www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59929-2003Mar20.html
Man, do some of you look stupid right now.
Others of you, of course, will quickly shift from “there’s no definative proof Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” to “well, they never would have used them had we not invaded.”
:rolleyes:
On the Today show about an hour ago, Norman Schwartzcoff (sp) stated that the weapon fired showed no signs of chemical/biological weapons. this written account seems to confirm this. (noting that the soldiers were ordered to don protective gear was a precautionary tactic)
exaggerating the realities of this awful situation is hardly necessary.
From the article:
It is a proscribed weapon banned for Iraq by the UN Security Council. Iraq claimed it didn’t have any.
Ignoring your strawman for the moment, are you aware that the article you link to itself does not say the Scuds were tipped with anything other than conventional warheads?
From the article:
(Emphasis added.)
The fact that the Iraqis have Scuds at all is evidence they’ve lied to the UN, it seems, but a Scud with a conventional warhead is not a “weapon of mass destruction”.
Well, somebody looks stupid right now. Would it be those of us looking for definitive and specific evidence, or those of us taking as proof of “weapons of mass destruction” conflicting reports of one (or was it two) missile(s) characterized as Scud which either impacted in the Kuwaiti desert or was (were) shot down by a US Patriot system?
Heard on the BBC radio: confirmed conventional warheads. The suiting-up was precautionary.
:smack: Saddam lied. Wow. Big fucking deal.
How about keeping this thread going for a while so all the I told you so’s can stay in one place?
I’m against this bullshit war. I don’t think it has a lot to do with scuds and WOMD. It’s about power, regime change and arrogance.
On a tangential note, what actually qualifies as a WMD? I know a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon would simply due to the vast amout of death or destruction it might cause.
Could a Scud missile or a regular missile with an active warhead count? A Scud might not have the largest explosion or blast area but it certainly does damage. Is there some type of payload weight or destruction area that moves something from a weapon to a weapon of mass destruction?
and, Milo per your OP, your issue, as stated was “WOMD” not ‘it goes a farther than it’s supposed to’
(noting the irony that Sharon yesterday said he didn’t fear an attack from Iraq. when I last checked, Israel was a hell of a lot closer than the US)
If they could get one to* hit *anything, maybe…
Stems and seeds.
If this is the best Saddam’s got, he isn’t the badass threat we’ve been told he is.
Mullinator -
Scud missiles are listed as a proscribed, banned weapon by the U.N. Security Council.
They are also listed as a weapon of mass destruction by the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and the Center for Defense Information, among others.
Well, gee, Milo. Maybe the inspectors misunderstood him when he said that. Maybe he was coughing when they thought they heard the word “not”. After all, he’s a nice guy, and there’s no evidence that he has murdered anyone in the past hour.
Ordinary artillery or air bombing would be a WMD, under these definitions.
A SCUD is merely a delivery system, albeit one that has strategic reach.
One which his agreement with the UN precluded him from having. This is only further proof that Saddam is and was in material breach of UN resolutions. He agreed not to have missiles capable of more than a 150km range, and yet he has missiles capable of a 600km range. We know this because he just used some of them.
Whether or not it was a WMD, Hussein definitely had weapons he was forbidden to have, he definitely did not disclose that he retained these weapons, and anyone who said that the weapons inspectors would find nothing because there was nothing to find were apparently quite wrong. Those who said we put him in an impossible position were also wrong, as he could have disclosed those missiles to inspectors at any time.
Ok, so, was the U.S right or not about Saddam having WMD’s?
From the second link:
Note the use of the word “and”. The first link does not define “weapons of mass destruction”, it just lists nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and ballistic missle programs on the same page.
From UN Security council resolution 1441:
Again, note the “and” between “weapons of mass distruction” and “long-range missiles”.
Obviously people are concerned about long-range missiles because they can be used as the delivery system for WMD. Hence the furor over the Al-Samoud missiles.
But to claim that a Scud, with just a chemical warhead, is itself a WMD is just plain disingenuous, because the term as it is commonly used refers specifically to nuclear, chemical, and biological agents.
Not to mention that your OP claimed that certain posters would look “stupid” because of this “new evidence”, when it’s been known for weeks that Saddam had proscribed long-range missiles. Namely, the Al-Samoud. What posters have been denying is that there’s evidence Saddam has NBC weapons.
You had a chance here to flame Saddam Hussein for something he did do, Milo; namely, lying about having destroyed all the Scuds. It’s a pity you didn’t do that.
Well, crap. That should read “…a Scud, with just a conventional warhead…”, obviously.
Are we going to split hairs over the definition of the word “mass” next?
Saddam just proved he had weapons that he’s claimed for some time that he didn’t have, in violation of agreed-upon UN regulations. Given the man’s history, I think it’s safe to assume he’s lying about other stuff, as well.
Now, does this justify going to war? I dunno. It does seem to make Bush’s position a little more tenable than the ardent peaceniks would have one believe. But I’m still not convinced that a peaceful solution couldn’t have been found.
Now, if Saddam does use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the course of this war … I think some folks (and some nations) are going to owe Bush and the U.S. an apology.
Not to mention the fact that the /reason/ why WMD are such a hot topic is that they can be theoretically turned over to terrorists. What used to be a sarin-tipped artillery shell could become a sarin-“tipped” suitcase bomb.
Unless we’re really worried about someone waltzing into downtown newyork with a SCUD under their arm
(“My god is it noticable??!!!” “of course not!”) then the OP is just, as Orbifold suggested, a strawman.