Official: Russia Moved Iraqi WMD !

Originally posted by CTID56092
Err a few years ago Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq who then used them.

Seems to me they're OK as long as the US can decide the targets.
Why it's OK for Iraqis to kill Iranians with them but not OK for Iraqis to kill Americans with them is beyond me - surely both situations are deplorable. Can't see how that can be touted as a reason for invasion by the former salesman.

Well hell no it was not right for Saddam to use them, I would not condone that at all even if we sold them to him. Thing is, he USED them. The purpose of a weapon like that is to make your opponent know not to use them. I can not condone what Saddam did but his history sure made the thought of that man with nukes unacceptable.

Originally posted by CTID56092
Thinking back sure it was Day 4 - we were Reserve (not reserve enough for my liking) and there was a debate whether we we'd be in France or get the chance to die on our own soil.

Well then you must have been coming via TWA because you couldn't make it across the pond that fast......In all seriousness, we do not know if we could have held the massive onslaught of the Soviet Army, the jury is still out on that and we will never know. Thing is the Lance missile was short range, if a likewise Russian attack was returned, then the Pershing II's would have come into play and that is what scared Moscow so much, its accuracy and flight time......It was the perfect weapon, it never got used and forced the enemy to talks..........among many other items of course.

This time line would have been hours and maybe 48 tops. My personal and I mean only mine, would have put the use of the Lance out to 5-7 days, but by that time reinforcements would be arriving and the Soviets would have taken such horrendous casualties that their advance would have been slowed tremendously but the 7th day......maybe to the 10th day....but like I said, that is an opinion.

Originally posted by edsinger
Ah Ha! Excuses........did or did not the New York Times, one of the most left leaning papers in all of the United States, print this article...?

Yes, it did.
Is because a paper is "left leaning" meaning its biased? Mabye a bit, does that stop it from pointing out facts? No.
Also is this actually true or just an opinion?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
Ah Ha! Excuses........did or did not the New York Times, one of the most left leaning papers in all of the United States, print this article...?

Yes, it did.
Is because a paper is "left leaning" meaning its biased? Mabye a bit, does that stop it from pointing out facts? No.
Also is this actually true or just an opinion?

Well I guess you are not real familiar with the NYT, lets just say they have had 'journalistic' issues the last few years, it would be the last paper I would expect to see this being published is all....

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess you are not real familiar with the NYT, lets just say they have had 'journalistic' issues the last few years, it would be the last paper I would expect to see this being published is all....

So what about few years ago!
This is now not then we are disscussing.
Yes they probably are doing so because they believe in journolism.
There is the other possbility that they may have done so in relation to another story comeing up...

Originally posted by edsinger



Well then you must have been coming via TWA because you couldn't make it across the pond that fast......In all seriousness, we do not know if we could have held the massive onslaught of the Soviet Army, the jury is still out on that and we will never know. Thing is the Lance missile was short range, if a likewise Russian attack was returned, then the Pershing II's would have come into play and that is what scared Moscow so much, its accuracy and flight time......It was the perfect weapon, it never got used and forced the enemy to talks..........among many other items of course.

This time line would have been hours and maybe 48 tops. My personal and I mean only mine, would have put the use of the Lance out to 5-7 days, but by that time reinforcements would be arriving and the Soviets would have taken such horrendous casualties that their advance would have been slowed tremendously but the 7th day......maybe to the 10th day....but like I said, that is an opinion.

Errr - actually we were planning to cross the Channel - a trans-atlantic detour was vetoed on cost grounds IIRC.

It may be a shock to you but not everyone on here is a septic. I know you were probably told otherwise but the British army were planning to join the fight too.

Thinking back the front line were expected to hold Ivan up for 24-48 hrs. 2nd line and Reserves hold out / delay a further 48hrs (by which time all the air cover would have been blown out of the sky). Then it was to be gloves off & instant sunshine. We reckoned that we'd be stuck on a truck somewhere near Dover by that point.

Clearly you were involved at that time so you'll recall the WMD phrase was never used - as I said invented to confuse by the White House.

Well we are close in thought then on this, Like I said my opinion was a week or so just because I considered the Russian reserve units to be ill trained and the effectiveness of the spearhead units would be depleted in that time.

Air Cover? I don't think we would have had that as the airbases would have been knocked out in the first 72 hours. The Russians planned to throw heavy numbers at the NATO airbases early on as they know that the could not continue the advance with the superiority of the NATO aircraft and tactics. It would have been one massive air battle the first 24-36 hours. If we took the edge the Russians had it in plans to take out these bases with non-conventional weaponry (how is that for a term?)


EDIT:

Remember the term Limited Tactical Nuclear Warfare? Although the West made it very plain, 'limited' was not an option which is maybe why that first T-72 never crossed the line. By the mid-to late 80's, the Russians were well becoming aware of the technology gap and that 'Quantity has a quality all it own' was no longer practical. Plus in all honesty, the arrival of the M-1 Abrams to the theater significantly changed the likely outcome and this was confirmed to me at least in Gulf War I.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by edsinger]

In gulf war U.S. destroyed most of the Iraqi T-72's with LGB's from F-16's and the last half of Iraq's tanks were destroyed by night vision having M1's Soviet T-72 had ERA, Night vision and THREMAL Imaginging and DU SABOT rounds, if you don't believe me that Soviet 72's had all these things just check out Global Secerity on Soviet T-72's compared to Iraq 72's.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
In gulf war U.S. destroyed most of the Iraqi T-72's with LGB's from F-16's and the last half of Iraq's tanks were destroyed by night vision having M1's Soviet T-72 had ERA, Night vision and THREMAL Imaginging and DU SABOT rounds, if you don't believe me that Soviet 72's had all these things just check out Global Secerity on Soviet T-72's compared to Iraq 72's.

The Russians have always made good tanks m8, it is the training and operators that make them work well though.

Originally posted by dgtempe

What??? Not 80 %, try 52%

I know what 2+2=, but I am an Aussie

Old article.

Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD
By Ion Mihai Pacepa
Published August 21, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 20, Russian PresidentVladimir Putin denounced the U.S.-led "aggression" against Iraq as "unwarranted" and "unjustifiable." Three days later, Pravda said that an anonymous Russian "military expert" was predicting that the United States would fabricate finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov immediately started plying the idea abroad, and it has taken hold around the world ever since.
As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction -- in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."Iimplemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

(...)

The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them "disappear." Russia is still at it. Primakov was in Baghdad from December until a couple of days before the war, along with a team of Russian military experts led by two of Russia's topnotch "retired"generals,Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. They were all there receiving honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister. They clearly were not there to give Saddam military advice for the upcomingwar--Saddam'sKatyusha launchers were of World War II vintage, and his T-72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes were all obviously useless against America. "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
Ah Ha! Excuses........did or did not the New York Times, one of the most left leaning papers in all of the United States, print this article...?

Yes, it did.
Is because a paper is "left leaning" meaning its biased? Mabye a bit, does that stop it from pointing out facts? No.
Also is this actually true or just an opinion?

The NYTs is one of THE most liberal newspapers in the country. There is really no arguing it.

I'll tell you what - get a subscription (if you can). and cut out all "left" leaning articals and all "right" leaning articals. If the left don't outnumber the right by at least two to one over the span of a month, I will personally fly over to give you 1000 dollars.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The NYTs is one of THE most liberal newspapers in the country. There is really no arguing it.

I'll tell you what - get a subscription (if you can). and cut out all "left" leaning articals and all "right" leaning articals. If the left don't outnumber the right by at least two to one over the span of a month, I will personally fly over to give you 1000 dollars.

So ?
It has left leaning people there...does that make the whole thing left leaning? No.
It might just simplely be reporting facts.

Originally posted by devilwasp
So ?It has left leaning people there...does that make the whole thing left leaning? No.It might just simplely be reporting facts.

You would argue with a stump! Heck yes its lef leaning and therefore told from a leftist aspect.

Think Fox News and why you hate it so much.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
You would argue with a stump! Heck yes its lef leaning and therefore told from a leftist aspect.

No it has left leaning people, it doesnt mean the whole paper is left leaning unless EVERY member of the staff is left....
Also I only argue with people who start it...

Think Fox News and why you hate it so much.
[edit on 24-3-2005 by edsinger]

I dont hate fox, have they annoyed me?
No, mabye you should look at the reasons you have for hateing them to see if they are right....

So you really think that the NYT is not a LEFT newspaper?

I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell you. When California finally falls off in the ocean you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

Originally posted by edsinger
So you really think that the NYT is not a LEFT newspaper?

I believe it has many writers in it that are on the left side of politics but that doesnt mean the paper is left.

I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell you. When California finally falls off in the ocean you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

In comes the sarcasm...

The point was made, but anyhow, find me some right-leaning articles from the NYT............

Originally posted by edsinger
The point was made, but anyhow, find me some right-leaning articles from the NYT............

Yeah and my counter point was made, the very article itself DOES sound right leaning, heh I'll look for somemore once its not 3 AM!!!

Originally posted by edsinger
That isn't how this man works and you should see that by now, Bush could give a hoot less what the turdblossoms want or the EU for that matter, I am telling you there is something else we don't know.......has to be...

you mean Bush admin where behind 9-11 and war on terrorism is turdblossom?? old news chap.

Originally posted by motionknight


you mean Bush admin where behind 9-11 and war on terrorism is turdblossom?? old news chap.

They call it an oxymoron in the English language.