1
   

Iraqi Drone Could Drop Chemical on Troops

 
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:04 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
dlowan- Here's some for starters!


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030305-2203800.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/313ycqje.asp

Quote:
AS FRANCE'S political leaders feign high-mindedness in their opposition to waging war in Iraq, could it be that a little-publicized threat of blackmail--issued by none other than Saddam Hussein a year after France sided with the United States in the first Gulf War--weighs ever so slightly in the back of their minds?


Neither France nor the US were involved in the first Gulf War. Not directly that is. They both delivered weapons and financial aid. If you really want stuff to blackmail someone, you better check the Curriculum Vitae of Donald Rumsfeld. Or the history of corporations like Halliburton.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:16 am
The US was not involved in the first gulf war? How interesting.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:17 am
frolic- There may very well be others for whom blackmail is a possible threat. But what does that have to do with France & Iraq, which is the issue at hand?
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:43 am
roger wrote:
The US was not involved in the first gulf war? How interesting.


You better check your history books. The first Gulf War was the Iraq-Iran Conflict between 1980-1888.

On September 17, 1980 Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in order to reclaim territory he considered to be owned by Iraq. The conflict flowed back and forth from a war of attrition to a series of attacks by both sides. In 1988 Iraq launched a offensive which inflicted heavy Iranian casualties. On August 20, 1988 Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran accepted the UN-sponsored peace treaty.

The second Gulf War started with the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and ended on the 28 of Feb 1991 with operation Desert Storm(Desert Sabre)
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:50 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
frolic- There may very well be others for whom blackmail is a possible threat. But what does that have to do with France & Iraq, which is the issue at hand?


The issue at hand is that the US/UK dont have a majority for their war against Iraq. US/UK/spain are in favor for ideological reasons. Bulgaria and Mexico are in favor for economical reasons and the rest wants more time for the weaponinspections.

The US is always picking on France but they seem to forget that yesterday the first nation that threatened to use its veto was Russia. I don't see many reaction on the Russian Veto-threat. Why? Is France easier to pick on? Or is their something with Russia that i dont know of?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 08:55 am
Frolic- Interesting point about Russia. I really don't know, but I can make a few educated guesses. What is your "take" on it?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 09:17 am
<note to watch for clever frolic wording: history okay>
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 09:30 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Frolic- Interesting point about Russia. I really don't know, but I can make a few educated guesses. What is your "take" on it?


Please make those educated guesses for i haven't got a clue.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 12:08 pm
Russia has not yet decided whom to choose as a strategic ally: USA or EU (I mean not only in military aspect, but in economical and geopolitical as well). Two different groups in proximity to President Putin are competing for possibility to configure the Russian foreign policy in either of the alternative ways. Right now the pro-European group dominates. But success of the U.S. military operation in Iraq may change balance there.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 02:43 pm
Thank God, the Saddam regime hasn't been provoked enough yet, to use all those chemical weopons, they've stockpiled.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2003 09:31 pm
Come on folks! Now that Blix is long gone, and we've at at war 3 weeks......How about all those weopons...... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! Surprised
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2003 12:16 pm
Reading back through this thread has been interesting, to say the least.

Phoe, rog, steissd: care to weigh in?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2003 02:04 pm
I'd like to see Phoenix settle her bet about Iraq being involved in 9/11.

It's pitiful that a war was waged with such ill-informed supporters.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 10:58 pm
Read this thread. Sad to see so many arguing for "strike first, question later." Sad
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 02:00 am
To be fair the lack of information on this came from the top down.
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2003 06:53 am
Craven,

Is that because the information the top had was not inducive to support of the venture?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 12:18 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
To be fair the lack of information on this came from the top down.


gozmo wrote:
Is that because the information the top had was not inducive to support of the venture?


Well, there's this, today:

Quote:
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Fla., said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.


This stretches the administration's lies about WMDs to new lengths.

Quote:
Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

* * *

"That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this."


Of course, anyone paying attention (as well as most of the CIA, DIA, and State Department) knew these claims to be baloney. That's why this briefing came from the Pentagon (probably Rummy's secret intelligence shop), and not one of the intelligence agencies that had repeatedly warned that this "intelligence" was flawed.

At the end it's obvious that they just made stuff up. Pure fantasy.

Quote:
Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched.

"The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


Like I said. Bull-oney.

Does everyone remember Bush flying around the country last October campaigning for Republican Congressional candidates repeating this lie at every stop?

Quote:
"He's got weapons of mass destruction!" He's got 'em...He's used 'em!"


Are you one of the people that still believes we're going to find WMDs buried in the desert of Iraq that could've been used against us "in 45 minutes", as the President said?

If you are, then vote for Bush and the Republicans next fall.

I'm sure they will take good care of you. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 06:59 pm
To be fair the abundance of disinformation on this came from the top down.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 07:46 pm
In retrospect, maybe Ari Fleisher should have taken his one bullet and done the job that took an army and thousands upon thousands of collaterally slaughtered Iraqi men, women and children to accomplish.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 08:02:13