"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical..
.warhead...to...make....it...a...WMD.
Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.

Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the
payload?

You must be having a bad hair day. Iraq was prohibited from having weapons
with a range of over 150 km as part of the ceasefire settlement--that was
NOT a universal prohibition against ANY nation possessing such weapons. Get
it? And by the way--Iraq violated that prohibition (see their Al Samoud
program), as the UN inspectors finally discovered on the very eve of the
commencement of OIF.


Or is it a double standard?

Nope. When you try and take over your neighboring nation as your "newest
province", and then get your clock cleaned and agree to a ceasefire with
terms, you open yourself to terms that do not apply to other nations that
did not act as you did. Iraq did exactly that--Yemen has not.


(Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD

No, again (sigh...). The ballistic missiles were indeed prohibited by the
terms of the ceasefire (UN Resolution 687)--that does not make them "WMD".
It is really quite simple to keep the two different items (WMD and ballistic
missiles) seperate if you think about it *real hard*. What is probably
tripping you up is the fact that Iraq *had* developed chemical and
biological warheads for their ballistic missiles, unlike the Yemenis who you
are so strangely fascinated with.


(Any other country with scuds with conventional warhead) =/= WMD

No, again. You are not the brightest apple in the basket, are you?

Brooks