Freedom juice 
Too funny. My first genuine laugh of the day 
SauronNo, the guy is saying that, even if they did in the amounts claimed (never mind the undermining of the credibility of Powell’s presented evidence), it wouldn’t constitute a threat to the US. Bush’s rationale has constantly shifted from “imminent threat” to “UN credibility”, with a few stops along the way. He seems to be holding Bush to backing up what he means - which is most likely his first statements, not the results of the marketing program that followed. For any more details on Cato’s meaning, I’ll have to refer you to Cato.
Now why would you, or anyone else, think that the proper people to decide the meaning and consequences of a UN resolution would be anyone but the UN? Bush’s proposed interpretation failed there, and not just because of France, despite the hate campaign underway against them here, which does not include Russia or China or Mexico or Canada. You asked why they’d do so - perhaps because the inspections were working, and, if they failed, a war could then be declared with the civilized world behind it? Perhaps they thought, based on Blix’s reports, that such weapons may have existed but could not be in quantities that represent a real threat? Perhaps because they thought world peace would be worsened, not improved, by Bush’s war and lack of rebuilding followup? Perhaps to preserve the UN’s credibility as an instrument of peace? Perhaps they’re right? Better ask them. But it’s still their call, not ours, except to the extent that we’re one of the members with a right to try to convince the others and a responsibility to listen to them in return.
I have no backup information on your other item, but do you? Cites are the responsibility of the citer, of course. I do know that “common knowledge” is very often factually wrong, though - and when no broader pattern of behavior supports an allegation, and no plausible motive can be articulated, such statements in fact are generally wrong. That seems to be the case here as well.
Diogenes:
**
I’ve provided my links that indicate that Scud missiles (and longer-range ballistic missiles in general) are weapons of mass destruction, in at least a good many people’s eyes.
The only one who disputes this assertion who has put up cites thusfar has put up cites that don’t necessarily refute it, only make it a clause with “and.”
A google search on “scud” “weapons” “mass” and “destruction” provides 27,100 hits.
In the links I provided, the ones Orbifold said don’t support my assertion, under the heading of “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq”, at both sites, are listed Scud missiles, and longer-range ballistic missiles in general. One in a list form, the second in an anecdote about Scuds. Its there for anybody who wants to to click and read.
I’ll be happy to dig through the 27,100 Google hits to find sites that satisfy you better, Orbifold.
I’d be interested in what Jane’s had to say, but it requires a paid subscription.
And I stand by my statement that those here and elsewhere who said for months that there was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq (and banned, UN-proscribed ballistic missiles, if it makes you feel better if I set it off in a separate clause) look pretty stupid at the moment.
This is of interest to me, because it was typically the same people who say failed diplomacy is what got us to this point. Without acknowledging that diplomacy failed because certain countries, especially France, looked at literally tons of irrefutable evidence of WMD programs, Iraqi lies and deliberate non-compliance, then said they would veto any call for military force, under any circumstances. Then said more inspections, because inspections are working. As the inspectors themselves acknowledged that little substantive headway had been made in months of inspections.
Fucking lunacy.
**
Well,we’ll burn that chemical when we get to it, won’t we? By at least one definition, the point is moot, before the first full day of the war is over.
UN-proscribed ballistic missiles
Can I see this missles on the UN website? Do they have an secure server where I can purchase some?
From the CIA, under the heading of “Key Judgements: Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs” (bolding mine):
And on and on it goes at this site. The Central Intelligence Agency lists ballistic missiles among its evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs.
Happy now? If not, you’ll have to continue your Clintonesque semantics games on your own, while ignoring the larger point.
It’s bizarre to claim that SCUD missiles are WMDs. They’re violations of the UN Agreements, sure, but to call tehm WMDs is to dilute the term into meaninglessness. If SCUDS are WMDs, then surely the US missiles (superior in every way to Iraq’s) are also WMDs, and that means we’re using WMDs regularly in warfare, have made them the staple of our military attacks.
OTOH, if we keep a normal definition of the term – restricting the meaning to nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry – then the US is not using them, and the US stance against WMDs is tenable.
I love how the OP suggests that antiwar folks are going to shift around their arguments based on the new news, and then proceeds to redefine WMDs in order to include SCUDs (which may or may not have been fired). Irony so thick you can cut with a knife.
Daniel
ElvisL1ves, I was just asking for information. Your interpretations as to my motives are incorrect. As I indicated, I have no cite for the reporter’s comment; since you had information from the Cato Institute readily available, I thought you might know what the reporter was talking about.
My apologies if I offended you in any way.
Sorry, Sauron, it doesn’t work like that. As Who_Me pointed out
Your comment about nation-states being able to do anything they want is simply asinine, and demonstrates a level of ignorance that you’d do well to corrrect before you vomit any more shit. This invasion is a clear violation of the UN Charter, to which the United States and every other involved nation is a signatory.
Your argument regarding “tacit approval” and “de facto agreement” also demonstrates a large helping of head-up-your-assedness. Even if France chooses to join the attack, this does not make it a legal action. For it to be a legal action under the terms of the UN Charter, it has to be done either as a direct act of self-defence (NOT the type of pre-emptive strike that is currently being undertaken), or after a vote and approval by the UN Security Council. Such approval has not been granted.
Even if the reason for France, Germany, Russia, etc. not supporting US action was lack of evidence regarding WMD (actually, it seems to me that the reasons were somewhat more complex than that), this does not mean that the discovery of WMD automatically brings into existence UN Security Council approval. This would require a meeting of the UNSC, and a vote on action, which could still be vetoed by any of the permanent members. This war is illegal, and the sudden discovery of WMDs sometime in the future (if it happens) will not change that.
Also, the United States bears much of the blame for any banned weapons, like SCUDs, that Iraq did keep. At the same time that Blix and the other weapons inspectors were beginning to see progress in Iraqi disarmament and destruction of missiles, the US decided to camp planes, ships, weaponry and thousands of troops right on the Iraqi doorstep. If i had the neighbourhood bully waiting outside my house with a gun with the obvious intention of using it, i’d be pretty reluctant to give up my only means of self-defence. Especially when the “police” (in this case the UN) showed no signs of doing anything to stop the bully from marching onto my property.
And for un-confirmed rumours:
Czech TV briefly mentioned a “small Cessna-type airplane, possibly a CROP DUSTER” was shot down while crossing into Kuwait…
I saw something similar mentioned on CNN in the middle of a report, but now can’t find it. All that report said was a “Small plane”
I’m frustrated now cuz I can’t seem to find any reports on it.
Anywho…carry on.
-Tcat
Get this in your head.
SCUDS ARE ONLY A DELIVERY SYSTEM, NOT A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Thank you.
Aah! Finally! Fox News has a snippet:
“The defense official also said a small plane headed from Iraq toward a Marine expeditionary force position in Kuwait crashed short of its mark. The Marines donned gas masks because of fears that the plane could have been carrying chemical weapons, the official said. No agents were detected”
But not necessarily a crop duster…
-Tcat
Great information! I’m forwarding that link over to the Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector so they he can be ashamed at how incompetent he was. 
According to this article in Haaretz, “Missiles Iraq fired at U.S. troops in Kuwait were not Scuds”, rather they were “FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) missiles - or something similar - which have a maximum range of 70 kilometers.”
Perhaps they were poisonous FROGs of mass destruction.
Regarding your quote.
The CIA can hardly be cited as credible sources. They have in the last 4 months produced false evidence, manipulated facts and taken them out of context, lied, and lied.
It seems strange that that you are arguing for the US position, and use US intelligent agency as a support of your argument. There is nothing new here. Your argument is based on: Because they said so.
Having said that, I have yet to see evidence that these missiles were SCUD. It’s not enough for me that they say so.
The missiles in question are probably the al-Samoud, which has a permitted range of 150 KM. These are the missiles that Hans Blix declared to be in violation of the limits set by the security council because the al-Samoud II appears to have a range of 180 KM.
Speaking of straw men, I seem to recall some of you war hawks cawing about that one: "Oooooooh, the Iraqis have missiles that can go nineteen miles farther than they are allowed! See, we told you so!
And yes, the Pentagon has now recanted on the initial SCUD reports. There is no indication that the missiles were launched from a distance greater than 150 KM.
I’ll tell you what: the Allied forces in Kuwait are going to advance against Iraqi forces under the command of none other than Chemical Ali. If anyone is going to use WMDs in this war, it is going to be General Ali Hassan al-Majid, who used chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Shiites–fifteen years ago.
Conversely, if Chemical Ali doesn’t use WMDs in the next few days, the bullshit pointer seems to spin straight back to you, Milo. You might want to consider that before you continue your crowing.
If he has a huge stockpile of them, wises up, surrenders himself without using them then it is bullshit that Iraq has prohibited weapons? I would expect many of the Iraqi commanders to not use the weapons regardless of whether they have them. I think it is pretty clear what might happen to anyone who uses them.
Really? That’s exactly how it’s working right now.
You might want to check into a little thing called “World War II.” Germany and Japan did some bad stuff back then. Did they have the moral right to do it? No. As nation-states, they acted in their own self-interest, which any nation has the right to do. They were wrong in doing it, and other nation-states had the right to pound them into limburger as a result.
I’m not saying it would be a legal action under the UN charter, you imbecile. I’m saying that if WMDs are discovered and/or used, the primary reason for the Security Council’s objection to the war has been eliminated.
The reasons were not more complex than that. Not according to Putin, and the French official quoted yesterday (I forget his name) who said that France would fight if WMDs were used. Try to keep up.
I never said it created automatic UNSC approval. You might want to look up the definition of the word “tacit;” it’s not synonymous with “automatic.” If Russia and France are saying “We’ll fight if WMDs are used” and “The attack was wrong because concrete evidence of the existence of WMDs hasn’t been provided”, the implication is that attacking is right if WMDs are used or their existence is proven.
I don’t know international law well enough to debate you on that. Failure to get Security Council approval before attacking equals illegal? Possibly so. I don’t know.
This is asinine to the point of idiocy. It’s okay for Iraq to keep banned weapons that it agreed to give up because the U.S. is patrolling areas that it said it would patrol as a result of the initial UN agreement? Amazing.
You do realize it’s been 13 years since Iraq agreed to the UN demands, right?
You believe the war is illegal and/or unjustified. Fine. You may very well be right, a point I have made in this thread. (Really! Go back and look!) You may also be wrong, a position which apparently frightens you, since you attacked me without provocation. You little George Bush, you.
so Milo, with several links provided assertaining that the missiles weren’t scuds, what do you reckon?
It’s so…interesting to be accused of “Clintonesque semantic games” for standing by a commonly accepted definition. One which, as DanielWithrow pointed out, even the U.S. administration has good reason to agree with. (What was the range of those cruise missiles?)
Yes, as in “weapons of mass distruction and long-range missles are two separate things”. If the UN had thought long-range missiles so obviously fell under the category of WMD’s, why did they make the distinction?
I did read them. Your CIA citation too. And I was entirely unconvinced that any of the organizations involved thought that long-range missiles by themselves are weapons of mass destruction. There’s a perfectly fucking obvious reason to talk about Scuds and WMD’s on the same page: because Scuds are a potential delivery system for WMD’s, not to mention proscribed separately under UN resolutions.
I’m not even going to go into your “proof by Google hits”.
Let me repeat this, slowly: this morning’s attack told us nothing that we didn’t already know. The freakin’ Pentagon won’t even confirm that they were Scuds at all! And we already knew that Saddam had proscribed long-range missiles anyway. They paraded them on TV, remember, when they bulldozed a few Al-Samouds?
And the attack did not provide any new evidence that Saddam has NBC weapons, which is the real fact that some posters have been contesting. And you accuse me of semantic games?
According to Sauron, any nation has the right to act in their own self interest, including invasion of another country, or just about anything. Now what if Germany, France and Russia decided it was time to “Decapitate” the American regime? No credible explanation, just in their self interest.
Or just maybe some “nation-states” have more right to act in its self interest than others.
I guess some pigs really ARE more equal than others.