Blix found a "smoking gun" in Iraq?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by 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.

Whats not fair, is Saddam signing a peace agreement that he would remain in power, but would disarm his WoMD. He has had 12 years to comply. The world is against the war because they are against war in general. Most dont understand the full extent of this rather geopolitically complex situation. And dont be suaded by the peace ralleys. their is a majority against war, but most people think almost everyone is, whcih is incorrect. But that is understandable, cause everyday i get bombarded by the news of yet another peace ralley... there arent too many war ralleys... Just becasue they are more vocal, does not mean they are much more numerous, nor does it mean they are that much more right.

"a million people believing somethn foolish, does not make that thing no longer foolish..."

[Kramerman]

The UN is gonna say no to invading because of a Veto from France or Russia. They are merely playing political games. Chirac's hard-core oppostion to teh war is merely a political thing. Im more than sure if the people of france were a majority for the war, he would be singing a completely different tune with the same straight face. Not to mention the vested interests France would lose in Iraq should Saddam's regime fall. I dont undersatnd Russia's hardcore opposition tho. Germany's is understandable, shcroeder is doing the same as Chirac.

But, i do have much respect for Blair hes doing what is right, unlike the other leaders, even tho a majority of his population is against war as well.

[johncmcleod]

How about Germany's idea? We put in a ton more inspectors and give Saddam a little bit longer and have the inspectors be looking everywhere at everything and Saddam won't be able to hide his WoMD. We should do whatever we can to avoid war, for it will have some very bad effects. The arab world will hate us. There will be many terrorist attacks on US soldiers in Iraq. It could be a huge mess, maybe a Vietnam on a smaller scale.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The drone is significant because it was not declared by the Iraqis and is therefore proof that they lied on their weapons declaration. That's a material breach...

Only if it can go over 150 km. If it can't, Iraq isn't in breach (on this) and didn't have to declare it. We don't know whether it has that range yet. It's premature to declare it a smoking gun or to dismiss it out of hand.

The bio/chem cluster warheads on the other hand are a particlularly nasty surprise. These, if armed, are probably the nastiest thing Iraq has, and are far more dangerous than the silly drone you chickenhawks are getting all worked up over.

[johncmcleod]

Plus, Saddam really wants to stay in power. He's done whatever he can to do that. I think you need more than just a basement to develop a nuke, and I think Saddam won't try a WoMD and nuke buildup, for if he got caught half way he'd be more than done for.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Whats not fair, is Saddam signing a peace agreement that he would remain in power, but would disarm his WoMD. He has had 12 years to comply. The world is against the war because they are against war in general. Most dont understand the full extent of this rather geopolitically complex situation.

So explain the "geopolitically complex situation." everyone knows what this is about. Violating a cease-fire agreement is only causi belli if the other side is engaged in military action against you. The only valid reason that any country has to ever attack another country is if they are under attack by that country or they are defending a third country from attack by that country. At this time, no one is under attack by Iraq, therefore, regardless of any violations, there is no causi belli.

In fact, if any country has one, it's Iraq, which is under attack and under imminent threat of invasion by the US and UK. Iraq would be completely justified in launching an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia right now in order to clear out the Allied troops preparing to invade him. Of course, it would be a slaughter on his part, but he's still justified.

[Ted Striker]

Alright, full stop. I DEMAND everybody stop using the phrase, causi belli!!!!



You have until March 17th Commie!!!


Ted Striker, International Policeman


I just danSed

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Only if it can go over 150 km. If it can't, Iraq isn't in breach (on this) and didn't have to declare it. We don't know whether it has that range yet. It's premature to declare it a smoking gun or to dismiss it out of hand.

Onlu if it can go over 150km and can be used to carry warheads.

[Kramerman]

So explain the "geopolitically complex situation."

Che, your a smart guy. i know your aware of most all of the logical postions for and against war. Sadly, many on both sides of the debate do not know all these, and base their position in ignorance or misinformation. You can not deny this. And it is my personal belief, from what i have seen of teen protesters and such, that the anti-war camp has at least a slightly higher percentage of these.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So explain the "geopolitically complex situation." everyone knows what this is about. Violating a cease-fire agreement is only causi belli if the other side is engaged in military action against you. The only valid reason that any country has to ever attack another country is if they are under attack by that country or they are defending a third country from attack by that country. At this time, no one is under attack by Iraq, therefore, regardless of any violations, there is no causi belli.

In fact, if any country has one, it's Iraq, which is under attack and under imminent threat of invasion by the US and UK. Iraq would be completely justified in launching an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia right now in order to clear out the Allied troops preparing to invade him. Of course, it would be a slaughter on his part, but he's still justified.

this is our fundemental difference. I dont want to wait for Saddam to get a deterent arsenal, so that he can invade a country conventionally, and cover his ass. Im convinced that inspections will take a lifetime, and that Iraq and the rest of the wrold would be MUCH better off in the long run with Saddam gone. These things justify an attack for me. Why should 'civilized nations' live by your definition of causi belli when there are so many nations out ther that dont give a damn, and would invade someone the second they can (ie if there were no US or other major military power to stop them)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

huh , the drone and its friends where found on an airbase with chemical and bio storage facilities next to them , .....

All airbases have ordnance storage. Since Saddam has now, and has had, NBC programs, and he's used CW, it makes sense that many airbases would have specialized storage bunkers for that type of ordnance. Those type of static facilities say nothing about the capability of the UAV, though.

a 500 KM radius in the middle east is a lot , ....

Yes it is, but a 7.5 meter (more or less) wingspan UAV isn't going to have a 500 km range with much of a payload at all. I'm assuming that if the UAV had a spray rig with controls, etc., the article would have mentioned that. Put that sort of stuff on, and assuming you could keep your UAV flyable (it'd really have to be purpose built for BCW and have the dispersal system integrated with the UAV itself - meaning it would be obviously incomplete and largely unflyable with that stuff removed - something the UN report fails to identify, so it's a safe presumption that there's no dispersal apparatus associated with that UAV. Plus, you have to keep in mind that UAV's fly slow and straight, that's why even the Taleban and the Iraqis have been able to nail US Predators.

and last but not least saddam has been playing with super large scale drones , .... converted trainers , ...

Which is something the US has played with since the 1950's - they were used for target practice, and test of the earliest SAMs and AAMs) Large UAV's have the air defense survivability of a pregnant duck. There's not much doubt what Saddam would like to have, but what he actually has is a bit less exciting. Certainly, it doesn't rise to the level of a "smoking gun" for BCW weapons or delivery platforms.

as for "speculation" , well the un found them , thats no speculation , ....

The speculation isn't whether it exists, but what is it's capabilities, either as-is, or with feasible modifications.

have a nice day

You too.

[Panag]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


All airbases have ordnance storage. Since Saddam has now, and has had, NBC programs, and he's used CW, it makes sense that many airbases would have specialized storage bunkers for that type of ordnance. Those type of static facilities say nothing about the capability of the UAV, though.



Yes it is, but a 7.5 meter (more or less) wingspan UAV isn't going to have a 500 km range with much of a payload at all. I'm assuming that if the UAV had a spray rig with controls, etc., the article would have mentioned that. Put that sort of stuff on, and assuming you could keep your UAV flyable (it'd really have to be purpose built for BCW and have the dispersal system integrated with the UAV itself - meaning it would be obviously incomplete and largely unflyable with that stuff removed - something the UN report fails to identify, so it's a safe presumption that there's no dispersal apparatus associated with that UAV. Plus, you have to keep in mind that UAV's fly slow and straight, that's why even the Taleban and the Iraqis have been able to nail US Predators.



Which is something the US has played with since the 1950's - they were used for target practice, and test of the earliest SAMs and AAMs) Large UAV's have the air defense survivability of a pregnant duck. There's not much doubt what Saddam would like to have, but what he actually has is a bit less exciting. Certainly, it doesn't rise to the level of a "smoking gun" for BCW weapons or delivery platforms.



The speculation isn't whether it exists, but what is it's capabilities, either as-is, or with feasible modifications.



You too.

hi ,

the bunkers at the particular airfield are build in 1998 , ....

as for the small UAV's , well you only need small amounts of chem or bio weapons to create havoc , so they dont need to carry a lot , .....

the bigger airplanes , well they have been working on it for some time now , since about 1985 , and in the last couple of years they have proved what they can do with those modified trainers , .... and one person declared to the inspectors last week that if the would have any doubt about them not working , well simple they would put a pilot in the plane , ..... saddam has been watching WWII pacific movies , .....

but the real UAV dangers lay in the fact that they are small , they dont need a large infrastructure , they dont need runways , they dont need a large command structure and they are difficult to spot from the air and easy to hide , .....

in other words , the perfect lunatics weapon , .....


oh yeah , ever heard of putting some rockets on the side of those things , to make take off faster ? like with a c-130 ?

there are some drawnings that show something like a 2.75 inch rocket under the wings , not to be used as weapon but as boost , ....

and they have been working on really short take of from what seems to be a ship's ramp , like an aircraft carrier steam catapult , ....

next month jane's is going to come out with a special volume on them

have a nice day

[Boris Godunov]

HERE IS THE KILLER MONSTER DRONE!!! OH MY GOD HOW HORRIFYING!!!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030312/170/3hrte.html

Seriously, I've seen kids build scarier contraptions in their back yard. This looks like a rejected exhibit from the Air and Space Museum

[KrazyHorse]

It apparently runs off a lawnmower engine and has a range of a few kilometers.

[Boris Godunov]

GAH! RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
HERE IS THE KILLER MONSTER DRONE!!! OH MY GOD HOW HORRIFYING!!!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030312/170/3hrte.html

Seriously, I've seen kids build scarier contraptions in their back yard. This looks like a rejected exhibit from the Air and Space Museum

hi ,

thats an other drone , ......

have a nice day

pic ; the real stuff to watch out for , .....