Most Underblogged Story of 2003

10Comments

1. 1.

   S-Train

   January 5, 2004 at 8:10 pm

   Whoa! Even South Africa got into the mix. Honestly, I never heard about this.

2. 2.

   Not a stickler for accuracy, are you?

   January 6, 2004 at 12:31 am

   Missles with an over 90 mile range, dude. Don’t you all even care about the quality of your propoganda?

   More of a 2002 story anyways.

   http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/sprj.irq.chemicals/

3. 3.

   Dean

   January 6, 2004 at 12:37 am

   Stickler:

   You’re conflating several different aspects.

   If the missiles are from post-91, then there is a story, whether they are 90 miles, 9 miles, or 900 miles in range. The arms embargo imposed by the UN forbade ANY arms from going into Iraq.

   If the weapons are over 150 miles (iirc), then Iraq is FURTHER in trouble, due to failure to comply with a SEPARATE aspect of the UN sanctions, which was to not develop weapons beyond a certain range.

4. 4.

   Not a stickler for accuracy, are you?

   January 6, 2004 at 9:49 am

   If you can’t tell those missiles have a less than 90 mile range just from the pictures, you should stick to subjects you know something about.

   If you are interested in educating yourself about the “arms embargo”, start with the complete list of UNSCOM resolutions here:
   http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

   Then open Resolution 687 and look at paragraph 7(b). There’s the 150km range limit.

   Also note paragraph 20, the embargo covers everything except medicine, health supplies and foodstuffs.

   Why did you intentionally mislead us about the “arms embargo”? Trying to cover up for Halliburton selling equipment to Iraq?

   I actually don’t think you knew enough to intentionally mislead us, I think y’all are idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about.

   Don’t bother to respond, I won’t be back.

5. 5.

   Harry

   January 6, 2004 at 10:12 am

   “Don’t bother to respond, I won’t be back.”

   Thanks Stickler too many assholes spoils a party.

6. 6.

   HH

   January 6, 2004 at 11:49 am

   For all I know, this is bogus. But there have been no real examinations of this story, like there were of, say, the Weekly Standard story, which even Slate admitted should be looked into (and when it was, by the likes of Newsweek, the “debunkings” were rather weak, kinda like “stickler’s”).

7. 7.

   Slartibartfast

   January 6, 2004 at 2:13 pm

   I’d say the Russian unidentified missile is probably a variant of the AA-11 Archer. The resemblance is noteworthy, and the shape and IR window on front point to the fact that it’s an air-to-air missile. That, and the wire harness sticking out of the side.

   The South African bomb appears to be some sort of cluster munition. Just a guess; could be a chemical agent dispenser. Dunno if the Durandal is prohibited.

8. 8.

   Joe Carter

   January 6, 2004 at 2:49 pm

   Actually, I posted on the story as well. But I agree that it should have received more attention.

9. 9.

   wallster

   January 7, 2004 at 7:37 pm

   Obviously, there was nothing to this. People who know more than any of you (or I) realized this, therefore even those desperate to justify the war did not seize upon either these weapons or the Weekly Standard “evidence” as vindication.