.

[Anonymous]

SCUD missles are banned per 1441.

and

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

maybe?

[Ronnie Raygun]

Yet I don't remember seeing any of the protesters chanting or waving signs condemning Saddam......

[Anonymous]

Protestors have no idea what they are even arguing about.
Check out Brain Terminal's NEW video

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articl...-protest2.html

[sspadowsky]

You two should mate.
________
Herbalaire

[Anonymous]

The politically right generally don't practice male/male mating, but you are more than welcome to enjoy it.

[sspadowsky]

The politically right also are known to repress homoerotic urges.

Really, the two of you make a cute couple. You can join the Log Cabin Society, adopt a bunch of foster kids and raise 'em to be pro-life Republicans.
________
Zoloft lawsuites

[Anonymous]

Your wit is superceded only by your rationale. Make love to me SSpadowsky.

[Anonymous]

"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile.

In Baghdad, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Al-Sahaf said he had heard a report that U.S. forces had downed a Scud. "But we don't have Scud missiles," he said. "

[Anonymous]

SCUDS are, however, banned per 1441.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Where'd you read this? I can't find it anywhere....

[ItalianStereotype]

it doesnt even matter if they are banned in 1441, they are banned under the original 687 at the cease fire from the first gulf war.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Newsmax didn't even mention this. You know I'm desperate when I'm reading Newsmax. Where do you newzies get your info????

[ItalianStereotype]

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chron...ologyframe.htm

[KevinTheOmnivore]

*sigh*

WHERE HAS IT BEEN REPORTED THAT SCUD MISSILES WERE FIRED LAST NIGHT?

[Anonymous]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=SCUD

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Other news agencies seem very aprehensive to say "SCUD," and Iraq has denied using them (that's not saying much, but...).

If it's true, then that was a stupid move, particularly if he was hoping to maintain international opposition to the invasion. Is it wrong? Yes. Does it justify what we're about to do? I don't know. Apparently, whether or SCUD or not, they haven't done much real damage (much like in 1991).

[Anonymous]

It's irrelevant. If there are SCUDs, they are in breach. That is my only argument.

[glowbelly]

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They were likewise technically in breach w/ the missiles that could go a little further, yet would be lucky if they ever touched Israeli soil.

There's relevant justification and desperate justification. We're attacking him on the MAIN premise, with all the other talk aside, that he is a theat to our security. The display of these missiles today, be them SCUD or not, is in fact proving how much he is NOT a threat to us.

[The_Rorschach]

Actually Kev, when Bush first started this, his purpose was "regime change" in Iraq, which legally morally or even technically, is not something we can dictate. Every motivation he has offered since then has pretty much been bullshit, meant to placate the more saavy motherfuckers paying attention to him. Thats neither here nor there.

WMD and illegal munitions have been the charges we brought to the UN to illustrate his violation of the post-Gulf accords. If these SCUD attacks are substantiated, it will show that the UN is. . . Well worthless, and in the wrong.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Actually Kev, when Bush first started this, his purpose was "regime change" in Iraq, which legally morally or even technically, is not something we can dictate. Every motivation he has offered since then has pretty much been bullshit, meant to placate the more saavy motherfuckers paying attention to him. Thats neither here nor there.

This was a part of the war on terrorism. Lets remember that....

WMD and illegal munitions have been the charges we brought to the UN to illustrate his violation of the post-Gulf accords. If these SCUD attacks are substantiated, it will show that the UN is. . . Well worthless, and in the wrong.

The UN isworthless after a few months of inspections? Was Saddam going to unload his arsenal of WMDs on Kuwait, Israel, and America WHILE inspectors and news media (not to mention heavy American and Israeli intelligence, I'm sure) were there? The UN inspections were not based on the premise that he didn't have illegal weapons, they were based on the premise that IF he has them, or the capabilities to make/get them, then he needs to divvy up and show us the stash, or when we find them, no cake after dinner. We have skipped that part, assumed the unproven, and gone to the scolding. This strikes me as wrong, sorry.

