On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:28:38 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.

Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
chemical weapons.

I have to admit I can't recall of any either. Nukes, yes. Bioweapons,
probably, but not even rumours of Chem weapons.

And, by the way, Iraq demonstrated quite directly in Gulf War I that
they had missiles with enough range (and, despite those sanctions that
the UN didn't quite enforce, were building missiles with overly-long
ranges).

Err, 186km vice the legal 150km. Yes it is a breach, which teh UN
picked up, and the missiles in question (Al Samoud 2) were in teh
process of being destroyed when the UN pulled out for the war to
begin. We're not exactly talking Scuds here (none of which
incidentally were fired, and none of which have been found since - I
wonder what the official estimate of their inventory was pre-war?).


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster