Why? What's the point?

[Navaron]

A report declassified by the UN yesterday contained the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, the TIMES OF LONDON is reporting Saturday.

US officials are outraged that Hans Blix did not inform the Security Council about the remotely piloted vehicle in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html


Why would you try and hide this? He discredits himself and his organization? I don't get it.

[Revolution]

Its all about the conspiracy against the USA. The rest of the world is suppose to turn on us. Including the UN.

[Airlift]

Actually, one of the really positive things that will most likely come out of the war is that the Weapons Inspectors will be US Army Special Forces instead of UN guys. They will do the job with dogged determination and unwavering professionalism.

[Arthell]

How many missles have been destroyed so far? 43ish?

[Lexington_Steele]

Is there anything illegal about this drone?

Is this drone evidence of WMDs?

Again, I am not against going into Iraq, however this is hardly evidence that would convince the UN that Iraq has WMDs or that it should be invaded.

I don't think it would be too hard to build a remote drone, nor do I think it is illegal.

[Arthell]

Was Iraq targetted for supporting terrorism? (and if so, was there actual proof?) One day it was all Afghanistan and Osama (which has conveniently been forgotten by almost everyone) and is now Iraq and Saddam. Kind of convenient, since Osama hasnt been captured ...

The UN is doing everything it can to stop a war. If a serious war breaks out and even 1 major weapon is used millions upon millions will die.

Couple questions :

What will the UN do if the US attacks without their consent?

Isnt a nuke capable of destroying a massive chunk of a continent? I remember hearing that if a nuke went off in the US then Canada would also be gone via the radiation.

Edit : What i find sick is that when people say 'Yeah, lets bomb Saddam!' it really means 'Yeah, lets bomb Saddam, but since he is in hiding so he isnt killed lets kill the civilians!'

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arthell
Isnt a nuke capable of destroying a massive chunk of a continent? I remember hearing that if a nuke went off in the US then Canada would also be gone via the radiation. Uhm... no.Japan is still here and thriving after being hit with two nukes. (granted, they were smaller than todays. but still.)

[Navaron]

"Is there anything illegal about this drone?"

Yes. An unmanned aircraft is not allowed to violate the 90km rule, because it falls under the catagory of missiles. Also this is the drone that is outfitted with tanks to drop chemical and biological weapons - you know, the ones he doesn't have.

"Was Iraq targetted for supporting terrorism? (and if so, was there actual proof?) "

Yeah. There's hundreds of examples.

"One day it was all Afghanistan and Osama (which has conveniently been forgotten by almost everyone)"

Maybe you forgot, but I'm sure most Americans, all marines, the CIA, and the Spec Op boys chasing his ass haven't. They've been catching these bastards on almost a daily basis. If he's not dead, we'll get him soon. Hell, no one knew what happened to Hitler for over 4 years after WW2.

"What will the UN do if the US attacks without their consent?"

Same thing they do now, piss and moan and not do a damn thing.

"Isnt a nuke capable of destroying a massive chunk of a continent? I remember hearing that if a nuke went off in the US then Canada would also be gone via the radiation."

Ummm, I think you read a little too much SciFi.

"What i find sick is that when people say 'Yeah, lets bomb Saddam!' it really means 'Yeah, lets bomb Saddam, but since he is in hiding so he isnt killed lets kill the civilians!'"

Yet again, your generalization may reflect your feelings, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Hell, they are considering dropping leaflets 24 hrs in advance to the populace can flee. I know for a fact that in every major conflict of the late 20th century, the US has gone overboard in protecting civilians. If you want to dog on the US and how we like to kill little children, you'd better do alot better job than that. (Facts tend to help)

[Navaron]

BTW, this paragraph alone is evidence enough that they aren't disarming. Hell inspector Clusoe here found this (so what do you think he missed?)- and didn't even try to hide it-

"The report also says there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed. "

But no one really answered my question - why is Blix intentionally hiding stuff? What his ulterior motive? Is he trying to stay in the limelight and make himself a broker for peace? I'm really stumped.

