 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Here is the reality which all the leftist appalogists in the world cannot erase:
quote:
quote:
You have to understand something here that's so diabolically clever. The Iraqis knew that gas is heavier than air and would penetrate cellars and basements more effectively by launching a conventional artillery attack on the town for several hours. In other words, they knew that people would do what they always did during an artillery barrage and run to their basements. They were stuck in their basements, and then [the Iraqis] launched the chemical weapons attack…turning them, really, into gas chambers.
|
They know this is true but they still spend all of their time defending Saddam because in their sick twisted minds the U.S. is some how worse the Saddam. They are a pathetic joke... |
Nothing diabolically clever about it, it's standard tactics for employing CW in any scenario - to mix with HE prep fire before, during and after. I'm assuming this is related to gassing the Kurds, but what's interesting is that both Iran and Iraq used gas in their attack and counterattack, and that the DIA concluded the majority of gas fatalities were consistent with the timing and type of agents used by the Iranians. BTW, the US didn't stop providing Saddam with intel, including raw take from KH-11 and KH-12 overflights, after the first time Saddam used gas in the Iran-Iraq war.
It's nothing to do with defending Saddam (not that I've ever heard) - I think the general consensus, from the ***** left "war is bad, it hurts people" to the center-right opposition to the war, is that the net results - casualties, unpredictable change in ME stability, unpredictable reaction in the arab world, higher threats from Iran and the DPRK, etc., do not justify the immediate removal of Saddam by force.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Blix and lads didn't mention it because they determined that the drones is not a weapon platform, as MtG pointed out. |
Source?
Quit making up facts... |
The "facts" are simple. Saddam isn't required to "disarm" - that's a misnomer. He can have, for all intents and purposes, all the tanks, artillery, rocket artillery, strike aircraft, etc. he wants.
There are certain classes of weapons and weapons related items, including manufacturing capability, tools, parts, and precursor substances, that are forbidden under the existing UNSC resolutions, and UNMOVIC's scope of authority is limited to identifying and demanding/overseeing the destruction of those prohibited items.
No nation has yet made a UAV into a continuous delivery platform for BCW - you could make it drop a dumb bomb (like any fighter aircraft), but that's not a prohibited weapons platform - just like Saddam is allowed to maintain both fighter and strike aircraft. Making a UAV work as a continuous delivery platform is both impractical, and technologically extremely complex - it's unlikely in the extreme that the Iraqis would attempt that, because it's a level of aeronautical and wireless command electronics sophistication beyond what the US has, so it's well beyond Iraq's capabilities.
UAV's are medium altitude vehicles - nobody yet has an operational one of any size (physically large enough to deliver any type of payload, even if it was set up for that), that is capable of remote NOE flight. You have to be fairly close to NOE to get proper dispersal from a spray apparatus, or else you fly so high that you solve the flight control problem at the cost of highly diluted dispersal subject to total disruption by wind.
The reason Saddam isn't likely to ever attempt such a thing is not because he's a great guy - it's because it would be very expensive, technically daunting way to develop a crap delivery system that's likely to fail operationally.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
Well, making a stink helps gain diplomatic leverage - the US has made it pretty clear that it's going to attack one way or the other, with or without UN support. I mean, what odds would you give me on a bet that the US won't invade Iraq?
At this point, with the mobilization orders and the rhetoric, I'd give 100 to 1 or better odds that we're really only talking when, not if, and when being within days or a few weeks.
Anything the US, UK and Spain can come up with to support their position - or to give other nations a bone as a rationale for changing their minds, is helpful at least for posturing. IMO, posturing is all it is, simply because I think the war is a given - only the final rationale wrt the UNSC's actions or inactions, and the date are in question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
 |
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:26
|
|
Anybody have any idea how big these drones are? We used radio controlled "drones" for AA practice allready back in 70's... And since Iraq's only active military branch nowadays seems to be the AA's and SAM's and such, I quess they're still trained...
"Bush disappointed at Iraq's total disarmament" 
Doesn't sound too unrealistic... What can poor old Saddam actually do to convince the US of the fact (if it were the fact) that he and his government have infact gotten rid of their WoMD's, or that they didn't even have them after Gulf War? Even if Saddam would park an eighteen-wheeler filled with anthrax, khlorides(?), mustard gas or what have you, missiles and empty jars of rat poison, in the front lawn of the White House, hand it over and say "There, do what you wan't with it, I'm going fishing", the US would still believe he was hiding something.
And, what does it matter anymore? He can't get any of the alledged delivery methods functional in time to have any tactical use. Despite what the world says, US is going to take him out. A good deed, mind you, but for the wrong reasons. "He tried to kill my dad" And how many lives is one barrel of oil worth?
Ok, say a Brutwislavian dictator would invade his Tyrpistanian neighbours for lebensraum or something. Pre-1945 US would rise to defend the weak Tyrpistanians, but 2000 and forward US wouldn't lift a finger. Why? Neither Brutwislav nor Tyrpistan have the strategic resource, oil.
"We got more and better guns, so we have the right to do whatever we want. If you don't comply with our righteous demands, you are either our enemy, or indifferent"
US is saying, that the UN is in danger of becoming indifferent, because other members of the security council dare to have different opinions than the Land of the Free. During the Cold War, US and USSR would in turns veto any undesired action to their side. Did this render the UN obsolete? I don't think so.
My thoughts might not allways be very coherent... Blame too much coffee.
And I have nothing against Americans, apple pie, Betty Grable and what have you. I only wish your President would be Jed Bartlett.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:26
|
|
It seems Blix and Co. mentioned more than just the drone in that report...
quote:
U.S. Says Iraq Retools Rockets for Illicit Uses
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. with STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, March 9 — United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq recently discovered a new variety of rocket seemingly configured to strew bomblets filled with chemical or biological agents over large areas, United States officials say.
The reconfigured rocket warheads appear to be cobbled together from Iraq's stockpiles of imported or home-built weapons, some which Iraq had used with both conventional and chemical warheads. Iraq contends that it has destroyed all its old chemical warheads, a claim that the inspectors have not verified.
An American official who described the weapon said it was discovered in the last few months, since the United Nations inspectors returned to Iraq in November. At first, he said, Iraq told the inspectors that it was designed as a conventional cluster bomb, which would scatter explosive submunitions over its target, and not as a chemical weapon. A few days later, he said, the Iraqis conceded that some might have been configured as chemical weapons.
The distinctive appearance of the rockets' cluster munitions, heavy metal balls with holes in them, suggested their use as a way to disperse chemical or biological weapons, said the official. "If you take the kinds of fuses we know they have, and you screw them in there, when these things come out from the main frame and they explode inward, chemical agents come out," he said. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/i...ast/10WEAP.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Doesn't sound too unrealistic... What can poor old Saddam actually do to convince the US of the fact (if it were the fact) that he and his government have infact gotten rid of their WoMD's, or that they didn't even have them after Gulf War? Even if Saddam would park an eighteen-wheeler filled with anthrax, khlorides(?), mustard gas or what have you, missiles and empty jars of rat poison, in the front lawn of the White House, hand it over and say "There, do what you wan't with it, I'm going fishing", the US would still believe he was hiding something. |
untrue. There is documented proof of WoMD that we knew Saddam had during inspections after Gulf War I, which he has yet to come up with. Also, if he would allow inspections to continue COMPLETELY unhindered, with no iraqi chaperones and allowing scientists to be interviewed out of the country with tehhir families with them, then he will become more credible. But when he is playing ass-obvious cat and mouse stalling games, and lies thru his teeth consistently, then one tends to lose all credablity
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
The drone is really unexciting (I'm working on a privately funded UAV development project, so I know a little about them), because again, all that's there is speculation, that takes advantage of the technical ignorance of a lot of people.
UAVs have a lot of tradeoffs between payload, endurance, speed and flight profile, so a 500 km range BCW agent delivering UAV just doesn't exist yet, anywhere. Launching a Hellfire from one is a lot easier, because the Hellfire does most of the work, and is a single discreet package as far as weight and cross-section.
As far as Saddam and WMDs goes, there's really no doubt he has some hardware, and development / production programs in place. He's just too attached to his toys and his megalomania.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The drone is really unexciting (I'm working on a privately funded UAV development project, so I know a little about them), because again, all that's there is speculation, that takes advantage of the technical ignorance of a lot of people.
UAVs have a lot of tradeoffs between payload, endurance, speed and flight profile, so a 500 km range BCW agent delivering UAV just doesn't exist yet, anywhere. Launching a Hellfire from one is a lot easier, because the Hellfire does most of the work, and is a single discreet package as far as weight and cross-section.
As far as Saddam and WMDs goes, there's really no doubt he has some hardware, and development / production programs in place. He's just too attached to his toys and his megalomania. |
hi ,
huh , the drone and its friends where found on an airbase with chemical and bio storage facilities next to them , .....
a 500 KM radius in the middle east is a lot , ....
and last but not least saddam has been playing with super large scale drones , .... converted trainers , ...
as for "speculation" , well the un found them , thats no speculation , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
Well, I'm probably wrong, cause it seems like I always am, but I still don't think invading Iraq is a good idea. Frist off, I'm not a leftist, and I used to think that an invasion of Iraq would be a good idea, so I've seen the point from both sides.
quote:
They know this is true but they still spend all of their time defending Saddam because in their sick twisted minds the U.S. is some how worse the Saddam. They are a pathetic joke... |
Where were you when I was arguing with General Tacticus about this on that one thread? I got whooped. I continued the debate with him thru PM so I wouldn't bump the thread but I got whooped.
We shouldn't invade until we actually have WOMD in our hands. Of course, common sense would make u think Iraq has it, which it probably does, but we can't invade them without hard proof. Common sense doesn't suffice. It's not like Saddam will do anything with them anyway. He's tied up with inspectors and using them would be suicide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Well, I'm probably wrong, cause it seems like I always am, but I still don't think invading Iraq is a good idea. Frist off, I'm not a leftist, and I used to think that an invasion of Iraq would be a good idea, so I've seen the point from both sides.
|
yes, you are wrong  
quote:
Where were you when I was arguing with General Tacticus about this on that one thread? I got whooped. I continued the debate with him thru PM so I wouldn't bump the thread but I got whooped.
We shouldn't invade until we actually have WOMD in our hands. Of course, common sense would make u think Iraq has it, which it probably does, but we can't invade them without hard proof. Common sense doesn't suffice. It's not like Saddam will do anything with them anyway. He's tied up with inspectors and using them would be suicide. |
there is more to it than this, my friend. After the Gulf War I, Saddam agreed to destroy all his WoMD, under the visor of UN inspectors. He agreed to this cause it was the only way we would sign a cease-fire (either he agreed, or left power, he agreed). In 1998 he kicked inspectors out, and they had unfinished business.
As of yet, there are 30 scud missles and mulitple chemical war heads still unaccounted for, along with somethin like 10 tones of mustard gas and other nerve agents and somethn like 30,000 gallons of anthrax. We know he has these things, but he will not come forth with them. The inspections have been a joke. What can they accomplish when they have Iraqi officials holding their hand the whole time, stalling them and thrawting them? what can they do when they cannot candidly interview scientists because they fear fir the lives of their family?
And, no, Saddam will not use chemical or biological weapons directly against the US, but it is somewhat probable (though unlikely) that he might supply a thrid party. But a definate consequence is that if he gets enough, and obtains a functioning nuke, then ther is little we can do... itll be standoff and containment, like with N. Korea or any other nuclear power. If we wait until he obtains these things, then there is little we can do.
All this, keep in mind, when he AGREED to disarm. but, as it turns out, he has played us, and he has played the world. He did not leave office, nor did he disarm. And now, as we speak, he is turning old and venerable allies against each other. His propaganda machine is immense, adn effective... hitler would be proud...
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Now I'm all confused, I don't know which side I'm on. How's Saddam supposed to get a nuke into Iraq without the inspectors figuring it out? And, there's no way he's going to further build up his WoMD in the future, all those inspectors are there. So if we invaded him now, it wouldn't be any better than invading him later. Even if Saddam did get a nuke, it's committing suicide. The whole UN would be against him. One nuke versus the world? I think not.
When I made that thread about invading Iraq being a good idea or a bad one, how come no one came to my side saying it would be a good idea? A lot of people on this thread seem to think it's a good idea, but everyone on the thread I made said I was an idiot. |
perhaps we were doin other important things... but it is good you are keeping an open mind, unlike some of the leftists I know who are so 'gung ho' anti-war (im not right, btw). Some do present good arguements, but so do the pro-war. Its basically based on your personality, after that point as far as which way you choose.
to answer your questions...
First, Iraq wont bring a nuke into iraq, they are trying to build one already. Becasue of testimony of defected Iraqi Scientists, we know they have an ongoing nuclear program... and it is quite easy to hide these operations from the 'inspections', which are laughable. Bagdhad is a massive city, of somethn like 3 million people, IIRC. There could be underground labs and research facilities anywhere in there, in basements, in houses, in commercial buildings... transport between facilities would be easy and undetectable amongst normal traffic and city activity.
He can easily build up his already substancial arsenal of WoMD, as in one possible speculation above. If we invade him later, and he has had time to build up his WoMD, and delivery vehicles and uch, then he could easily, at the last minute, hold Israel or some other neighbor hostage... the US, even with the most powerful UN coalition ever would be powerless to do much. He would not use a nuke offensively, like the US asn USSR never used them offensively in the cold war. Hed use it as leverage and as a deterent to attacking him. This is why N. Korea is gonna be a ***** to handle... htey have two nukes, and if if we try somethn, say good bye Soul or Tokyo.
Kman
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2003 12:18
|