# 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:** 9
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/161 "2003-03-21T19:51:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > > 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. I _have_ read them, and I believe they’re open to different interpretations, with no defining terminology on what is “legal” vs. “illegal.” Frankly, I think a strong argument can be made either way. Hence my point to you: It’s wrong to simply say this war is illegal, as you did. There’s no definitive proof of that. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/162 "2003-03-21T19:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > \*\*I _have_ read them, and I believe they’re open to different interpretations, with no defining terminology on what is “legal” vs. “illegal.” Frankly, I think a strong argument can be made either way. Hence my point to you: It’s wrong to simply say this war is illegal, as you did. There’s no definitive proof of that. \*\* Wow. Way to sit on the fence there. What, haven’t you the courage to try _your own_ interpretation? OK then. Simple task. Point out to me the part of 678, 687, or any other resolution, where it states that “material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678,” as argued by the US and UK. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/163 "2003-03-21T20:07:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\*Wow. Way to sit on the fence there. What, haven’t you the courage to try _your own_ interpretation? How about this: An action is either legal or illegal based on the existing laws. “Interpretation” doesn’t enter into it. If you have to interpret, the law isn’t written plainly enough. And no matter how many times you say something is “illegal,” it doesn’t automatically make it so. I’ll ask again: Are you saying that if something is illegal, it’s also unjustifiable? ---
**Author:** ![Model-Shipwright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@Model-Shipwright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Model-Shipwright)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/164 "2003-03-21T20:33:05Z")
> [@](#): > > What I do have trouble with, and what the plurality of anti-war protestors have trouble with, is the idea that Saddam’s very posession of these weapons is enough to switch from a policy of containment to an all out invasion. Why is the fact that he has some of these weapons tantamount to the virtual certainty that he’ll ever use them? Oh, I’m sorry, he’s just a collector. My misunderstanding. I didn’t realize that there was a club out there for this. How can get in on this? Is there a WMD of the month club I can sign up for? > [@](#): > > I don’t think the intelligence community should hide evidence of any smoking guns from the public, especially when such evidence would bolster public opinion for the war around the world and would not in any way constitute a breach of national security. Luckily, you aren’t a member of the intelligence community. I shudder to think what you might constitute ‘fit for public consumption’. The fact of the matter is YOU DON’T KNOW WHY YOU HAVEN’T BEEN TOLD OR SHOWN YET, SO YOU ARE JUST JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AND AMMASSING SPECULATION, DEMONSTRATING YOUR IGNORANCE. > [@](#): > > Well, thank you for taking the trouble to stain this board with your Right wing hystrionics to even the balance. You’re welcome, although I don’t do it for you. I do it for those that are to frightened to post for fear that they’ll get hammered by the likes of blowhards such as yourself. > [@](#): > > Quite a damning indictment coming from someone who seems to support a full scale information black out in the interests of the one true great non defineable: National Security. I never said that I support a full scale blackout. I merely am suggesting that you should think before you jump to conclusions. Perhaps there are reasons you aren’t given all of the information and your limited mental grappling has left you unable to come up with a satisfactory one, or one that keeps you from fuming ignorant posts. > [@](#): > > Assuming you’re affiliated with the intelligence community in some way, I would appreciate a clear and detailed explanation of your rationale for keeping the American people in the dark. I am filled to the fucking brim with disgust for the way the American Government has tried to spin this war using ignorance as a tool for its own advantage. Justify it. Where is it written that the government must supply you with the details of its war actions? Where is it written that you should be privy to the machinations of all of our efforts to secure this country from the potential harm of outside influences. Can’t you understand that your knowing may very well aide in placeing this country in harm’s way? You will get the information that you need when it is ‘safe’ for you to have it. Your crying and whining will not change that. This is the way that it has been done for many years. Why would you think we are going to change our policies NOW for your piece of mind??? I’m sorry, I cannot make it any clearer to you than that. You are in capable hands. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/165 "2003-03-21T20:36:18Z")
wring - > [@](#): > > \*\*see, he’s still claiming it. So, while you would like to re-direct the thread, as long as the OP is coming back again and insisting that the missles themselves are “WOMD”, we’ll still have to answer that. \*\* Gee, what I thought I did was say that several sites who follow that sort of thing, including the CIA, under the heading of “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,” list Scud missiles. If you’ve got a problem with that, I’d suggest contacting them. A link that was provided here earlier offers the following information (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates “to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) **and their related technology**. . .” The only reason I continue to respond to this point was the curious assertion by many here that the idea that Scuds would be listed as a WMD is patently ridiculous. There is some question about it, but to state that they are absolutely not considered WMD, I’d have to ask for a cite as to what you are basing such an assertion upon. I didn’t consult my legal and diplomatic teams before titling my thread in the BBQ Pit of the SDMB, OK? If it makes you feel better, please consider the new title of the thread as “Iraq is using those banned weapons it says it doesn’t have on our troops.” The point is exactly the same. Nations such as France said that inspections should continue, because they were working. Remember? Resolution 1441 called for “full” and “immediate” disarmament of Iraq’s WMD - and, if it makes some of you feel better to list it in a separate clause, banned ballistic missiles such as Scud and (it was later determined) al-Samoud missiles. That those weapons are now being used by Iraq is a rather good indicator that what was asked of Iraq under 1441 was not indeed occurring under the weapons inspection regime, now innit? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/166 "2003-03-21T20:54:46Z")
**Milo** you are so good at not admitting you’re wrong. Even your own cites suggest that the **delivery** system itself isn’t a WOMD. So, instead of simply stating ‘ok, I overstated, and what’s clear is that SH lied about the scuds, therefore it’s foolish to assume he isn’t lying about the other stuff’, you keep hammering at this ‘well, if you look at it upside down and inside out I could be considered less erroneous than not’. and, the bottom line to me is different than to you anyhow - you (and your buds) keep quoting ‘immediate and total disarmament’ as your mantra, and I understand your need to do so. I agree SH is a bad guy. I don’t agree that the best solution was for the US to invade their country. But, I found it enormously amusing that you kept insisting that your interpretation of the article in the OP was correct. thanks, really, I’ve needed the humor. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/167 "2003-03-21T21:07:55Z")
The assertion is based upon common sense. The presence of chemical or biological agents in the warhead of the scud is what makes it a WMD. If they are not present it is considered a convential weapon. Why is that so difficult to grasp? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/168 "2003-03-21T22:28:00Z")
I think I used a period in a place where I need to use a comma. Or wait, maybe it was a comma where a semicolon was supposed to go. Have at it, liberals! ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/169 "2003-03-21T22:33:18Z")
Hmmm… Again, I’m pretty sure we use the NBC for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons… Pretty sure Weapon of Mass Destruction was coined after the first Gulf War refering to weapons with no other purpose than the mass destruction of civilian populations, which is the only purpose of SCUD missile… You see, its a weapon, it causes mass destruction, how is this hard to understand? ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/170 "2003-03-21T22:37:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kitfox \* > \*\*Hmmm… > > Again, I’m pretty sure we use the NBC for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons… > > Pretty sure Weapon of Mass Destruction was coined after the first Gulf War refering to weapons with no other purpose than the mass destruction of civilian populations, which is the only purpose of SCUD missile… > > You see, its a weapon, it causes mass destruction, how is this hard to understand? \*\* Are you for real? A conventionally armed scud, does not destroy a civilian population. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/171 "2003-03-21T22:52:25Z")
It’s funny how **Milossarian** criticizes those who disagree with him as clutching at straws. The entire OP and subsequent defence of it, followed finally by a partial non-retraction retraction, rings soundly of “See? See? We _toldja_ so!” He sets up a strawman of unheard-of proportions, then is surprised (“stunned,” as I believe he said) when it burns to the ground. Shameful. Let’s hope this isn’t representative of how “evidence” of WMD is developed as the war progresses. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/172 "2003-03-21T22:58:42Z")
Y’know, it might be a good idea to suspend activity in this thread until there is **factual** information regarding the use of SCUDs or Al-Samoud missiles. While Kuwait labelled the missiles SCUDs, the Pentagon identified them as short-range Ababil (with one Seersucker) missiles: > [@](#): > > The missile that hit outside Camp Commando was a Soviet-era CSSC-3 anti-ship cruise missile, known as a Seersucker, fired from Um Qasr in southern Iraq. Because the slow-moving missile is designed for use over water, its effectiveness in the air is limited. Military officials said the later attacks were Ababil missiles fired from near the southern Iraqi city of Basra. [http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5441430.htm](http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5441430.htm) I have also heard a radio report (that I cannot yet find on the internet) that Israeli analysts have said that no missile yet fired by Iraq was either a SCUD or an Al-Samoud. (I, myself, generally would accept Israeli military opinion over Kuwaiti military opinion.) I strongly suspect that most reporters are going to use “SCUD” for _any_ missile until corrected (just as most European news agencies refer to all small planes as "Cessna"s and U.S. news outlets used to call all small planes "Piper Cub"s). It’s going to have been a shame to have wasted all this heat and temper if it turns out that the Iraqis never even fired a banned missile. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/173 "2003-03-21T23:12:11Z")
By the way I don’t see this as hairsplitting semantics, more so a pretty important distinction to acknowledge. The ambiguous doublespeak and vague definitions that have been used to define WMD have at times made my eyes roll to the back of my head. Invading Iraq over some conventional scuds doesn’t look too good anyway. * * * On preview, as far as tempers and such, no it won’t **Tom** , as we can still establish some other facts in the meantime. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/174 "2003-03-21T23:15:28Z")
[http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,562275,00.html](http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,562275,00.html) > [@](#): > > A battle over whether a gun is a weapon of mass destruction could jeopardize an anti-terrorism bill in the Washington state legislature, the Seattle Times reported March 15. > \ > While the legislation doesn’t mention specific weapons, it defines a weapon of mass destruction as a “device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths.” 😛 [sub](I’m so cute, aren’t I?)[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/175 "2003-03-21T23:39:11Z")
**Milo** , I’m going to share a bit of wisdom from my parents. Once is funny. Twice is stupid. Three times is a whipping. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/176 "2003-03-22T00:37:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _orignially posted by mhendo_ > \*\*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. \*\* To the extent “he” actually has one, ehh? Well, first, since I was explicitly laying out the U.S. POV in that thread, I’m glad I did such a good job. Second, since you seem to be outstanding at piecing together details but hopeless at grasping the big picture, I’ll point you to the exact portion of that thread which constitutes my thesis – to the extent I actually had one, of course. > [@](#): > > \*\*If the UN is ever going to have an real relevance, it is going to have to establish one iron-clad rule. “We don’t say much, but what we do say, you WILL listen to. Defy the Security Council at your peril.” \*\* The U.N. has been lousy at this, from their pathetic performance in Bosnia up to the present day. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/177 "2003-03-22T00:41:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*Are you for real? > > A conventionally armed scud, does not destroy a civilian population. \*\* How many people have to die ALL AT ONCE for you to justify the weapon that killed them as a weapon of mass destruction? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/178 "2003-03-22T01:04:01Z")
Milossarian, Do you agree that the _United States_ is using weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq war? And that it did so routinely in the first Gulf War? That’s where your logic leads. ---
**Author:** ![Mac\_Guffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mac\_Guffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mac_Guffin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/179 "2003-03-22T11:41:35Z")
**Boyo Jim** , the United Stares isn’t banned by the UN from having or using “WOMD”. Where is your logic leading? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/180 "2003-03-22T12:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by particlewill \* > \*\ ***Boyo Jim** , the United Stares isn’t banned by the UN from having or using “WOMD”. Where is your logic leading? \*\* What a great load of crap. You are using the same logic as **Milossarian**. Justification at any cost. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=10)