# Iraq is launching those weapons of mass destruction it doesn't have at our soldiers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798 "2003-03-20T13:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/141 "2003-03-21T14:39:40Z")
**mhendo** , if you’re still hanging around this thread, I posted a question on the legality of this war in GQ. Here’s the [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171287); other threads in Great Debates have covered this, and they’re linked within my thread. The upshot is, the legality of this war is extremely debatable. To simply claim that it is “illegal” is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/142 "2003-03-21T15:30:58Z")
So I pack a dirty bomb in a van, now a van is a WMD? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/143 "2003-03-21T15:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > **"sh** o\*\*t" goddammit. (but it is a funny typo at least) \*\* 😛 How did you do that? A and O are on opposite sides of the keyboard. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/144 "2003-03-21T15:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*So I pack a dirty bomb in a van, now a van is a WMD? \*\* If it gets more than 150km per gallon. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/145 "2003-03-21T15:50:56Z")
Milo, no one denied that he had Al-samoud missiles, as he was open about them and the inspectorate were destroying them. However, unless there is NBC’s in the warhead, it is not a WoMD. ---
**Author:** ![Tomcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Tomcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomcat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/146 "2003-03-21T15:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\*If it gets more than 150km per gallon. \*\* Thanks! I needed a good funny right now! -Tcat ---
**Author:** ![Kitfox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f6c823/32.png) [@Kitfox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kitfox)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/147 "2003-03-21T16:07:03Z")
wasn’t WoMD coined after the 1st Gulf War refering specifically to weapons that had little/no military value, such as Tactical Balistic Missiles? I mean, the only use for these things is to fling them in the general direction of a city and hope it hits. Not nearly accurate enough to hit a military BASE, much less a unit… ---
**Author:** ![Tomcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Tomcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomcat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/148 "2003-03-21T16:57:28Z")
Hold the presses! Iraq admits to firing[SCUDS!](http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084324,00.html) Oh, yeah, this is only an online news source. We must wait until a team of UN approved scientists and ex-military personnel actually determine that these missles are, in fact, SCUDS…Otherwise asshats here will deny the credibility of the source. You know, not only must you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you must prove beyond their prejudices of Saddam’s innocence… -Tcat ---
**Author:** ![Reuben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@Reuben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reuben)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/149 "2003-03-21T17:13:18Z")
\*:: reads _ **Ben Hicks** _’ post :: :: salutes :: :: applauds ::\* ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/150 "2003-03-21T17:19:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\*If it gets more than 150km per gallon. \*\* No, that makes it illegal for him to possess, not a WMD. I’m sure you are aware that some of the things he has are illegal, yet they are not WMD. His ducttaped UAV for example. Furthermore, no one is disputing the legality of him having scuds. A scud with a conventioal warhead is not a WMD. Please don’t waste our time trying to prove otherwise. Yes we know if it goes further then 150km it is illegal, that has nothing to do with shit. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/151 "2003-03-21T17:20:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tomcat \* > \*\*Hold the presses! Iraq admits to firing[SCUDS!](http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084324,00.html) -Tcat \*\* Not in that article, they don’t; they simply admit to the attack. Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? I won’t be at all surprise if Iraq proves to have, and to use, SCUDs. But I know the difference between proof and conjecture. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/152 "2003-03-21T17:39:23Z")
Actually, here’s something else from the Monterrey Institute for International Studies about definitions of WMDs, saying that the definition varies: [http://www.nti.org/f\_wmd411/f1a1.html](http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/153 "2003-03-21T17:44:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*No, that makes it illegal for him to possess, not a WMD. > > I’m sure you are aware that some of the things he has are illegal, yet they are not WMD. His ducttaped UAV for example. Furthermore, no one is disputing the legality of him having scuds. > > A scud with a conventioal warhead is not a WMD. Please don’t waste our time trying to prove otherwise. > > Yes we know if it goes further then 150km it is illegal, that has nothing to do with shit. > > Thank you. \*\* Has all of your fervor crowded out your sense of humor? Read my post again. Read **Tomcat** ’s response. Apply irony. Relax. ---
**Author:** ![Tomcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Tomcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomcat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/154 "2003-03-21T17:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*Not in that article, they don’t; they simply admit to the attack. Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? > > I won’t be at all surprise if Iraq proves to have, and to use, SCUDs. But I know the difference between proof and conjecture. > > Daniel \*\* I’m sorry, are we reading the same thing? “Iraq has admitted firing Scud missiles at US military bases in Kuwait.” -Tcat ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/155 "2003-03-21T17:49:02Z")
Actually that comment was funny as hell **Maeglin** , I forgot to mention that. I shouldn’t have really directed that response at you, I guess I was trying to be obviously clear for the sake of a few people. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/156 "2003-03-21T17:50:48Z")
Fair enough. I just thought you came on a little strong. All clear now. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/157 "2003-03-21T17:53:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tomcat \* > \*\*I’m sorry, are we reading the same thing? > > “Iraq has admitted firing Scud missiles at US military bases in Kuwait.” > > -Tcat \*\* Apparently not. You’re reading the article’s title; I’m reading the text of it. Nowhere in the text is Iraq quoted as admitting to having SCUDs. The closest they come in that article is this: > [@](#): > > Iraq initially denied the report, saying it did not have any Scuds. > > It later said the attack was a “firm determination to teach the criminal invaders, hard lessons and make them taste bitter pain”. It’s possible the reporter failed to quote the part where they admitted the attack involved SCUDs. It’s possible they used SCUDs in the attack, even if they didn’t admit it. But this article doesn’t constitute proof. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Tomcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Tomcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomcat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/158 "2003-03-21T18:08:28Z")
OK, I’m quoting the first sentence above, not the headline. The headline says “Iraq Admits Scud Attack.” But, that is part of the irony of my original post on this. What constitues proof to you? Merely adding another quote? My take on this stems from the previous posts…I am convinced that there will be naysayers like **EasyPhil** who are already speculating that SH is innocent and the only WMD we will ‘find’ are the ones we plant. Yeah, it is so hard to believe that SH is actually a bad guy…no, he is simply misunderstood. If we would only take the time to really get to know him, we would find that he is quite sensible. :rolleyes: Those 17 resolutions were all products of simple misunderstandings. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I get your point, but I also hope you get mine. Take care- -Tcat ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/159 "2003-03-21T18:19:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > \*\ ***mhendo** , if you’re still hanging around this thread, I posted a question on the legality of this war in GQ. Here’s the [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171287); other threads in Great Debates have covered this, and they’re linked within my thread. The upshot is, the legality of this war is extremely debatable. To simply claim that it is “illegal” is wrong. \*\* No, the “upshot,” based on a reading of your thread and of the others, and of the links provided in each one, is that a few self-interested Americans and Britons are arguing that they have legal justification for this action, while the vast majority of specialists in international law argue that they don’t. And basically every argument for legality is based on a reading of 678 and 687 that would make a literary theorist weep with joy. Those seeking to justify an attack have attributed to resolutions 678 and 687 actions and authorities that are not specifically stated in the resolutions themselves. For example, a key argument used by the British Attorney General, and outlined in [this BBC article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm), is that: > [@](#): > > 1. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. > > Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678. > > 1. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678. Well, nowhere in [687](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement) does it actually say this; it seems to be little more than wishful thinking on the part of the belligerent powers. Now, many war supporters have said that Iraq’s continued refusal to disarm constitutes a direct threat to “peace and security in the region,” and that this gives the US the right to act alone under the auspices of 678 and 687. But firstly, 687 granted Iraq a formal cease-fire > [@](#): > > upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and the Security Council of the acceptance of the above provisions. Iraq gave such notification, and was thus grantd a cease-fire. What never gets repeated by the supporters of invasion is the next (and last) paragraph of 678, which says: > [@](#): > > 1. _Decides_ to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and securty in the region. In this paragraph, it is the _Security Council_, not the United States acting alone or with friends, that decides to “remain seized of the matter,” and thus it is the Security Council that needs to give authorization for any action occurring in response to a violation of 678. Similarly, UNSCR 1441, which warns Iraq that it will “face serious consequences” if it remains in breach of its obligations, does NOT grant individual member states like the US the right to determine what those “serious consequences” are, when they will happen, and who will carry them out. This is a Security Council resolution, and the Security Council should be the body that determines the consequences of violation, not a rogue state like the US. In the thread you started, and the others, many of the arguments made by Dopers consist of little more than assertions backed by no evidence whatsoever. One of the few attempts to really address the UN Charter was made by **brianmelendez** , who made exactly the same post in two different threads. He calls the idea that a US invasion would violate the Charter a “red herring,” but then proceeds to offer the biggest red herring (more like a red whale) in support of his argument. That is, he offers the opinion that the US attack is not a violation of the UN Charter, because: > [@](#): > > if the Security Council does not act, then the last article of chapter VII–article 51–provides for the Member State’s right of self-defense. But the closest he can get to demonstrating that a US attack would qualify as “self-defense” is the tired and unproven connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. > [@](#): > > If there is a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, then an “armed attack” has already occurred. If this is the best argument he has for the US attack being justified under the UN Charter, then he’s not even worth debating. But he’s still not done. As an addition, he makes an asinine comment about the US being justified if the Security Council is “paralysed.” What the fuck does that mean? The Security Council was never paralysed; it just happened that some of the members didn’t agree with the US position on something. A more self-serving argument i haven’t heard in a long time. And he finished off by saying that, hey, even if all this is wrong, > [@](#): > > then **Truth Seeker** ’s point makes a lot of sense. Well, **Truth Seeker** ’s point, as far as he actually had one, was little more than the old US argument, which is trotted out whenever the UN disagrees with a US position on any issue, that the UN is becoming irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Time and time again, it is the U.S. that has forced the U.N. to get off its duff and actually do something. Time and time again, it is the U.S. that inevitably is forced to actually do the lion’s share of the work once the U.N. does get off its duff. This problem partially underlies the U.S. resistance to a war crimes tribunal. The U.S. believes, that the rules might be somewhat different if every signatory to the treaty genuinely believed they might someday be called to account under it. > > “I can call spirits from the vasty deep!” “So can I. So can any man. But will they come for you when you do call for them?” The U.N. can issue lofty denunciation after lofty denunciation from its high moral ground. But if the U.N. is never willing back up what it says, with steel, if need be, they’re a waste of good New York real estate. The spirits only come when you call if they know you’re willing to get right down in the vasty deep and haul their asses out if they don’t. Funny how, for people like this, the UN is never irrelevant when it agrees with what the US wants to do; only when it opposes a US position. **Brianmelendez** also claims, very conveniently, that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is nothing more than a “guideline” that really has no binding force on member nations. Well, as **Estilicon** points out in that thread: > [@](#): > > In a treaty or in a code all articles are imperative. I didn’t find anything in the chart that says that article 2(4) is a guideline. Then, in response to **Estilicon** ’s post, **BlackClaw** makes the argument: > [@](#): > > The US can simply invoke right to self-defense clause and attack Iraq. Whether that excuse is viable or not is irrelevant as the US can veto any meaningful act of censure against itself. In practical terms, no permanent member of the Security Council is really restricted by the UN charter. So, here we have the nub of the argument being put forward by those who support the war: the US might be violating the UN Charter, and its “self-defense” excuse might be a load of crap, but because of its veto power in the UNSC it can flout the UN’s rules with impunity. At least this argument has the benefit of honesty, unlike those that twist and torture the language of Security Council resolutions to fit preconceived notions of what the US and its allies want to do. And in conclusion, **Sauron** , instead of just linking to what other Dopers have said on the issue, why don’t you read [678](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/28/IMG/NR057528.pdf?OpenElement), [687](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement), and [1441](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) yourself and make up your own mind. The language of these resolutions is a little dull, but it’s not particularly difficult to understand. I’d be interested to hear your opinions on them. We might still disagree, but at least it would be on the basis of first-hand information. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/160 "2003-03-21T19:21:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tomcat \* > \*\*OK, I’m quoting the first sentence above, not the headline. The headline says “Iraq Admits Scud Attack.” > > But, that is part of the irony of my original post on this. What constitues proof to you? Merely adding another quote? \*\* Yes, actually. I’m assuming that, if Iraq admitted to a Scud attack, they did so using words, not via interpretive dance. Why, then, does this article not tell us the words Iraq used when they admitted to a Scud attack? It’s possible that the reporter left those words out. But as it stands, this article doesn’t prove anything. Although its first sentence reiterates the headline, the sentence is an assertion unsupported by the rest of the article. The debate is also in part over whether Iraq has WMDs in usable form. Robin Cook, if I understood his resignation speech, denied that the UK ever received evidence that Iraq had usable WMDs. If Iraq only has WMDs in unusable forms, leftovers from its previous wars, that’s very significant: Iraq has admitted as much. I don’t think Hussein’s a good guy. I do think that this war is going to have more negative repercussions than positive ones. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=9)