Well, saddamn would be stupid not to do it. It will give the US a clear and easy way to declare that he is not disarming, and they will begin bombing immediately.

Personally, i would not be worried about these missiles. they are not long range by any means, it was simply discovered that they can travel 177km (without a guidance system) slightly farther than they are allowed (150 kilometers). This is not new information either, it was provided by the iraqi in their initial declaration. note that this distance is less than half of the distance between iraq and israel.

source: http://islandimage.net/oc/13myths/MythItem.cfm?ID=64


these weapons make up a large chunk of iraqis conventional arms, but bush wants them destroyed anyway. america has nothing to fear from these weapons, but, american soldiers who will soon be invading iraq do.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

Well of course America has nothing to fear from these missiles. Iraq has nothing in their arsenal that can remotely harm us ... with the exception of chemical weapons. And even with regards to chemical weapons, history has shown them to be, for the most part, ineffective and actually more harmful to those that use them then to those they are trying to hurt. However, these weapons were banned from Iraqi use not for what they can do to the United States but for what they can do to their neighbors. Sure a 180km weapon isn't gonna do much good against the US, but put a chemical warhead on it, truck it to 160km away from Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia and it's gonna hurt plenty.

You said that they would be a threat to US troops invading Iraq? I really doubt that since a) Any war is going to be an extremely mobile war dominated by air power. b) The guidance packages on these missiles are notoriously second rate. c) The US will have patriot counterbatteries operating in key areas. So first of all, these missiles have to find a target to shoot at. With tanks and troops continually moving at 30-50mph nothing's going to be standing still for them to shoot at, then they have to continually hide and dodge the warplanes on Combat Air Patrol. Lastly their effective damage against a key target is miniscule since that the target will be highly protected. Therefore the reason for a demand to disable the missiles is more strategic than tactical.

your right. when i meant threat, i meant within range i supppose, the US will blow anything out of the air, even if it had a chance of hitting moving targets as you suggested.

as for hitting israel, i doubt there is any chance that iraq will be able to just drive a truckload of missiles across their border and keep driving to within 160km of israel, without being watched and monitored by the US and annihilated way beforehand.

it is my opinion that, this only underscores the fact that these weapons do not REALLY need to be destroyed, and that bush is simply trying to make more and more outlandish demands to force non compliance of iraq, so that the invasion can begin.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

I would love so much to watch a debate between Saddam and Bush .. it'll be like TWO EVIL Faces DEBATING .. hehehe j/k . But for real, it would be very interesting to watch, sad though that Bush is not wedding to Debate.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)