Blix found a "smoking gun" in Iraq?

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

I agree, for the most part. I still don't know if this drone is permitted or not, however, which would change my opinion of this tactic greatly...

[Tattila the Hun]

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]

It seems Blix and Co. mentioned more than just the drone in that report...

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/international/middleeast/10WEAP.html

[Panag]

hi ,

for more drone info check out this thread ; http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=79926

have a nice day

[SlowwHand]

http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf

[Kramerman]

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]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

for more drone info check out this thread ; http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=79926

have a nice day

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

[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.

[Kramerman]

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

[Kramerman]

remember, Saddam has had 12 years to plot his future. He is a machevellian dictator, ruthless and determined to maintain power. He has been doing what he has been doing cause he has calculated his moves, like a good chess player, well in advance. He cannot be underestimated.

[johncmcleod]

I don't know...so much of the world is against invading Iraq, I think we should listen to them. Also, if the UN says no to an invasion of Iraq than we really shouldn't go. That would be ingnoring a whole lot of other countries and it would be reinforcing our isolation from the rest of the world.

Plus, I don't think a pre-emptive strike is fair at all, even if it may lead to less of life. This would justify merely labeling a country 'evil' and then going and invading them for a different purpose.