, correct. But deathblow or not, why shouldn’t we go after that which comes from Iraq? There’s a key difference between the inadvertent support for terrorism in a nation such as, say, our own, and in Iraq itself: American law enforcement seeks to quash the affair. Iraq continues to go about its merry business without pause.

I don’t see why a deathblow should be necessary to initiate positive action against one of al-Qaeda’s chief sources of support.

Hello!?! I was merely pointing out that IF Iraq was part of the funding formula then you still have other sources still pouring into Al-Qaeda! Taking out one piece of the puzzle doesn't cause a death blow.

Again, what kind of argument are you attempting to make? That we shouldn’t seek régime-change in Iraq on the basis that al-Qaeda won’t collapse along with the Ba’ath? That’s nonsense. We don’t necessarily have to gain total victory in order to have won an important battle. There’s something to be said for weakening al-Qaeda as well.

Okay, your example from the Sydney Morning Herald points out that some money was filtered into Palestine from Iraq. Does your evidence state where the money came from? No, it doesn't. Does your evidence state that the check was written in Saddam's own blood? No it doesn't. Didn't you stop to think that this source of funding could come from a wealthy financier or a charity, business, or the sale of drugs. If the money for these Palestinian groups came from the U.S. could I claim that George W. Bush supports terrorism?? Have you established that this money that supposedly came from Saddam went to Al-Qaeda and then to Hamas, etc. No, once again Axis Kast you have not.

The Sydney Morning Herald implicates Saddam Hussein’s government as the chief source of support for Palestinian terrorism. We’re talking about official ties – or willful ignorance on an administrative level.

Why the moral conundrum? Why are you making arguments in favor of a “hands-off” approach to Iraq? At least the American President sought to rectify obvious mistakes with civilian pilot training programs throughout the country. Hussein has taken no such preventative measures on his own.

This isn't the futures market!!! We're not speculating on the price of pork bellies! If you're ready to go to war and potential cause the loss of lives then you better have some hard evidence over paranoid speculation which is all you bring to the table.

But we do have hard evidence.

In the form of chemical and biological stockpiles still unaccounted for when British Foreign Minister Jack Straw spoke to reports only two weeks ago.

In the form of aluminum rods acknowledged by Mohammed El-Baradei to have been imported in the recent past to support a development program supposedly two decades in the making. These rods, despite the IAEA’s insistence that they are stockpiled for conventional purposes, can admittedly be fashioned into crude centrifuges for the processing of uranium. Need I remind you that even if Iraq’s story about the rocket-artillery program are true, El-Baradei still acknowledges the imports as in violation of import prohibitions put forth since 1991?

In the form of unmanned aerial vehicles recently discovered, able to achieve flight at distances far beyond what is permitted Iraq and with the potential – stated by Hans Blix’ own report – to disperse chemicals over formations of British and American fighting men.

The al-Qaim phosphate plant is suspected of playing host to illegal uranium mines.

Despite word that the IAEA believes documents detailing Iraqi acquisitions of nuclear material from Niger might have been forged, there is persistent accusation that Baghdad sent agents in Iran’s wake to the Congo and also attempted to nurse ties with South Africa.

Since 1998, hundreds of foreign companies have carried on illegal activities within Iraq, shuttling weaponry – some, like the French, as recently as this past January – and other banned components for the Iraqi military across the border.

Iraq developed the al-Samoud 2 missile, with range in contravention to a series of United Nations Security Council binding resolutions passed since 1991. It likewise maintained and continued to upgrade an infrastructure capable of supporting missiles with four times the thrust of the already-prohibited al-Samoud.

There is also speculation to be made concerning the validity of Iraqi claims that it no longer possesses SCUD missiles; the United States has long held that up to two dozen mobile launchers lie buried under the desert floor, just as they were during Desert Storm.

Iraq is an acknowledged source of support for Palestinian terrorists, many of whom take training in Iraq and are subsequently recruited into the ranks of al-Qaeda on a private basis. It’s a case of knowing empowerment we are now in a position to end. This on top of word that terrorists now plan to strike British and American targets throughout the Persian Gulf. But wouldn’t they also have done so if we were poised to invade only on condition that the United Nations authorized it after Iraq had not fully complied with weapons inspectors anyway? That was the gist of the Franco-German proposal, at least.

Why not stop there? Go after Russia and China too? They're potential threats in that they could potentially harm the world and they're better equiped than Saddam and co.

Because Russia and China are beyond our ability to police. Iraq, thankfully, is not. Your argument holds no weight. What is your intimation? That we cannot move into Iraq without creating a double standard? So? I have no problem with this.

That does not establish a link between Saddam Hussein's government and Al-Qaeda. The terrorists involved in 9-11 trained in the U.S. for part of their terrible deeds. That doesn't indicate that the U.S. government was sponsoring them!

Iraq admittedly sponsors and harbors terrorists as part of state-initiated policy and has done so repeatedly in the past.

Axis Kast wrote: I don’t see why a deathblow should be necessary to initiate positive action against one of al-Qaeda’s chief sources of support.

I'll ask you again. How much is Saddam sending to Al-Qaeda? Prove that these funds are al-qaeda's chief means of support.

Axis Kast wrote:Again, what kind of argument are you attempting to make? That we shouldn’t seek régime-change in Iraq on the basis that al-Qaeda won’t collapse along with the Ba’ath? That’s nonsense. We don’t necessarily have to gain total victory in order to have won an important battle. There’s something to be said for weakening al-Qaeda as well.

Never said that. Please go back and read my post again where I say and quote "Taking out one piece of the puzzle doesn't cause a death blow."
Again, see my questions from your first quote.

Axis Kast wrote:The Sydney Morning Herald implicates Saddam Hussein’s government as the chief source of support for Palestinian terrorism. We’re talking about official ties – or willful ignorance on an administrative level.

Bingo! I finally got you to read your own quote! Your article deals with Iraq sending monies to the families of dead martyrs. It does not establish a link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Axis Kast wrote:Why the moral conundrum? Why are you making arguments in favor of a “hands-off” approach to Iraq? At least the American President sought to rectify obvious mistakes with civilian pilot training programs throughout the country. Hussein has taken no such preventative measures on his own.

Again putting words in my mouth. If there is proof that Saddam is associated with Al-Qaeda and not just speculation (as you have put forth) then there has to be consequences for Iraq.

Axis Kast wrote: But we do have hard evidence.

NO YOU DON'T! You earlier said "Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed." Can you not remember what you just posted?

Axis Kast wrote:Because Russia and China are beyond our ability to police. Iraq, thankfully, is not. Your argument holds no weight. What is your intimation? That we cannot move into Iraq without creating a double standard? So? I have no problem with this.

I see...you have no problem intimidating other nations on pure speculation.

Axis Kast wrote: Iraq admittedly sponsors and harbors terrorists as part of state-initiated policy and has done so repeatedly in the past.

"Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed."

I'll ask you again. How much is Saddam sending to Al-Qaeda? Prove that these funds are al-qaeda's chief means of support.

I’ve provided documentation that support has been ongoing. I cannot deliver any numbers – specifically because there are none publicly available to my knowledge. Obviously, the best estimations suggest Hussein has delivered millions into the hands of Palestinian terrorists, a significant fraction of which has probably been put into al-Qaeda’s hands. Not that it matters how large or small the contributions are. The point is that we’re in a position to do something about it either way.

What does it matter whether or not these funds are al-Qaeda’s chief means of support. I say again: we are now in a position to cut off one source we understand to be particularly active. This won’t be our final victory for certain, but it’s an important and worthwhile step nonetheless.

Never said that. Please go back and read my post again where I say and quote "Taking out one piece of the puzzle doesn't cause a death blow." Again, see my questions from your first quote.

Your argument is “that there are still more pieces of the puzzle” after Hussein. What point are you attempting to make? That we should stay our hand until we’ve identified all the sources? That hardly makes strategic sense. Better to weaken them while we can – among fulfilling a host of other objectives in Iraq – than wait any longer and allow them to capitalize on the large amount of support to which they still have access. At least we’ll whittle down their overall infrastructure.

Bingo! I finally got you to read your own quote! Your article deals with Iraq sending monies to the families of dead martyrs. It does not establish a link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

The BBC article establishes a clear link between one trained and funded by Iraq but moving from HAMAS or Hizbollah into the hands of al-Qaeda.

The Sydney Morning Herald article considers (in addition to support for families, which is already suspect) that Saddam might be a source of weaponry. Israel has certainly hawked such accusations in the past.

NO YOU DON'T! You earlier said "Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed." Can you not remember what you just posted?

Where did any of the factual evidence I posted have anything to do with the al-Qaeda network? I’m pointing out that even if you disagree over the links between Hussein and Bin Laden’s organization, there are a wealth of other problems we need to address.

"Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed."

And they’re unlikely to be confirmed. Nobody’s going to tell us for certain, “Hussein is supporting Osama Bin Laden.” We’re left to fill in the pieces for ourselves. My case is a good one. There is at least one man serving a twenty-seven year prison sentence in Israel on grounds of this same charge already.

Axis Kast wrote: Guilt by unknowing association is quite valid. If Saddam’s resources, in flowing to Palestine, flow also to al-Qaeda, then we must end that flow.

You're a lunatic.

It certainly does according to the Department of State.

No, even to them it's speculation. The only difference between you and them is that you think speculation is valid.

I fail to see the argument against stopping whatever resources we possibly can from “trickling down.” Why not oust Hussein if we know his support ends up in hands that then turn them on the United States?

Because you're invading another fucking country filled with innocent people, and potentially lighting a match on the biggest powder keg of a region since the Balkans, for *potential* gain on the basis of *vague speculation*.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. What part of this statement do you not fucking understand?

Look:

You said: "One is an indicator for, not a component of the other."

I said: "So Yemen acquiring SCUDs from North Korea is an indicator for a nuclear program now? Tactcial ballistic missiles do have their uses apart from nuclear weapons- demonstrated amply in 1991 and 1944-45."

Do you get the fucking point now? Or will continue to mindlessly repeat your mantra that ballistic missiles MUST mean a nuclear program?

That 300km maximum range for a zero-payload missile is still beyond what Iraq should be arming itself with.

Yes, which is why they're cutting them up. But as I said, you were wrong.

You don’t believe that other Palestinians who received training from and enjoy the support of Iraq are now dealing with al-Qaeda and turning their specialties toward American targets?

Red herring. I just asked you whether the criteria was a 'large effect' or 'trickle down' from 'splinter groups' (again, neither of which you have in any way shown). I still want an answer. I actually remember what you posted you know. In addition, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of evidence.

According to Hans Blix, the drones could potentially be armed with spray canisters.

As could any drone. That still doesn't change the fact that they aren't armed with spray canisters.

This drone’s range is estimated to be beyond permitted specification. It’s a prohibited vehicle with or without the chemical tanks.

The inspectors haven't decided that yet.

No. I’m telling you that Iraq or al-Qaeda might launch strikes on British or American targets even if we were in the region merely to enforce his compliance with the proposed Franco-German inspection régime. What then?

And I'll ask you again: please inform me as to what Saddam has to gain by unleashing chemical weapons on occupying troops - asides from a war that will oust it's leader

Your insistence that Hussein spent twenty-four years developing rockets on his own when he had knowing access to other leads in that sort of field is equally as flimsy.

Considering that I have provided reasoning for my position, whereas yours goes against the IAEA's expert position and does not take into account common knowledge about weapons procurement (e.g. your assertion that a program for 'two decades' *must* be successful), your position is definitely the weaker.

The IAEA has missed warning signs before. They still haven’t answered the question of, “Why twenty-four years of no progress at all?”

Leap of logic from 'missing warning signs' to 'don't know what an aluminum tube is good for'. The IAEA knows infinitely more than you do on the nature and suitability of aluminum tubes. The argument that these are for nuclear weapons is dead to all but you. I would also be interested to know how you know how much progress the Iraqis have made.

“Procurement fuck-ups?” I’m not willing to go on in good faith under the assumption that Iraq hasn’t intended to turn those toward a nuclear program all alone. Too many other pieces of the puzzle don’t fit either.

And which pieces are they now?

Iraq began working on this system in 1983 - eight years before sanctions were even laid down.

At what priority? With what funding? You don't know shit.

Sanctions didn’t stop Iraq from importing French weaponry as early as last January, did they?

And which weaponry was that?

It hasn’t worked in Israel

You haven't tried.

Iran

They don't have nukes yet.

North Korea

Too early to tell.

South Africa

Last I checked, they gave up their WMD ambitions without a war.

The man is already taking small steps of non-compliance. This should be total disarmament, not a pulling of teeth.

The threat of force combined with increased inspections and sanctions keeps Iraq contained- indeed it has been contained for the last 12 years. War is not urgent or required.

It isn’t just the drone. We’re talking about chemicals, uranium, and other stockpiles. Hell, they’re doing this already with the Palestinians.

Halt. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Nothing has been shown except that Iraq supports the bereaved families of Palesitian suicide bombers. Justify your gargantuan leap in logic from "money to families" to "chemicals and uranium"- keeping in mind you must provide reasoning as to what the hell he has to gain from giving WMD to terrorists, considering the risk it entails and the lack of any material benefit to himself.

You’ve jumped the argument. We were focused on the fact that the North Korean navy isn’t exactly the tin can formation everyone suspected.

No,we weren't. I said they were Harpoon fodder originally. That's still true now.

I don’t trust hem to be able to hit thousands of positions before Seoul is flattened.

Seoul *can't* be flattened.

I doubt USAF aircraft will fly close enough to the ground to merit being hit. But again, their ability to locate and destroy certain fortified targets will suffer.

Fortified targets are easier to destroy than smaller, mobile targets. The positions of bunkers are known, and the USAF has the weaponry to eliminate them with little difficulty.

We’re talking not merely from China, but also through China.

Oh? So who'll send them weapons?

Hit a Bradley in the treads and you’re out of luck.

Now you're just being assinine. I'm sure the vulnerability of every tracked vehicle known to man is going to be exploited on a doctrinal level by the NK cannon fodder who will be busy dying en mass.

I agree about the Abrams, but I doubt it will find much use on the paddies or in the mountains of North Korea.

Tanks played their part in the orginal Korean War. They will do so again.

But this won’t be the nice cakewalk Iraq is almost guaranteed to be.

And that's because of the theatre of battle.

I doubt whether even a preemptive strike could destroy thousands of guns – some likely armed with gas or biologicals.

It's not thousands of guns- it's 500 tubes total. Seoul cannot be flattened by such a number. It would take many days of bombardment by thousands more guns to seriously damage a city such as Seoul, and considering that they wouldn't be able to maintain anything near that amount of fire for that amount of time, the threat to Seoul is not nearly as great as popular opinion thinks it is.

You're a lunatic.

Fantastic argument.

No, even to them it's speculation. The only difference between you and them is that you think speculation is valid.

So the “speculation isn’t valid” but they’re claiming links between Iraq and al-Qaeda anyway? Interesting.

Because you're invading another fucking country filled with innocent people, and potentially lighting a match on the biggest powder keg of a region since the Balkans, for *potential* gain on the basis of *vague speculation*.

The war is not merely about Iraq’s ties to the al-Qaeda network, but moving on …

(1) The Iraqi people have everything to gain from Saddam’s ouster, including a far more stable and responsible government.
(2) The likelihood of the entire region “going up in flames” is unlikely. Iran isn’t going to face régime-change, Turkey isn’t going to face régime-change, etc. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others already host American troops without having been the victim of revolution.

Do you get the fucking point now? Or will continue to mindlessly repeat your mantra that ballistic missiles MUST mean a nuclear program?

My answer was that it didn’t matter because North Korea is already affirmed by the United States government as possessing at least two nuclear weapons.

Yes, which is why they're cutting them up. But as I said, you were wrong.

They’re cutting them up, but it’s the tip of the iceberg. The infrastructure, as President Bush has stated, is capable of supporting far superior missiles.

Red herring. I just asked you whether the criteria was a 'large effect' or 'trickle down' from 'splinter groups' (again, neither of which you have in any way shown). I still want an answer. I actually remember what you posted you know. In addition, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of evidence.

I cannot tell you how great the support from Iraq to al-Qaeda actually is. All I can do is provide evidence that Palestinians trained by Iraq are ending up in the al-Qaeda network. I’ve already presented the evidence of the case.

As could any drone. That still doesn't change the fact that they aren't armed with spray canisters.

Great. So you’re going to guarantee my security on the basis that the thing isn’t armed yet and that there aren’t any other undeclared systems out there?

The inspectors haven't decided that yet.

It’s fairly clear that the drone’s specifications indicate capabilities beyond restricted levels. Colin Powell’s said as much.

And I'll ask you again: please inform me as to what Saddam has to gain by unleashing chemical weapons on occupying troops.

He’s already decided that we’ll invade. He might also make the miscalculation that the Arab world would appreciate an attack supported subtly by Iraqi know-how against he Israelis. I wouldn’t put it below him to bank on the future that Iraq wouldn’t be implicated directly if it offered only minor assistance to an attack against “the Zionist entity.”

Considering that I have provided reasoning for my position, whereas yours goes against the IAEA's expert position and does not take into account common knowledge about weapons procurement (e.g. your assertion that a program for 'two decades' *must* be successful), your position is definitely the weaker.

It doesn’t make sense that these components – already prohibited mind you, whether or not they are to be fashioned for nuclear centrifuges – would be sitting around for two decades without having been integrated into even a basic, failed prototype. That indicates the program never got off the drawing board but that the expense and effort was made to import prohibited goods for its intended construction. But why would one take that risk unless one was certain of being able to mount the tubes on a test bed in the first place?

Leap of logic from 'missing warning signs' to 'don't know what an aluminum tube is good for'. The IAEA knows infinitely more than you do on the nature and suitability of aluminum tubes. The argument that these are for nuclear weapons is dead to all but you. I would also be interested to know how you know how much progress the Iraqis have made.

No. The argument is very much alive – especially in American circles of government.

And which pieces are they now?

Iraq has had extensive contact – legitimate and otherwise – with industry leaders in rocketry since 1983. Why the failure of their program on so many levels? As I asked before, why risk the import of banned components unless a test bed was ready in the first place?

At what priority? With what funding? You don't know shit.

What funding? Try oil money. Hussein’s got quite a lot.

And which weaponry was that?

Components for Mirage jets and helicopters. They import munitions from Yugoslavia regularly, according to testimony made by minor government officials in Belgrade last fall.

You haven't tried.

There were, according to FAS.org, members of the American intelligence community tasked with observing the progress of any nuclear program in Israel. They missed all the proper signs despite being armed with satellite imagery.

They don't have nukes yet.

Yes, but only a few years ago it was: “They’ll have them ten or fifteen years down the line,” not: “They’ll soon have the infrastructure to produce them inside four years.”

Too early to tell.

North Korea has at least two nuclear missiles from reports I’ve heard. I think we’d be remiss to assume otherwise.

Last I checked, they gave up their WMD ambitions without a war.

Only because the Afrikaner government didn’t want their precious weapons in the hands of the black government.

You might do well to recall that it took our satellites two years to find any sign of a nuclear program and that by then they’d missed the construction of a pair of massive boreholes in the Kalahari Desert as well as a full test complex.

The threat of force combined with increased inspections and sanctions keeps Iraq contained- indeed it has been contained for the last 12 years. War is not urgent or required.

Containment failed everywhere else. Inspectors are getting lucky and pulling teeth. Enough has been unearthed already to give a clear picture of Iraq’s true intentions. It will hide all it can.

Contained for the past twelve years? Inspectors haven’t been on-site since 1998.

Halt. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Nothing has been shown except that Iraq supports the bereaved families of Palesitian suicide bombers. Justify your gargantuan leap in logic from "money to families" to "chemicals and uranium"- keeping in mind you must provide reasoning as to what the hell he has to gain from giving WMD to terrorists, considering the risk it entails and the lack of any material benefit to himself.

Saddam is reported to have sought uranium in the Congo and from South Africa. It is not certain that he does not have domestic stockpiles of his own.

Britain has already acknowledged that thousands of liters of chemical and biological agent remain unaccounted for.

The Sydney Morning Herald gave statements by those who suspect that Saddam offers weapons to Palestinian terrorists. We know the Israelis have already arrested a man trained in Iraq and later discovered to be in al-Qaeda’s employ.

Again, Saddam is likely to make a miscalculation vis a vie an attack on Israel. He’s already convinced that the United States is going to kill him in a short time, after all.

No,we weren't. I said they were Harpoon fodder originally. That's still true now.

Just like with the South Koreans? I won’t deny that the North is likely to lose badly at sea, but you cannot passingly dismiss certain successes against the South Koreans as the result of luck alone.

Oh? So who'll send them weapons?[/quotes]

Cartels. Criminal groups. Perhaps the Chinese government, if they view the American action as directly threatening.

Now you're just being assinine. I'm sure the vulnerability of every tracked vehicle known to man is going to be exploited on a doctrinal level by the NK cannon fodder who will be busy dying en mass.

There’s no way we’re going to liquidate an army of over one million men with the snap of a finger. It’s going to come down to fighting on some very rugged terrain and in extremely harsh conditions.

And that's because of the theatre of battle.

It raises North Korea’s ability to resist exponentially. Will we win? Certainly. Is it worth that route per se? Not without having been attacked first or if we can possibly exhaust other methods of containment beforehand.

It's not thousands of guns- it's 500 tubes total. Seoul cannot be flattened by such a number. It would take many days of bombardment by thousands more guns to seriously damage a city such as Seoul, and considering that they wouldn't be able to maintain anything near that amount of fire for that amount of time, the threat to Seoul is not nearly as great as popular opinion thinks it is.

Confirm the 500 tubes. I’ve heard numbers ranging into the thousands.

Axis Kast wrote: Fantastic argument.

I like to think so, considering you will go to such absurd lengths to justify your war= we must invade [blank] because support they may give to [blank] may end up in the hands of [blank]- of course, I don't have any actual hard evidence or even a way to quantify this threat, but hey- we can do it, so why not? And let's ignore the reprecussions while we're at it.

So the “speculation isn’t valid” but they’re claiming links between Iraq and al-Qaeda anyway? Interesting.

If they had fucking proof, they'd present it. They don't have any. Funny how you hold the State Department's word over that of the CIA. More on State Department incompetence in a moment.

The war is not merely about Iraq’s ties to the al-Qaeda network, but moving on …

(1) The Iraqi people have everything to gain from Saddam’s ouster, including a far more stable and responsible government.

Or a US puppet state with no legitimacy in the eyes of the people or it's neighbours.

(2) The likelihood of the entire region “going up in flames” is unlikely. Iran isn’t going to face régime-change, Turkey isn’t going to face régime-change, etc. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others already host American troops without having been the victim of revolution.

We've already seen the effect of American troops of Saudi Arabia- his name is Osama Bin Laden.

My answer was that it didn’t matter because North Korea is already affirmed by the United States government as possessing at least two nuclear weapons.

Do you know what a fallacy of composition is? "North Korea has nuclear nuclear weapons. North Korea has ballistic missiles. Yemen has ballistic missiles. Therefore, it also has nuclear weapons."

They’re cutting them up, but it’s the tip of the iceberg. The infrastructure, as President Bush has stated, is capable of supporting far superior missiles.

And that means what? Nothing.

I cannot tell you how great the support from Iraq to al-Qaeda actually is. All I can do is provide evidence that Palestinians trained by Iraq are ending up in the al-Qaeda network. I’ve already presented the evidence of the case.

What evidence?! You posted someone else's speculation!

Great. So you’re going to guarantee my security on the basis that the thing isn’t armed yet and that there aren’t any other undeclared systems out there?

It's called common sense. UAV's are used for reconaissance. In addition, this UAV does not threaten 'your' security. Unless you think they'll be overflying your house spraying agents ... forgetting of course that there's absolutely no fucking thing to be gained by doing so

It’s fairly clear that the drone’s specifications indicate capabilities beyond restricted levels.

I'll leave that to the inspectors, not you. See my Iraq's drone thread. It even has a mounting for reconaissnace equipment. Shock horror, who woulda thought eh?

Colin Powell’s said as much.

He also called a plagiarized uni paper from about 6 years ago that had been copied rote (with hardening of certain words) the "latest intelligence" from "solid sources". I don't give a shit what he says- after his little UN speech the State Department has no credibility in my eyes.

He’s already decided that we’ll invade. He might also make the miscalculation that the Arab world would appreciate an attack supported subtly by Iraqi know-how against he Israelis. I wouldn’t put it below him to bank on the future that Iraq wouldn’t be implicated directly if it offered only minor assistance to an attack against “the Zionist entity.”

Ah, so perpetraing a WMD attack on troops can only help his cause! Funny- he didn't apply this logic in 1991. But let's forget about history- it has no place in this romp through fantasy land.

It doesn’t make sense that these components – already prohibited mind you, whether or not they are to be fashioned for nuclear centrifuges – would be sitting around for two decades without having been integrated into even a basic, failed prototype.

They weren't sitting around for two decades.

That indicates the program never got off the drawing board but that the expense and effort was made to import prohibited goods for its intended construction. But why would one take that risk unless one was certain of being able to mount the tubes on a test bed in the first place?

Test beds are not essential for artillery rockets. All you need is a truck with rails.

No. The argument is very much alive – especially in American circles of government.

Like I care what they think. They've already embarassed themselves enough- Powell's speech was a joke, and the inspector's have universally derided American 'intellgence' as, and I quote: "garbage". The fact is they will go to war irrespective of anything, and as such whether they make a serious case or not is irrelevant. Their accusations and speculation and 'mights' are enough to form the desired propaganda effect.

Iraq has had extensive contact – legitimate and otherwise – with industry leaders in rocketry since 1983. Why the failure of their program on so many levels? As I asked before, why risk the import of banned components unless a test bed was ready in the first place?

What the hell do you know about the program that you can pontificate at length on it's "failure at so many levels"?!

What funding? Try oil money. Hussein’s got quite a lot.

Right, Iraq was just sloshing with money, they could afford absolutely everything they desired- I wonder where all their MiG-29s, T-80 tanks, and BMP-3 IFVs were in 1991 then.

Components for Mirage jets and helicopters. They import munitions from Yugoslavia regularly, according to testimony made by minor government officials in Belgrade last fall.

Illicit spare parts and major pieces of military equipment are NOT the same.

There were, according to FAS.org, members of the American intelligence community tasked with observing the progress of any nuclear program in Israel. They missed all the proper signs despite being armed with satellite imagery.

What does missing proper signs have to do with containment?

Yes, but only a few years ago it was: “They’ll have them ten or fifteen years down the line,” not: “They’ll soon have the infrastructure to produce them inside four years.”

You don't know what I mean when I say containment.

North Korea has at least two nuclear missiles from reports I’ve heard. I think we’d be remiss to assume otherwise.

When I say containment- I mean Soviet Union style. They had a massive WMD arsenal. There was no war over it. The Soviet Union subsequently fell.

South Africa snip

See above

Containment failed everywhere else. Inspectors are getting lucky and pulling teeth. Enough has been unearthed already to give a clear picture of Iraq’s true intentions. It will hide all it can.

That's because you're using the wrong definition of containment. And 'everywhere else' there was no threat of force.

Contained for the past twelve years? Inspectors haven’t been on-site since 1998.

Did Iraq flex any military muscle, or threaten any other state in the last 12 years? No.

Saddam is reported to have sought uranium in the Congo and from South Africa. It is not certain that he does not have domestic stockpiles of his own.

Irrelevant red herring. Read my question again, and stop trying to change the damn subject with every damn post.

Britain has already acknowledged that thousands of liters of chemical and biological agent remain unaccounted for.

Ah, the same country that produced it's famous 'dossier' filled with accusations which Powell brandished at the UN, which turned out to be a plagiarized uni paper. I don't care what the pro-war bandwagon has 'acknowledged'.

The Sydney Morning Herald gave statements by those who suspect that Saddam offers weapons to Palestinian terrorists.

Statements by those who suspect. Och, the evidence is overwhelming.

We know the Israelis have already arrested a man trained in Iraq and later discovered to be in al-Qaeda’s employ.

What are you talking about now? Do you EVER provide sources for your grandiose claims?!

Again, Saddam is likely to make a miscalculation vis a vie an attack on Israel. He’s already convinced that the United States is going to kill him in a short time, after all.

Explain why he didn't attack Israel with WMD in 1991.

Just like with the South Koreans? I won’t deny that the North is likely to lose badly at sea, but you cannot passingly dismiss certain successes against the South Koreans as the result of luck alone.

Against the US Navy, the North Koreans should scuttle their 'navy' right now.

Cartels. Criminal groups. Perhaps the Chinese government, if they view the American action as directly threatening.

You think weaponry from criminal groups is going to have some sort of effect on equipping a modern State's army? Even if it were to occur- it would be an irrelevant drop in the ocean. And China does not have good relations with North Korea at the moment- and in addition, wouldn't jeopardize it's relations with the US by providing any substantial military aid.

There’s no way we’re going to liquidate an army of over one million men with the snap of a finger. It’s going to come down to fighting on some very rugged terrain and in extremely harsh conditions.

Exactly. Terrain. The NK army is the minor part of the equation. They could be from Zanzibar for the amount of difference it'd make. US military analysts have already testified before Congress that discipline in the NK army has collapsed, and that soldiers spend more time harvesting and performing odd jobs than training.

It raises North Korea’s ability to resist exponentially. Will we win? Certainly. Is it worth that route per se? Not without having been attacked first or if we can possibly exhaust other methods of containment beforehand.

I never advocated attacking North Korea.

Confirm the 500 tubes. I’ve heard numbers ranging into the thousands.

globalsecurity.org. Only 500 of their guns have the range and the position to strike Seoul, and in addition, the NK doctrine is based on the use of massive artillery bombardment to support their operations, so there's no guarantee that any of them, let alone all 500, would target Seoul. Regardless, their guns would not be able to remain in position long enough to inflict severe damage on Seoul- counter battery fire and air strikes would eliminate these carefully horded artillery assets if they were to be used in such a manner- and we already know where their bunkers are. 'Flattened' does not enter into the equation. At worst, several tens of thousands of rounds could be lobbed at Seoul total before the enemy guns are eliminated- either blown up in their bunkers, or annihilated on the field by air and artillery strikes.

Axis Kast wrote: I’ve provided documentation that support has been ongoing.

No you haven't!! You said so yourself!
"Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed."

Axis Kast wrote:What does it matter whether or not these funds are al-Qaeda’s chief means of support. I say again: we are now in a position to cut off one source we understand to be particularly active. This won’t be our final victory for certain, but it’s an important and worthwhile step nonetheless.

You can't prove that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda but you can prove that amount of money that Iraq is sending is significant. Which hat did you pull this rabbit out of?

Axis Kast wrote:Your argument is “that there are still more pieces of the puzzle” after Hussein. What point are you attempting to make? That we should stay our hand until we’ve identified all the sources?

Your belief is that by taking out Saddam, Al-Qaeda will be dealt a death blow. How? You're just pulling dollar amounts out of thin air!

Axis Kast wrote:The BBC article establishes a clear link between one trained and funded by Iraq but moving from HAMAS or Hizbollah into the hands of al-Qaeda.

The article stated that the funds came from Iraq but it didn't specify the source of the funds in question! If funds came from the states am I to assume that the U.S. gov't is responsible?

Axis Kast wrote:The Sydney Morning Herald article considers (in addition to support for families, which is already suspect) that Saddam might be a source of weaponry.

Well if the Sydney post considers Iraq to be such a threat then I'm taking my revolver and the next plane to Iraq so I can join the war too! To arms!!!

Axis Kast wrote:My case is a good one.

Hardly. Even Lionel Hutz could serve up better evidence than you have.

I like to think so, considering you will go to such absurd lengths to justify your war= we must invade [blank] because support they may give to [blank] may end up in the hands of [blank]- of course, I don't have any actual hard evidence or even a way to quantify this threat, but hey- we can do it, so why not? And let's ignore the reprecussions while we're at it.

Hussein’s links to terrorism – both Palestinian and otherwise – are hardly the only basis on which I support a war against Iraq.

We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is making good use of agents trained by Iraq. The BBC article I posted earlier gave proof of that. And while you’re willing to dismiss that as one man among a sea of thousands, I am not as ready to do so. Nor, thankfully, is my President.

If the Ba’ath cannot police their own borders to prevent infiltration by al-Qaeda or is in a position to be prevented from disseminating resources that ultimately wind up in the hands of Osama Bin Laden’s orchestrates of violence, it’s yet another argument against Saddam.

If they had fucking proof, they'd present it. They don't have any. Funny how you hold the State Department's word over that of the CIA. More on State Department incompetence in a moment.

The CIA has argued against (1) Hussein’s possession of nuclear weaponry and (2) Hussein’s direct ties to al-Qaeda, not Iraq’s possession of chemicals and biologicals or the potential for a “trickle-down” effect among terrorist groups active in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

Or a US puppet state with no legitimacy in the eyes of the people or it's neighbours.

I think not. Try a new government put in place by popular vote. Will there be ties to the White House? Of course. Is that better than Saddam Hussein however? Expotentially so. Remember that this new government will fall under the aegis of the United Nations – whom I guarantee will “hop on the train” once their opposition to war is no longer valid.

We've already seen the effect of American troops of Saudi Arabia- his name is Osama Bin Laden.

That’s equally as great a jump as you claim I take in suggesting that Hussein gives support to al-Qaeda on an indirect basis.

Will the attack on Iraq spur more terrorism? Probably – but it would have come anyway. Will it prove nearly as effective as that of September 11th? Unlikely. Is the blow we deal to Saddam probably going to hurt al-Qaeda more than any kind of “retaliation” they can mount against us? Absolutely.

My point is that the region won’t tumble into chaos. You’ve not proved otherwise.

Do you know what a fallacy of composition is? "North Korea has nuclear nuclear weapons. North Korea has ballistic missiles. Yemen has ballistic missiles. Therefore, it also has nuclear weapons..”

When did I say that Yemen possessed nuclear weapons? I’m arguing that North Korea does.

And that means what? Nothing.

So Iraq has produced an infrastructure capable of developing long-range missiles prohibited by the United Nations Security Council and acknowledged to be a threat to Iraq’s neighbors – whom he has directed such weapons upon in the past -, but this “means nothing” to you?

What evidence?! You posted someone else's speculation!

According to the BBC, one terrorist with ties to both Iraq and al-Qaeda is already serving a twenty-seven year prison sentence in Israel.

It's called common sense. UAV's are used for reconaissance. In addition, this UAV does not threaten 'your' security. Unless you think they'll be overflying your house spraying agents ... forgetting of course that there's absolutely no fucking thing to be gained by doing so.

Common sense is acknowledging the danger that drop canisters might be fitted to the UAVs in place of cameras or electronic monitoring systems. After all, Hussein’s command-and-control capabilities are minimal at best. Any half-decent tactician is able to see that he can do far more with a flying bomb than with a camera.

No, but he might over-fly our troops or those of the United Kingdom. The point is that this is a violation. He’s taking steps to evade us. What makes you think those steps won’t get larger over time?

Why wouldn’t Hussein use his weapons? He’s made such gambles before during the Gulf War. He’s fairly well-convinced that an attack on Israel might gain him the support of the Arab world. Baghdad is also confident of European support. He’s becoming – if anything – emboldened.

I'll leave that to the inspectors, not you. See my Iraq's drone thread. It even has a mounting for reconaissnace equipment. Shock horror, who woulda thought eh?

The United States won’t. It has a mounting for reconnaissance equipment? You mean just like the ones for canisters full of chemicals? Shock horror, who woulda’ thought, eh?

He also called a plagiarized uni paper from about 6 years ago that had been copied rote (with hardening of certain words) the "latest intelligence" from "solid sources". I don't give a shit what he says- after his little UN speech the State Department has no credibility in my eyes.

I believe my Department of State far more than I believe your predications of Hussein’s rational behavior or the likelihood of the success for the inspectorate.

Ah, so perpetraing a WMD attack on troops can only help his cause!

Again, the man is convinced he is leaving power. He’s also now encouraged by European opposition to the United States and rising Arab hatred for Israel. He might very well provide indirect support to HAMAS and Hizbollah, assuming it won’t be traced back to an Iraqi source.

They weren't sitting around for two decades.

The program was. That’s not a good sign. If it’s as easy as finding “a truck with rails,” then why has this effort petered out without so much as a failed prototype?

Like I care what they think. They've already embarassed themselves enough- Powell's speech was a joke, and the inspector's have universally derided American 'intellgence' as, and I quote: "garbage". The fact is they will go to war irrespective of anything, and as such whether they make a serious case or not is irrelevant. Their accusations and speculation and 'mights' are enough to form the desired propaganda effect.

I’m so glad you’re willing to take these risks with the security of my nation.

Embaressed themselves enough? Like insisting the only reason that Hussein wants UAVs is for “reconnaissance?” The inspectors have also acknowledged a dangerous potential for several of the recently-discovered weapons (all of which were prohibited anyway) to be deployed or refashioned as weaponry. You need to understand that speculation is a driving factor behind the maintenance of and preparation for security.

Right, Iraq was just sloshing with money, they could afford absolutely everything they desired- I wonder where all their MiG-29s, T-80 tanks, and BMP-3 IFVs were in 1991 then.

MiG-29s, T-80UMs, and BMP-3 IFVs are a bit more difficult to smuggle across borders than a handful of rocket tubes and a dozen or so technical advisors. Iraq’s certainly got enough oil money to support a crash program to build rocket-artillery even if it hasn’t begun to import squadrons of Russian aircraft.

Illicit spare parts and major pieces of military equipment are NOT the same.

Illicit spare parts that help maintain and ensure the combat deployment of Hussein’s combat aircraft are fairly damning. Hell, the Yugoslavs admitted last October that they were still funneling Hussein munitions if not small arms as well. You’re going to pass this over?

What does missing proper signs have to do with containment?

It’s what one looks for when attempting to determine how well containment is working.

When I say containment- I mean Soviet Union style. They had a massive WMD arsenal. There was no war over it. The Soviet Union subsequently fell.

Containment of that sort only works when the country has got an infrastructure and population to defend or about which the government must constantly worry. And the Soviets still proliferated. The possibility of the Iraqi government being able to pass off knowledge, funding, or technical assistance is substantial. Hell, none of the compromise resolutions even broached the matter of their ties to HAMAS and Hizbollah.

See above

You’re not accounting for the failure to detect the program in the first place.

More to come …

That's because you're using the wrong definition of containment. And 'everywhere else' there was no threat of force.

The wrong definition of containment? The Soviet Union was prevented from hitting an American or allied target. That does not mean it was prevented from wrecking havoc in other portions of the world.

No threat of force, but other initiatives besides. In Korea and South Africa, early forms of disarmament were more or less obliged by sanction.

Not that this argument works with Hussein either. Maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf puts Hussein in the mind that we plan to strike anyway. As I’ve pointed out already, terrorist attacks are in the works on behalf of both al-Qaeda and Iraq. What hen?

Did Iraq flex any military muscle, or threaten any other state in the last 12 years? No.

In a conventional sense? No. Could they potentially do so in the future? Yes.

Irrelevant red herring. Read my question again, and stop trying to change the damn subject with every damn post.

Irrelevant red herring as compared to what? I acknowledge that after 1980, Nigeria might not have been engaged to provide Hussein with uranium. We’re talking about the risks of Saddam Hussein’s long-term objectives and ongoing programs here. His desire to gain uranium is hardly off-topic.

You’ve ignored all the other evidence I put forth as well.

Ah, the same country that produced it's famous 'dossier' filled with accusations which Powell brandished at the UN, which turned out to be a plagiarized uni paper. I don't care what the pro-war bandwagon has 'acknowledged'.

I’m glad you ignore all the other valid points Powell has made over the failure of United Nations weapons inspectors to do more than pull teeth. I’m glad you ignore the obvious trend by Hussein to circumvent the inspections with small steps of non-compliance.

Statements by those who suspect. Och, the evidence is overwhelming.

I’m not going to sit around and wait for the weapons inspectors to pull up more proof that Hussein has and is still developing prohibited weapons before I go in and prevent his somehow doing us any harm. Assumptions and guesswork are necessary in this situation as much as you insist you’d like only real and tangible proof. One must often make educated guesses while pursuing preemption.

What are you talking about now? Do you EVER provide sources for your grandiose claims?!

Yes, I do. You just don’t read them. Try the BBC article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2721665.stm

Explain why he didn't attack Israel with WMD in 1991.

Because he was under constant observation. There’s still the potential he might support the use of WMD by a third party in the future, hoping that no links will be made to his own country. He’s certainly got all the potential to do so.

Against the US Navy, the North Koreans should scuttle their 'navy' right now.

You’re ignoring the argument. The average North Korean isn’t the awful soldier or sailor you seem to imply.

You think weaponry from criminal groups is going to have some sort of effect on equipping a modern State's army? Even if it were to occur- it would be an irrelevant drop in the ocean. And China does not have good relations with North Korea at the moment- and in addition, wouldn't jeopardize it's relations with the US by providing any substantial military aid.

If we move in and march too far, the Chinese will react to that sort of thing as provocation. Will we exchange shots? No. Might they support the remnants of the North Korean army with superior technology in order to impede our progress toward their borders? Perhaps.

Could criminal cartels shift the momentum of the war in Kim’s favor? No. Could they provide thousands of rocket-propelled grenades and other advanced small arms for use in the field? Potentially. It’s a small risk, but one we must consider nonetheless. I admit this is the most minor of all concerns.

globalsecurity.org. Only 500 of their guns have the range and the position to strike Seoul, and in addition, the NK doctrine is based on the use of massive artillery bombardment to support their operations, so there's no guarantee that any of them, let alone all 500, would target Seoul. Regardless, their guns would not be able to remain in position long enough to inflict severe damage on Seoul- counter battery fire and air strikes would eliminate these carefully horded artillery assets if they were to be used in such a manner- and we already know where their bunkers are. 'Flattened' does not enter into the equation. At worst, several tens of thousands of rounds could be lobbed at Seoul total before the enemy guns are eliminated- either blown up in their bunkers, or annihilated on the field by air and artillery strikes.

“Several tens of thousands of rounds” of shells that could potentially be filled with biological or chemical agents. Great argument. Seoul won’t just be burning, it’ll be choking because the air is no longer pure!

No you haven't!! You said so yourself! "Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed."

Direct ties. There are clearly those with Iraqi training who have fallen into step with Osama Bin Laden’s association. Again, try the BBC article.

You can't prove that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda but you can prove that amount of money that Iraq is sending is significant. Which hat did you pull this rabbit out of?

I’ve already proven that certain al-Qaeda members are believed to be roaming Iraq of their own volition – while still receiving support from the organization, no less! I’ve also shed light on an Israeli arrest of a Palestinian working for al-Qaeda but whose original background was as an agent of a Palestinian terrorist group whose training was done in Iraq.

I cannot prove the amount of money is significant, no. But it would be foolhardy to assume we’d want to tolerate it. This is merely another reason to oust Saddam – not the entire basis for my argument against him.

Your belief is that by taking out Saddam, Al-Qaeda will be dealt a death blow. How? You're just pulling dollar amounts out of thin air!

No. My belief is that by taking out Saddam, al-Qaeda will be hurt, not death a death blow.

The article stated that the funds came from Iraq but it didn't specify the source of the funds in question! If funds came from the states am I to assume that the U.S. gov't is responsible?

If New York funded terrorism, Washington would be responsible, yes.

Funds coming from Iraq have done so for years. Either (A) Hussein himself authorizes illicit accounts (most likely, considering the government’s known support of these causes), or (B) Hussein chooses not to police those who do. Both scenarios are equally dangerous.

Well if the Sydney post considers Iraq to be such a threat then I'm taking my revolver and the next plane to Iraq so I can join the war too! To arms!!!

Dismissing the argument, eh? Good for you! Says wonders.

Article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar11.html

By Walter Russell Mead
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21

Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative
-- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of
his box.

They are wrong.

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq,
sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is
war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds
of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of
whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment
kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every
month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any
reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year
as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are
civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at
least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be
children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years
kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has
blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to
further U.S. foreign policy goals.

Wrong.

The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12
years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any
case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell
enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians.
Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.

But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.

The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is
not the only cost of containment.

Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of
the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can
shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can
support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States
must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional
forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much
more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part
of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had
forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only:
to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam
Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of
his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left
Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one
consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda
because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international
law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi
violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?

We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people,
disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more
dangerous for the American people.

We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia,
causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the
world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and
political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.

What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons
of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell
him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage
any inspections and sanctions regime.

Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the
costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy.
Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little
less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't
change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a
murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments
anti-American terror -- with no end in sight.

This is disaster, not policy.

It is time for a change.

Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the
Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "Special
Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."

Axis Kast wrote: Direct ties. There are clearly those with Iraqi training who have fallen into step with Osama Bin Laden’s association. Again, try the BBC article.

Do you even read your articles? The article mentions how a hamas bomber trained with al-qaeda. The article did not specify the details about where he trained or who financed his training. Oh but of course, since Saddam has donated money to the families of martyrs then he must have been involved. Again, Axis Kast you are speculating.

Axis Kast wrote: I’ve already proven that certain al-Qaeda members are believed to be roaming Iraq of their own volition – while still receiving support from the organization, no less! I’ve also shed light on an Israeli arrest of a Palestinian working for al-Qaeda but whose original background was as an agent of a Palestinian terrorist group whose training was done in Iraq.

Once again, check your article from the bbc. Nowhere does it mention that Nabil Okal trained in Iraq. More speculation on your part.

Axis Kast wrote: I cannot prove the amount of money is significant, no. But it would be foolhardy to assume we’d want to tolerate it. This is merely another reason to oust Saddam – not the entire basis for my argument against him.

Great! The rest of arguement seems to be based on speculations as well...I see a pattern starting to appear.

Axis Kast wrote:My belief is that by taking out Saddam, al-Qaeda will be hurt, not death a death blow.

Again, prove how Al-Qaeda will be seriously hurt without Saddam in power.

Axis Kast wrote:Funds coming from Iraq have done so for years. Either (A) Hussein himself authorizes illicit accounts (most likely, considering the government’s known support of these causes), or (B) Hussein chooses not to police those who do. Both scenarios are equally dangerous.

Again, where is the direct proof that Hussein funds Al-Qaeda? Where are they trained in Iraq?

Axis Kast wrote:Dismissing the argument, eh? Good for you! Says wonders.

No it says wonders for you to offer an appeal to authority.

Gawd, all this argument, and I think I must've missed it. Has anyone here actually articulated their vision/policy if they were the chief kahuna running the U.S.

Anyone?

This is just one of the most entertaining debating society I've seen.