babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Older Information the US would like to forget

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Older Information the US would like to forget
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 09 February 2003 02:22 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The United States almost went to war against Iraq in February (1998) because of Saddam Hussein's weapons program. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton castigated Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." ...

Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 February 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to be a nigletizer here but wasn't the SCUD a Soviet-designed missile? (Yes, I know that the parts are likely interchangeable especially if the KGB, as they often did, ripped off the plans and materials lists for a US missile from a plant in the USA)
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 10 February 2003 02:07 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes it is, and its accuracy, based on its effectiveness during the Gulf War, puts it just slightly above the V2. Also, it has such a low base payload ability that it would be an ineffective means of delivering a chemical attack, unless you had hundreds of them.

That is also older information that some would like us to forget.

[ 10 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca