Can anyone elighten me on the vintage of this map, it’s still live on the BBC website I’m assuming it’s out of date…otherwise the weapons inspectors have missed a big trick;
[thumb=B]iraq_missile_range_485map.JPG[/thumb]
The weapons inspectors have only identified the Al Samoud missiles, which cannot reach very far at all, and are being destroyed by Iraq as the UN demaded. All the other long range missiles have been destroyed during the previous UN inpections of the 1990's.
Another forgery?
Hong Kong
Here is the latest assessment of Iraq’s missle program. Please notice that even the weapons inspectors note that there are huge holes in Iraq’s account of it’s weapons, and that Iraq has continuously persisted in efforts to build long range missles. The map you have is generated with the assumption that many of the Scud missles were not really disposed of.
Although UNSCOM reported that all but two of the 819 declared imported Scud-B combat missiles had been “effectively” accounted for, the stated consumption of some missiles could not be independently verified. This was the case for 14 Scud-B missiles as targets in a missile interception project. While such use is supported by some documentation contained in the so-called Scud files, it is questionable whether Iraq would have really used, what were at that time, valuable operational assets in the pursuit of such a project. Furthermore, available data could only corroborate a very small number of declared missile launches at that time. It cannot be excluded that Iraq retained a certain numbers of the missiles. The additional information Iraq provided on 8 February 2003 on the missile interception project does not resolve the outstanding questions.
Iraq’s thorough methods of unilateral destruction prevented an assessment of its achievements in the indigenous production of Scud-B engines. Furthermore, the methods used prevented a clear accounting of the “training” engines and some specific key components of the indigenously produced liquid propellant engine. The lack of evidence to support Iraq’s declarations on its destruction of these indigenously produced “training” engines, as well as on the key engine components, such as turbo-pumps, raises the question whether they were all destroyed as declared. Iraq could, in fact, have produced a small number of Scud-type liquid propellant engines from both imported turbo-pumps and locally produced engine components.
Moreover, the lack of documentation to support the destruction of a significant amount of Scud-B liquid propellant, and the fact that approximately 50 warheads were not accounted for among the remnants of unilateral destruction, suggest that these items may have been retained for a proscribed missile force. After investigating Iraq’s statement that, due to the limited storage lifetime, the propellants would now be useless, UNMOVIC has assessed that the propellants would in fact still be usable and would therefore need to be verified as destroyed.
Questions also arise with respect to activities related to proscribed guidance and control systems that Iraq had conducted from 1992 to 1995. It is difficult to accept Iraq’s statement that they were for non-proscribed missiles. Of particular concern are the guidance and control working groups that Iraq says had been established for a very short period of time in November 1993. The concern is that Iraq may have been conducting reverse engineering of proscribed guidance and control systems as part of its missile activities even after the adoption of resolutions 687 (1991) and 715 (1991). Furthermore, it cannot be excluded that Iraq has retained such guidance and control equipment.
Another indication of possible proscribed activity is the offer that Iraq said it received from a middleman for five disassembled TELs. Some parts were already shipped to an adjacent country. Although Iraq said that it had rejected the offer, no evidence has been provided in support. These parts might have allowed the assembly of one or two TELs, which would have been another piece for a reconstituted Scud-type missile force. In this connection, Iraq has, so far, been unable to locate a 50-tonne trailer that it declared it had imported for the indigenous production of the Al Nida mobile launcher and which it claims had been stolen. Iraq also did not provide UNSCOM with the parts of an imported Scud TEL, which it states it had disassembled.
The 2002 CAFCD and its supporting documents, the most recent semi annual declarations, and the material submitted to UNMOVIC on 8 February 2003 provide no significant new information relevant to the aforementioned issues.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Please notice that even the weapons inspectors note that there are huge holes in Iraq's account of it's weapons...
[/QUOTE]
Ah so you are quoting the UN weapons inspectors again. The very same people you have asked to leave Iraq now so that you can bomb Iraq in violation of international law.
Yes Lefty:),
The document above clearly describes the distinct possibility that Iraq has kept Scud missles, and there was no progress on resolving old inspection issues. Funny how the actual document varies from the briefing eh?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Yes Lefty:),
[/QUOTE]
:) So you believe the UN is relevant when it comes to reporting on Iraqi missiles?
I believe that if Hans Blix had not been a Swiss Mr Rogers, then perhaps the Iraqi's might have taken him seriously. I believe that the inspectors filled their function, and failed becuase Iraq had no intention of surrendering their weapons.
But you know that Far Lefty :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
..So you believe the UN is relevant when it comes to reporting on Iraqi missiles?
[/QUOTE]
no no. it only become relevant when UN says what US wants to hear.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
I believe that the inspectors filled their function, and failed becuase Iraq had no intention of surrendering their weapons.
[/QUOTE]
They failed, but failed to give you the excuse to wage a war on Iraq, and 80% of the members of the UNSC failed to back America's war mongering plans. So now in defiance of the UN and world opinion, and with one two or three allies the US is about to wage an illegal war.