Reporting on CBC Radio 1 - Scuds used

Guest · Post by **Guest** » March 20, 2003, 10:06 pm

Apparently SCUDs although earlier denied were indeed used today and launched against targets in Kuwait. This in clear violation of the UN resolutions and strangely absent in the documents provided by the Iraqi government. Comments about the weapons inspections working and the illegality of the US led war are out the window if these reports are proven to be valid.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 20, 2003, 10:28 pm

thx guest

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 20, 2003, 10:40 pm

Fuck off guest.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 20, 2003, 11:50 pm

I am for the war, but even I would not say that shooting back violates UN resolutions. They can shoot back all they want, it is war.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 21, 2003, 12:07 am

It's not shooting back that violates UN resolutions. It's the scud missiles that violate UN resolutions.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » March 21, 2003, 12:11 am

What are you talking about? Clearly they never had scuds,so this is a ploy by the US government having the media deceive us.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 21, 2003, 10:51 am

They have fired 7 scuds so far. I would wager to say those 7 scuds would've been found by UN Inspectors given enough time. Furthermore, I would hope the US isn't spending Billions of dollars and throwing away the lives of our sons and daughters for a handful of scuds.

When are the nukes and chemical/biological weapons going to come into play? My prediction is never. If they do, they will be as inept and ineffective as these scuds. And once again, I believe the UN nspectors would have found them if given the time.

So far there is absolutley no justification that I would send a loved one off to die for.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 21, 2003, 10:53 am

Im a firm believer that the U.N insepectors couldnt find a whore in Nevada if they has to.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 21, 2003, 10:57 am

Cartalas wrote:Im a firm believer that the U.N insepectors couldnt find a whore in Nevada if they has to.

Comeon, everybody knows where the Lake Tahoe bunny ranches are!!1

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 21, 2003, 11:00 am

Gurugurumaki wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Im a firm believer that the U.N insepectors couldnt find a whore in Nevada if they has to.
Comeon, everybody knows where the Lake Tahoe bunny ranches are!!1

Everyone but the UN inspectors

Pengu · Post by **Pengu** » March 21, 2003, 11:09 am

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... index.html

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 21, 2003, 11:12 am

That article was from 7:30 yesterday morning. It's been confirmed since that at least 1 of the missiles fired toward Kuwait City was a scud.

Fairweather Pure wrote:When are the nukes and chemical/biological weapons going to come into play? My prediction is never. If they do, they will be as inept and ineffective as these scuds.

They won't be used until the coalition forces try to enter Baghdad, so probably in 2 days.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 21, 2003, 11:36 am

It's odd. It seems people are almost hoping that chemical weapons are used. I guess that's the only way some people hope to validate thier opinions about being pro-war. Without those chemical waepons, the US is going to look even worse in the eyes of the world than it already does.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 21, 2003, 11:46 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's odd. It seems people are almost hoping that chemical weapons are used. I guess that's the only way some people hope to validate thier opinions about being pro-war. Without those chemical waepons, the US is going to look even worse in the eyes of the world than it already does.

Wrong because we will find them regardless. And you seem to hope that the US will attack N Korea next, so we have a challenge and more troops will die. Its different to protest a war, but your seem almost communist~

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 21, 2003, 12:00 pm

And you seem to hope that the US will attack N Korea next, so we have a challenge and more troops will die. Its different to protest a war, but your seem almost communist~

Man, that's out of left field. I'm against war. Why would I ever want us to fight NK?!? There have been comparisons made between our justification for fighting Iraq when NK is by all means an even worse threat to America. That's just trying to show that the propaganda that we are being fed about how we're really in Iraq due to Saddams WMD and human rights violations has no logical basis.

But by all means, keep eating all the shit that Dubya is feeding you. There will be a whole lot more coming down the pipeline, especially when no WMD are used by Iraq in this confrontation. I can't wait to hear the Bush Administration's reasoning. Open wide and remember to chew 30 times before swallowing.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 21, 2003, 12:51 pm

If Iraq still has viable WMDs I don't think they'll use them. If they do it will be at the chokepoints as the allies cross the Euphrates and Tigris and not near Baghdad IMO.

The last news bulletin I watched was 6hrs ago and still couldn't confirm what type of missiles were fired. I think I heard the phrase "smaller, scud-like" that were apparently bought from China.
Either way now the war has started every single word out of either side is going to be so varnished with spin and propaganda there's almost no point arguing over it. The truth won't come out til 2-3 years after the war at the earliest. It's the first casualty etc.

Jugata · Post by **Jugata** » March 21, 2003, 12:59 pm

I cant help but support this war when Tony Blair speaks and not support it when Bush speaks. /boggle.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 21, 2003, 1:08 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's odd. It seems people are almost hoping that chemical weapons are used. I guess that's the only way some people hope to validate thier opinions about being pro-war. Without those chemical waepons, the US is going to look even worse in the eyes of the world than it already does.

It's odd, because I've never once said I was in support of this war. I've stated my opinion of this war only once on this board, and it wasn't in support of it. My statement was when I thought Saddam would be to most likely use the chem/bio weapons if he was going to use them.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 21, 2003, 1:23 pm

As one who supports the War, I live in reality - not some delusional existence where evil fucks just go away if we wish real hard, I agree that George isn't the best speaker in the world. I, like Teurde, am pretty awe inspired by how eloquent Tony Blair is whenever he has a press conference. It's been a few years since I was truly impressed with a British PM until Tony Blair. His fairness and intelligence has truly helped my faith in this War when information was scarce.

Marb

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 21, 2003, 1:26 pm

That comment wasn't directed directly at you Vetiria. The comment merely made me think of the many other responses I have heard from pro-war people and what they will say if thier "ace in the hole" tunrs out to be a phantom.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 21, 2003, 1:58 pm

How far is Kuwait from the launch point of the missiles?

It really doesn't matter what type of missiles they were. Iraq was banned from having any missiles capable of more than a 93 (?) mile flight, period.

The UN passed a resolution banning Iraq from possesing such weapons. Iraq defied them for over a decade. They are once again showing that they flat out lied to the diplomatic community of the entire fucking world.

Keep spouting apologist nonsense if you like.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 21, 2003, 2:01 pm

I live in reality - not some delusional existence where evil fucks just go away if we wish real hard

Please exercise your democratic right so that "reality" no longer has your government putting them in power in the first place k thx.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 21, 2003, 2:04 pm

How far is Kuwait from the launch point of the missiles?

All I heard was that they were launched from "southern Iraq". Do you know any better or are you just jumping to conclusions to support your assumptions?

Let me guess. You don't know where they were launched, you have no idea how far they flew or what type of missile they were?
Just like the rest of us then. . .

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 21, 2003, 2:23 pm

It is amazing that the U.S. and British troops are winning this "war" by not killing anyone. It has been a very well conceived and executed plan to give the Iraqis a chance to avoid bloodshed while still accomplishing their goal.

I believe there is a very good chance that the Iraqi people are going to turn Saddam and his buddies over within a very short timeframe and end this quickly.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 21, 2003, 2:27 pm

uh... the US did NOT put Saddam in power. Yes, we made a mistake in our support in the 80s and didn't finish the job in the Gulf but we didn't put him in power.

Marb

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 21, 2003, 2:35 pm

Let me guess. You don't know where they were launched, you have no idea how far they flew or what type of missile they were?
Just like the rest of us then. . .

Which is why I asked the question.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 21, 2003, 2:36 pm

Marbus wrote:uh... the US did NOT put Saddam in power. Yes, we made a mistake in our support in the 80s and didn't finish the job in the Gulf but we didn't put him in power.

Marb

The USA put a lot of money and support into keeping a secular government in power in Iraq for over a decade. Of course they didn't physically put Saddam in power but they made it virtualy impossible for any Muslim group to take control of Iraq.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 21, 2003, 3:33 pm

miir wrote:
Marbus wrote:uh... the US did NOT put Saddam in power. Yes, we made a mistake in our support in the 80s and didn't finish the job in the Gulf but we didn't put him in power.

Marb
The USA put a lot of money and support into keeping a secular government in power in Iraq for over a decade. Of course they didn't physically put Saddam in power but they made it virtualy impossible for any Muslim group to take control of Iraq.

The people voted Saddam in power, 100% victory to him. Ofcourse if you didnt vote for him, well....

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » March 21, 2003, 5:07 pm

...if you didn't vote for Saddam, you were forced into being the "Front Banana" in Guru's avatar...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 21, 2003, 5:23 pm

I thought the front banana was kyoukan.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 21, 2003, 5:50 pm

Fairweather, if you think a country that is making WMDs out in the open in a bid to get some kind of concessions, and is willing to negotiate in regards to getting rid of them is more dangerous than a country that has used them in the past, is secretly developing them (secretly which can only mean that they're making them because they intend to use them in some fashion), and has terrorist connections than go ahead, but don't try to blame some sort of government propaganda when someone disagrees with you.

I'm certainly not hoping that Iraq uses WMDs on us. As Guru said, we will find huge stores of them when we capture Iraq anyways. As far as needing this to validate my opinion on the war, I already have enough evidence to convince me that Iraq has WMDs. If Iraq doesn't use WMDs on us I don't think the US's position will be diminished one bit, so I fail to see why Bush will have to find some way to defend himself or whatever you're implying.

On the flip side of this, I'm assuming that you, Miir, and Kyoukan are hoping/praying that the US swifly captures Baghdad without a single casuality or a single loss of innocent human life...right?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 21, 2003, 5:53 pm

Brotha wrote: On the flip side of this, I'm assuming that you, Miir, and Kyoukan are hoping/praying that the US swifly captures Baghdad without a single casuality or a single loss of innocent human life...right?

Miir and Kyoukan, although they seem like US haters, are rational. Im sure they hope Baghdad is captured without loss of life.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 21, 2003, 6:03 pm

Im a firm believer that the U.N insepectors couldnt find a whore in Nevada if they has to.

Nah we all know where you mother lives.

The problem with finding WMDs after the war is over is that in the eyes of many people around the world it wont matter. Unless VERY bad WMDs are found it wont turn world support back to USA. Simple fact. And of course some will claim it was planted evidence...

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 21, 2003, 6:28 pm

Does anyone think we won't plant WMD's if we don't find enough, just an honest question. Would the US plant false evidence to justify it's prior claims, or risk the backlash and tell the truth IF they don't exist. BTW, personally, I think they were shipped to Syria and Iran weeks ago if not months, I don't doubt he HAD them, I don't know if he HAS them still.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 21, 2003, 7:02 pm

I don't think any evidence needs to be planted.

They already have Saddam on at least two material breaches of UN resolutions. That's besides bieng an out-and-out fuckhead to his own people, of course.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » March 21, 2003, 9:25 pm

*Sigh*

Just about everyone and every country agrees he has WMD someplace or isnt showing the evidence thats needed to prove he destroyed em, if he did.

Hans Blitz even said in an interview after the war started that we need to check underground tunnels or bunkers because the UN was never allowed too or never did..ONE OF MY MAIN AGRUMENTS IN PREVIOUS POST.

VeeshanVault

Reporting on CBC Radio 1 - Scuds used

Reporting on CBC Radio 1 - Scuds used

for the blind