I think it does.

It seems to me that we are going to great lengths to resolve this conflict with as little damage and loss of life as humanly possible. Even though the TV media is practically begging for some 'shock and awe', we have taken measured steps in hopes of decapitating the Iraqi leadership and possibly ending this thing sooner than we could have ever hoped for.

As Saddam reveals more and more of his pre-war lies and deceipt by firing those scuds he doesn't have and torching those oil wells which he wouldn't do, it leads me to ask this.

What does the conduct of this war say about the motives and intentions of the leaders of the countries involved?

Daily events may sway the debate in different directions, but as of right now I believe the US is holding very true to its stated goals, while Iraq has provided additional evidence justifying our actions.

Your turn.

I've seen nothing yet to indicate that any weapons used by the Iraqis were those proscribed by the UN. Apparently you have. Could you please provide a link? Thanks.

So far I've not heard of banned missles or WMDs being used by Iraq. That could change.

I've never heard that Saddam agreed to not torch oil wells. The US did warn him not to do this, but I think the response was silence. I do know that Saddam promised a fierce fight.

I also have no doubt that a relatively bloodless and short war has been the desire of the Bush administration all along. The point of contention was the war itself, since none are ever bloodless. This has become a moot point.

However, if MM has evidence of banned missle or WMD use, I'm interested in seeing it.

This is the only link I could find in only a short amount of time, looks like the investigation may not be complete, but here is one link about SCUD launches. Here

...and there you have it.

Something tells me, these are not the only weapons Saddam will use, which he claimed he didn't have...or destroyed.

--cheers

Well, seems Kuwait thinks they were Scuds, but the Pentagon isn't saying.

Don't know if the journalist who wrote the story is aware of this little slip of logic:



Of course they don't have the "missiles it used against . . ."--those missiles were blown up during those attacks.

Sloppy writing here. Guess I'll go with the Pentagon--nobody knows yet.

As Rickmanx has pointed out on a separate thread, our entire justification for this war is based on lies and fabricated evidence. Our original intentions are still just as shady as ever -- despite whatever noble intentions we may convey -- and it seems to have always been our intention to have as short a war as possible.

As far as the Scuds go, I have seen where the Iraqi government has supposedly admitted 2 Scuds launched at Kuwait (presumably the last 2 Scuds unaccounted for by the UN). Scuds were banned because of their range of over 93 miles, but I would note however that they don't support our claims of WMDs -- our justification that Iraq is a "threat to America and the world."

And in regards to the oil well fires, the reports I have heard don't seem sure that the fires were set intentionally, but may rather have been accidentally sparked by combat exchanges. Best I've been able to pick up, the consultants to the news agencies feel that were they set intentionally, they would be in much worse condition than they are.

Something else I've heard on the reports of the missile attacks on Kuwait (military installations, not civilian locations) is that one or two of the missiles (out of six) fell apart in midair of their own accord. For all those people waiting to have some secret nuclear reactor pop up or some incredible arsenal of chemical and biological weapons to turn up, I would question these expectations when the government hasn't been able to even properly maintain their arsenal of missiles.

But, the argument can go both ways and only time will tell. I do hope there aren't such weapons to be used against our troops, but I also seriously doubt there are.