February 25, 2003
IT'S A DIRTY JOB, BUT...:
Rocket that could strike at the heart of Israel (James Bone, February 26, 2003, Times of London)THE missile at the centre of the looming showdown between Iraq and the United Nations may be part of an ambitious secret project to develop a much longer-range missile that could hit Tehran or Tel Aviv, UN and independent missile experts believe.The specifications of the al-Samoud 2 missile appear to have been designed so that it could be fitted with a second engine, making it a much more potent threat than previously realised, the experts have told The Times. [...]
Dr Blix's inspectors have said that the al-Samoud 2 flew over the maximum permitted range of 150km in only 13 of 40 test flights, reaching a maximum distance of 183km.
But experts say that the specifications of the al-Samoud 2 and its use of a Russian-designed Volga SA2 engine suggest that Iraq might be trying to develop a missile with a much longer range that could threaten the entire region.
One of the most compelling reasons to take out Saddam ourselves, even though he does not pose any serious threat to us, has always been because we are the world's great nation at the moment and it would be craven of us to leave the dirty work to the Israelis, who would have to act because he's obviously a threat to them. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 25, 2003 10:00 PM
It astonishes me that anyone still believes a word that emanates from Baghdad (hence I live in a state of perpetual amazement, I guess).
If Saddam (and his hand puppet, Aziz) claim that they don't want to get rid of their weapons, that's perfectly understandable; but when they say that they have no WMD, or that the range of the al-Samoud 2 falls within the prescribed limit, etc., you have to know they're setting you up.
Now, France, Russia, and Germany appear to have joined his circus, and have proven to be pretty decent actors themselves.
But not quite as good as Saddam. His is a fabulous act, keeping everyone off balance all the time (though often because they acquiesce); and unlike in Yogi's gem, which you quote above, the people seem to keep coming to his ballpark.
Would Israel have enough materiel or logistical support for an assault like that?
Although it would be interesting to see what they could do against a real military and not rock-throwing teenagers.
Cute dig.
Well, you may indeed get the chance to learn what it seems you're itching to find out. On the other hand, maybe not.
Not sure which would disappoint you more, though.
Orrin, I disagree that Saddam poses no threat to us.
But I agree with your logic and that is why we should be the ones to execute Yasser Arafat.
Ali:
Israel actually has both WMD and the means to deliver it. It would be easier than quelling the intifada.
Israel has already demonstrated its
military capability, leadership and technological ability to defend itself in all out war. Taking out Iraq from a distance would present no problem for Israel and sending troops in force unnecessary. Destroying Iraq is not an option. Hopefully, we will defeat Saddam surgically and establish our presense in the area as a destabilizing/stabilizing influence for liberal governance. This will take time.
BM:
Since I think (as Isaac Asimov did) that establishing the state of Israel in an area where Jews would become targets of hate once again was a pretty retarded decision, I'll reserve the right to make cheap digs.
If I was a European Jew at the end of WW2, I'd have moved straight to California not some place where Arabs would be taking potshots at me and my descendants.
Anyway the point about the Israeli military was a genuine one since I do get wildly varying answers on exactly how effective their military is.
Well, we may not be that smart (Meir Kahane thought Jews were pretty stupid actually), but at least one could say we're performing a public service, since without us, our neighbors would be beating the crap out of one another.
Though we haven't been altogether successful on that score either....