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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
wring -
**
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 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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,562275,00.html
[sub](I’m so cute, aren’t I?)[/sub]
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
**
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.
**
The U.N. has been lousy at this, from their pathetic performance in Bosnia up to the present day.
How many people have to die ALL AT ONCE for you to justify the weapon that killed them as a weapon of mass destruction?
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.
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.