@DCGoldPants Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Aren't those WMD? Were they allowed to have those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Shhhhh. There's still people that believe Saddam was complying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 One of the Iraqi Officials made a statement 'We don't have any Scuds. And I don't know how many of them we fired'. Un-huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 you're right. A world of dumb people. speaking of dumb people. Admin's, can you change "Could" to "Couldn't" in my title? I'm dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Bill Kristol (TWS Editor) was on a local radio show this morning and said he had heard they might have been Al-Samuds (sp?), which Iraq is allowed to have. I haven't heard anyone else mentioning this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 When did anyone say Iraq couldn't have scud's???? I didn't realize that a Scud was a WMD, I thought it was a conventional missle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Part of the cease fire agreement after the 1st gulf war was that he destroy all scuds. They have a range above the allowed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 First of all, the Al-Samoud's were manufactured with engine specifications/range capabilities that were in VIOLATION of UN standards (the UN themselves stated this to be a fact). Thats why they were being destroyed. The term WMD is a generic term that can be applied to almost anything that can cause mass casualties or be used to 'strike terror' in the general populace. While I wouldn't put a SCUD in that category necessarily, if they are carrying chem or bio agents (which they are capable of carrying), then they fit the criteria). In other words, I think it is more the intent and how a weapon is used that defines it as a WMD, not the weapon's system itself. Thats just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Part of the cease fire agreement after the 1st gulf war was that he destroy all scuds. They have a range above the allowed limit. Thanks for the clarification..... So it's not a WMD, but it was banned by the UN... That makes sense. (no sarcasm intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.