The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome.

How do you know that there was no weapons payload?

Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for?
Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles,
or do you think they are fully armed WMD's?

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.


Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better
off?

I really don't know as to how it either negatively or positively affects the
region (being as the Syrians, Saudis, Israelis, and Iranians all already
have SRBM's of their own, I doubt it will have much of an effect either
way). They are certainly no threat to Israel whilst sitting in Yemen (look
at a map and calculate the range of those missiles in question). And they
are pretty lousy terroist weapons--kind of hard to smuggle one into range of
a target, then fuel it with those rather nasty fuels it requires...and even
if you could, with a conventional warhead you'd like as not do no damage
whatsovere to your intended target, since you'd most likely miss it by a
wide margin. FYI, Yemen has not been forbidden to possess SRBM's--unlike
Iraq was under 1441.

Why you brought up and are arguing this issue, especially given your obvious
complete unfamiliarity with the weapons you are discussing, is rather
baffling.

Brooks

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?

Or is it a double standard?

(Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD

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

"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

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

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


Because the 1991 cease-fire didn't permit Iraq to have them.



Or is it a double standard?


Nope.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

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


Because the 1991 cease-fire didn't permit Iraq to have them.

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they? If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he allowed
delivery to be completed?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they?


Iraq had just been defeated in a war that saw it invade one neighboring
state and threaten other states. Iraq did not need long range missiles to
defend itself.



If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he
allowed
delivery to be completed?


Iraq agreed to conditions in a cease fire that prohibited it from having
these weapons. The same is not true of Yemen.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they?


Iraq had just been defeated in a war that saw it invade one neighboring
state and threaten other states. Iraq did not need long range missiles to
defend itself.

Why not? It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War. We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself
after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland. Are you
inferring that Sadaam was somehow worse than Adolf and Hirohito and didn't
deserve to be allowed even minimal self defense?

You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party line.
You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're never
going to win it.


If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he allowed
delivery to be completed?


Iraq agreed to conditions in a cease fire that prohibited it from having
these weapons. The same is not true of Yemen.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Why not?


Because they served no defensive purpose.



It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War.


Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's ability to
threaten or attack it's neighbors.



We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself
after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland.


We did the same with Iraq.



You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party
line.
You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're
never
going to win it.


You're obviously uninformed.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

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


Because the 1991 cease-fire didn't permit Iraq to have them.

Why not?

Because (a) unlike Yemen, Iraq had just been defeated in a war that had seen
them launch SRBM's against a non-belligerent nation, (b) Iraq, unlike Yemen,
had just proven it was more interested in offensive military power than in
its own defense, and (c) we already had intel (later confirmed) that unlike
the Yemenis, the Iraqis did indeed have chemical and/or biological warheads
for these missiles in their possession.

They were defensive weapons, weren't they?

The Iraqi's used their missiles as defensive weapons? I suspect a few
Israelis would disagree with you on that premise.

If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he
allowed
delivery to be completed?

Because of (a) thru (c), above.

Brooks


George Z.