[The_Rorschach]

The UN isworthless after a few months of inspections?

Not quite Kev, credit me more than that. They are worthless because they lack the will to backup their main function. If they are supposed to broker peace between all nations, that must be willing to enforce that will. They have shown time and time again entirely too much temerity in restraining rogue states. Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Timor. . .The list goes on.

Was Saddam going to unload his arsenal of WMDs on Kuwait, Israel, and America WHILE inspectors and news media (not to mention
heavy American and Israeli intelligence, I'm sure) were there?

Maybe, like Israel, he was only keeping them to ensure his own security. Israel is the only country who, illegally and openly, manufactures neutron bombs. . .But the vital difference between the two, is that while Israel never signed the international accord saying they would neither create not use such weapons, Iraq has signed saying that it neither manufactures, possesses or intends to use certain weapons. And he has violated that.

The UN inspections were not based on the premise that he didn't have illegal weapons, they were based on the premise that IF he has them, or the capabilities to make/get them, then he needs to divvy up and show us the stash, or when we find them, no cake after dinner. We have skipped that part, assumed the unproven, and gone to the scolding. This strikes me as wrong, sorry.

Unless, and this is a stretch I know. Bush actually DID know what he was talking about, had proof, and the UN simply didn't buy it. While unlikely, it is possible given the world view of the US.

Well, Hawaii time, I'm in the middle of March Madness, and I have to meet some friends at Dave and Busters (one of the only bars open before noon with satellite) so I have to cut this short. I'll be back tonight though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Not quite Kev, credit me more than that. They are worthless because they lack the will to backup their main function. If they are supposed to broker peace between all nations, that must be willing to enforce that will. They have shown time and time again entirely too much temerity in restraining rogue states. Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Timor. . .The list goes on.

The UN has excelled in other areas, however. UNICEF is regarded as a fairly successful program, as is the W.H.O. The list of good things they've done ain't too bad, either.

I agree that when it comes to peace keeping and conflict resolution they have dropped the ball. But nobody said international diplomacy WAS easy. The fact of the matter is that the only way the UN can be effective is if they ditch the ugly blue hats and carry a big stick, IOW, form an army. The implications of THAT however are scarier for me then an inept UN (the black choppers! the black choppers!).

Maybe, like Israel, he was only keeping them to ensure his own security. Israel is the only country who, illegally and openly, manufactures neutron bombs. . .But the vital difference between the two, is that while Israel never signed the international accord saying they would neither create not use such weapons, Iraq has signed saying that it neither manufactures, possesses or intends to use certain weapons. And he has violated that.

I think your comment on Israel however proves just how absurd this sudden concern over the sanctity of international laws and agreements from the U.S. really is....

[ranxer]

the un is worthless to people with the bush mentality of you're with us or your a terrorist. as kevin stated in so many words saddam was not a threat because of the UN and becoming less so.. those that boil this down to simple statements like the UN is worthless because of x are often not worth argueing with. i think they are the ones that yell 'fuck you' out the window at us anti-war people. haha too bad they don't see how many thumbs up we get

diplomacy like the UN requires should be participated with not dictated to.

Bush's costly blunderous madness has challenged all sane people to remain sane in the face of so much insanity.

IF he doesnt go through with shock and awe some will have more on a case for bush's sanity, if he does go with shock and awe there's no chance for the bush regimes defense if you ask me.

Yet I don't remember seeing any of the protesters chanting or waving signs condemning Saddam......

it really sucks that i think our president is such an idiot that i can't go along with most of what he's ever said, so on the face of it i'm balking at attacking saddam for the suspicion that im going along with a fool
gotta say, THANKS George Bush, thanks for making saddam look better than he is to much of the world! damn, the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes!

[Anonymous]

You know, I'm just curious...what does more damage, a SCUD, or that house-sized bomb we just finished building?