[Squeeky]

more political debate threads :ugh:

[Navaron]

If you don't know anything about them, and don't like them, stay out of them. Der.

[TimberWolf2K]

You know what you do with people who start Political Debates dont'ya Squeeks?

http://www.timberwolf2k.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/banemall.jpg

Do the right thing Squeeks

[Tobias]

Nukes arnt what scares me, Bio weapons scare me.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Yes. An unmanned aircraft is not allowed to violate the 90km rule, because it falls under the catagory of missiles. Also this is the drone that is outfitted with tanks to drop chemical and biological weapons - you know, the ones he doesn't have.


Do you feel that remote controlled airplane/hellicopter justifies a war?

The no fly zone is something seperate from Iraq's requirement to disarm.

Regardless of whether Blix mentioned it, the Security Council has been made aware of it and it has not prompted an immediate resolution.

BTW as far as I know, we have yet to be able to officially link Saddam to terrorist attacks in the US (that Saddam is a wily character. He has been very careful to keep his hands clean).

[Confectrix]

Lex

The no fly zone is different from this; you're right. However, I don't think you know that the UN requires Iraq not to develop, make, or aquire missles [incl. this drone] which can exceed a 90km range.

Consequently, this gives us more reason to go to war. He is not following UN resolutions.

We'll see how things go in the coming months.

Take care,

[MrVicchio]

Justification for war:

In 1991 Saddam signed the cease fire agreement, that basically said "disarm all your WMD, Missles that fly over 90km... " Basically, set his military down to DEFENSIVE instead of offensive...

He, for the last 12 years has failed to comply.

Containing him, and his weapons is a dangerous gamble. There are links with him to Terrorist. Just look at the 25k paid to the families of homicide bombers.... Isn't that enough to tell you he would do more? Or pre-disposed to such?

The countries most against the US and the 18 EU countires, Australia and a number of South American Countries and a few Asian ones are France, Germany, Russia and China.

China is just playing the game, and they dont like us.

Russia has an 8 BILLION dollar oil deal with Saddam.

Germany and France BOTH have MULTI BILLION dollar deals with Saddam..... BOTH of them.

Now, which country is acting on principles, and which country(s) are the greedy bastards?

Nuff said.

[mistled]

I also want to point out, just for the record in case anyone here doesn't know.... that Saddam is supposed to be serving a life sentence in prison as it is.

He was placed in jail after attempting an assassination of Iraq's leader at the time. He then escaped from jail and helped overthrow the government. Once the old regime reclaimed power, he was sentence to life in prison for his role in the coup. He was later freed when his party once again claimed power.

Just a little history lesson for anyone here who ever thinks Saddam is just some guy.

[Mtx]

Originally posted by Confectrix

Consequently, this gives us more reason to go to war. He is not following UN resolutions.



That isn't a good reason. It's more like a sorry ass excuse.

:rolleyes:

[mistled]

When all that ended the previous war was a sorry ass excuse called a resolution, the violation of one should call for the reinstatement of that war.



...sorry, I don't know how the hell you reinstate a war... it sounds like the war got kicked out of office and it's been redeemed, so we're giving it its old job back... sorry...

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Now, which country is acting on principles, and which country(s) are the greedy bastards?

I believe that all of them are greedy, self-interested bastards. US, France, German, GB, Russia, all of them.

There are strong arguments for going to war and their are strong arguments for not going to war. You can find good moral ground to stand on with either position that you choose. I am sure that most people on this forum are not thinking of the greedy reason for being pro or anti war. I am certain that they are following their principles.

The reason why I think all the countries are are acting for greedy reason is because you can draw a 1 to 1 correlation between their stance on Iraq and its economic impact on their country.

As far as the people that are pro war, I am sure that you were pro war before you heard about this remote controlled biological weapon delivery system.

What you need to think about is: do you believe that someone who is against a war with Iraq would swich their position because of this new evidence.

I just don't see this evidence as groundbreaking enough to sway the position of the anti war folks.

I definately don't see this as enough to sway the economic interests of Germany, France, or other countries that oppose war.

[Hamma]

:huh: