Saddam uses banned SCUDS...

[Murco]

Saddam launched a SCUD missle towards Kuwait last night. No big deal unless you notice, it's one of the UN-banned weapons he claimed he didn't have in his inventory!! I guess the anti-war folks who were saying we didn't have any evidence of WMD can eat crow now...
Imagine that, Hussein was lying!

[jon@af]

Im willing to bet that he is out of the country already.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Murco
Saddam launched a SCUD missle towards Kuwait last night.:

Compare that with the amount of filth that America has rained down on Iraq in the last 48 hours.If you want a war criminal,try looking in the White House.Bush is an asshole.

[Jimster]

So do you just expect Saddam to roll over and let Bush capture him???? Of course not- If Bush provokes a war- Saddam has just as much right to fight back.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Jimster
So do you just expect Saddam to roll over and let Bush capture him???? Of course not- If Bush provokes a war- Saddam has just as much right to fight back.

So if Saddam retaliated with chemical or biological weapons against coalition forces, you believe that Saddam has the right to do that because Bush was the one who provoked the war?? Just playing Devil's advocate. BTW, do we know for a fact that the missiles used against Kuwait were SCUDS? If so, then the UN inspectors didn't do that good a job disarming Iraq. But for me personally, I need to see some hard proof of weapons of mass destruction before I can even remotely see how this war is justified. But, it still pisses me off that Iraq lied about not having SCUDS (if in fact they were SCUDS). If he lied about those, who knows what else he's been lying about?

[Jimster]

Originally posted by rsxer45


So if Saddam retaliated with chemical or biological weapons against coalition forces, you believe that Saddam has the right to do that because Bush was the one who provoked the war?? Just playing Devil's advocate. BTW, do we know for a fact that the missiles used against Kuwait were SCUDS? If so, then the UN inspectors didn't do that good a job disarming Iraq. But for me personally, I need to see some hard proof of weapons of mass destruction before I can even remotely see how this war is justified. But, it still pisses me off that Iraq lied about not having SCUDS (if in fact they were SCUDS). If he lied about those, who knows what else he's been lying about?

The missiles were not fired at Kuwait- they were fired at US military installments in Kuwait- and it is yet to be disclosed whether or not they are SCUD's

[inferno]

Originally posted by Jimster
So do you just expect Saddam to roll over and let Bush capture him???? Of course not- If Bush provokes a war- Saddam has just as much right to fight back.

No one is saying that Saddam doesn't have a right to fight back...but it is kinda odd that he has used a weapon that was banned and that supposedly, he no longer had. If you are honestly trying to justify useage of a weapon that he is not allowed to have in his arsenal, then you should jump on taranaki's anti-Bush bandwagon and ride out of here as well.

[1985_BMW318i]

Wrong!. They were fired to Kuwait. It is a independent country that supports the coalition. Regardless of where they landed Saddam fired weapons that were NOT permitted by UN sanctions. He also started fires at oil wells that he claimed he would not do. Yeah bitch about bush. Bush has the balls to stop that tryant. I'm right and your wrong and you hate that!

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Jimster



The missiles were not fired at Kuwait- they were fired at US military installments in Kuwait- and it is yet to be disclosed whether or not they are SCUD's

That's some nice info, but you sort of dodged my question. I hope you don' t believe Iraq is justified in using weapons of mass destruction. That's kind of scary if you do. Also, just a comment: Can we please keep this discussion intelligent and rational? No more name calling or bitching about petty sh*t or minor inaccuracies. We not going to go anywhere with this debate if we keep getting angry at each other like this (then again even with this measure I don't know if this debate can still go anywhere). I personally want to hear other opinions even if they are contrary to my own so at least something meaningful can come out of this. But, all this fighting will just prevent the shyer type to conceal their true opinions and we will never get a true grasp about the world's perspective on this war. We should not discourage opinions, but instead foster them (EVEN if we know they are WRONG ) . BTW, I'm not singling out anyone on this thread, but its just that I noticied that on a lot of these political threads, they usually degenerate personal insults and name calling. Okay, back to the discussion.

[Jimster]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
I'm right and your wrong and you hate that!

No you think you are right........big contrast when you think about it................This is not the kind of behaviour I would expect from a 40 year old........God i wouldn't even expect that from a 17 year old.........


Please grow up




Personally I am not aware of the destructive power of a SCUD missile- and won't make any assumptions- but what I was saying pre-war is somewhat being revealed- Now that the pressure is being cranked up on Saddam he is using his weapons- he wouldn't be shooting them off if Bush wasn't trying to over-run him

[Milliardo]

For the record, what were used were conventional missiles--they're not banned. What's banned are missiles which are biologically or chemically armed. That's what the U.N. is looking for. And if people noticed, the Scuds weren't even accurate, nor were they particularly destructive. They're very ineffective, they're practically hopeless--hell, sticks would probably be much more useful than those Scuds. Obviously the U.S. will make this a big issue, when it really is a non-issue, unless the U.S. wants people to think a Scud is the most god-awful weapon in the world. Not. And I agree with one post here: compared with what Saddam has let loose, the U.S. has rained on Iraq so much more deadly missiles.

[Jimster]

Originally posted by Milliardo
For the record, what were used were conventional missiles--they're not banned. What's banned are missiles which are biologically or chemically armed. That's what the U.N. is looking for. And if people noticed, the Scuds weren't even accurate, nor were they particularly destructive. They're very ineffective, they're practically hopeless--hell, sticks would probably be much more useful than those Scuds. Obviously the U.S. will make this a big issue, when it really is a non-issue, unless the U.S. wants people to think a Scud is the most god-awful weapon in the world. Not. And I agree with one post here: compared with what Saddam has let loose, the U.S. has rained on Iraq so much more deadly missiles.

And there you have it- Your valuable insight is much appreciated

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by taranaki


Compare that with the amount of filth that America has rained down on Iraq in the last 48 hours.If you want a war criminal,try looking in the White House.Bush is an asshole.

WAAAHHHH! I take back what I had said in a previous post. I really didn’t believe that you were sticking up for Sadam. For the first time in this forum I was wrong.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Wrong!. They were fired to Kuwait. It is a independent country that supports the coalition. Regardless of where they landed Saddam fired weapons that were NOT permitted by UN sanctions. He also started fires at oil wells that he claimed he would not do. Yeah bitch about bush. Bush has the balls to stop that tryant. I'm right and your wrong and you hate that!

someone doesnt watch the news The missles were fired at US installments along the border between Kuwait and Iraq. They were intercepeted by patriot missles that are meant to protect US troops from such attacks. I watched FoxNews for a better part of the day and saw nothing occur in most of kuwait other than the border area were the US and British troops were located, so, You may think you are right, but that doesnt make it so.

Now back to the debate. I dont understand how some of you can very well say that Bush is being the total terrorist here. Yes, I realize that diplomacy would have been the best way, and I still think this, but that time has passed and it's a little late. Therefore, I look at what must be done and the facts of why it is being done in the first place: The US and UN gave Hussein PLENTY of chances to get rid of his weapons or have the consequences laid upon him, he ignored these chances claiming he had no such weapons, you know, the weapons he fired upon US and UK troops? Bush didnt just start war all of a sudden, he was cooperative(most of the time anyways ) with the UN in making resolutions that could be handed to Iraq in a diplomatic process that could have ended things peacefully. As stated earlier Hussein ignored these. Now, who is the more ignorant person? The one who is doing what he said was going to happen should the other not follow instructions, or the one who had many different chances to do the right thing and just said "Fuck it." ?

[Darth Cypher]

Those SCUDS (or whatever they are) might not have had any bio/chem agents in them. But they are banned. I am wondering if any of those missles he fired breaks the range rule that Iraq missles are bound to. I only caught a few pieces of the coverage at work.

And BMW is right. Those weapons were banned. Black and white with no way of miscommunicating it. He said he disarmed and it's obvious he didn't. You anti-war people wanted your proof and now you will start to see it.

When Bush gasses the US populace (hell ANY populace), shoots any of the anti-war protesters, has rape centers and torture chambers, etc. Then I will say he is a criminal, however the one that is being defended is the one that is doing the "criminal offenses". One must wonder what side one is on.