Why dont you list the WMD that were found then, Im more interested in those that are 45mins away into hitting continental Europe, or infact causing massive casualties to Iraq’s neighbours (whom were not interested or felt threatened by this hoax threat to begin with).

And you believe the crap your discredited government spouts out their backsides.

Dont even get me started on this one, that was mild compared to what your past governments have done with Iran. Mostly they have acted for their oil interests.

I didnt realise how naive some people are. Why dont you think about it sherlock, because doing that in the First gulf war would look more like an occupation of oil fields than liberation of kuwait. Have you sat back and thought for a moment why your government got involved in the first place. It was because Saddam would of controlled the largest reserves of oil (Iraq + kuwait combined). Your leaders were quick to rush to make sure this didnt happen.

Why you bringing the WWII into this discussion, whats that have to do with anything? no one is bringing up french help in the civil war now are they?.

Im not trying to convince anyone to stop using oil, im just stating the obvious truth that American leaders for their thirst of oil will intervene in other foreign lands, kill and maim thousands directly/indirectly and then wonder why there are so many misguided folk after their blood.

You have not actually pointed anything out. All you have done is get rather emotional and read what you want to read, its sad but somewhat typical.

AYour referring to your long discussion with flex right?, that provided no proof that oil wasnt the primary motivator. Everything the US has done in the persian gulf has been mainly for oil. Just look back into your own history books, from Roosevelts meeting of the saudi’s in the 40’s to present day. Sorry I dont buy the notion that oil was not the main reason.

Dont buy it, just stay wrong. Not a shred of evidence to say that Iraq was invaded for oil. In fact if it was it would be a diversion from a very successful approach, the example you gave being perfect. Cooperation and behind the scenes meddling works fine, invasion does not.

How can it be proved factually, in a court intent/motivation provides a strong case for an argument. The US openly says its reasoning was for WMD but most of the world knows it was for securing oil. yes there are other reasons as well (promoting democrasy in the middle east ect) but they all are not important enough for war. The point being every non american is happy for america to do what she likes within her own borders, but when you wage phoney wars of WMD and terror that is when you can expect to be criticized.

Already been discussed several pages back, Iraq was not about oil as the primary motivator.

This kind of silly, oversimplistic generalisation doesn’t bring anything to the discussion. Or yes they do, they hint to the fact that you have no argument… either way it would be better for everyone if you just stopped with that dubious argument.

If you don’t someone will be forced to calculate the averge oil consumption per inhabitant related to the GDP of a country… I can’t be arsed for the moment

It brings far more to the discussion than you have.:p

“When the bear roars, all the pro-western forumlingers ****s their pants…”

Its freaking hilarious:dev2:

But on more serious note, is it Kh-65 that they are firing down there?

I am not entirely sure what you mean but nobody is scared by this.:rolleyes:

There is no evidence of Kh-65 having ever entered service, the missile in question could be Kh-15, Kh-55, Kh-555 or Kh-101.

It doesn’t need to say in red print that is have anti-ship capability.

You just have to get the seeker to lock the cam onto the carrier or other large vessel. What’s so insanely unbelievable about this? It might not be the most straightforward method of targeting, but who says it’s impossible?

You do not have a single source to suggest AShM capability just your own pointless attempts to save your already dead credibility. Tell us how a missile guided by TERCOM/DSMAC is going to engage an aircraft carrier at sea, something that you have yet to explain. Until you can provide any evidence this is just one of your fantasy weapons.

And before you yet again talk about the Kh-59 I should just point out something that you should know, (but you do not know anything about Russian missile systems as you have shown so many times) that the Kh-59MK as sold to China as an AShM uses an active radar seeker.

Why don’t you read more carefully, were it talks about that?

I have read them hundreds of times and they say nothing about the air luanched versions being in service.