PDA

View Full Version : Another Smoking Gun - Iraqi Drone


job
Mar 9, 2003, 06:35 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605557,00.html

Apparently Blix possibly hid information in order to prevent it's knowledge.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 9, 2003, 07:06 PM
Worse than the smoking gun of the Iraqi drone would be the whole issue of why Blix was hiding it. If it comes out that he wasn't doing his job and trying to be personally responsible to make sure war was avoided its going to cause some serious backlash.

D

Stelliform
Mar 9, 2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Worse than the smoking gun of the Iraqi drone would be the whole issue of why Blix was hiding it. If it comes out that he wasn't doing his job and trying to be personally responsible to make sure war was avoided its going to cause some serious backlash.

D

Phew, you said it. It makes those who were depending on Blix, and decieved by him, look foolish!

MacFan25
Mar 9, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Worse than the smoking gun of the Iraqi drone would be the whole issue of why Blix was hiding it. If it comes out that he wasn't doing his job and trying to be personally responsible to make sure war was avoided its going to cause some serious backlash.

Yeah, I wouldn't think that he would try to hide something. :confused:

Mr. Anderson
Mar 9, 2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Phew, you said it. It makes those who were depending on Blix, and decieved by him, look foolish!

Its even worse than loosing face here - it puts the whole validity of the Inspection Team at risk and could cloud any decisions, life threatening at that, that need to be made soon. Because if the reports look to be biased or even false, it will most likely give Iraq more time, since investigation to the allegations will be required. Either its true, or we're seeing a truly convoluted stalling technique here.

Regardless, its not good.

D

wdlove
Mar 9, 2003, 07:53 PM
Just more evidence of the irrelevance of Hans Blix, and soon to be the fate of the UN!

jethroted
Mar 9, 2003, 10:18 PM
This bad, war soon, Homer go die, Blix cause.

LethalWolfe
Mar 9, 2003, 10:43 PM
Oh sh$t is isn't good news. :(


Lethal

voyagerd
Mar 10, 2003, 12:02 AM
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless, noisy baggage behind." -Alex Cook

beatle888
Mar 10, 2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by voyagerd
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless, noisy baggage behind." -Alex Cook


please dont bash france. they have a right to their opinions and decisions. i for one dont think killing innocent civilians is a good solution. especially when the reason your going to war is to supposedly protect the innocent civilians. where is the logic in that.

this is mass murder of innocent lives.

Judo
Mar 10, 2003, 03:32 AM
hehe voyagerd, I thought that was kinda funny.
Hunting without an accordian. :P
America has their whole marching band trumpeting look at us we are so great anyway. So they don't really need the humble old accordian.


Bad move by Hans.
Not a rational reason to go to war, but it is more fuel for the propaganda fire.


Nothing to do with anything but I thought this kinda funny aswell.

"I think the American people—I hope the American—I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me."—George W Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 08:00 AM
I think this is another example that blix and the gang are just smoke and mirrors for the French and their buddies. The drones have been shown in two sizes, a small portable to be moved easily into another country and a large version. These are designed to spray the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam says he doesnt have. Blix left out a lot of things in his report to the UN. But the biggest is the fact that Iraq has not turned over its WMD's. From listening to Blix you would think that the inspectors are supposed to run around this country for the next 12 years and play hide go seek with Saddam. Saddam has done nothing for 1441 and the few missles they are destroying is only because they were found and to pretend to be doing something. Its Past time to get rid of the Butcher of Baghdad.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by beatle888
please dont bash france. they have a right to their opinions and decisions. i for one dont think killing innocent civilians is a good solution. especially when the reason your going to war is to supposedly protect the innocent civilians. where is the logic in that.

this is mass murder of innocent lives.

Oh shut up! Damn, do you realize the lengths that the US military goes to to ensure that civilians are not killed? Do you understand the amount of money that is spent on smart weapons? That we now use GPS navigated bombs to ensure that civilian targets are not hit! This is not the mass murder of anything, except common sense.


Now on the subject of the drones, not only that, but news breaks this morning that Blix as not bringing to the table that Iraq has hundreds of cluster ammunitions that could be used to scatter chemical weapons on troops. Nice. Blix is a tool of the French and German agenda, and nothing more! People talk about Bush not proving his case! Hell, how about Blix just presenting one!

3rdpath
Mar 10, 2003, 12:06 PM
i remember reading in november a certain prediction:

you'll know war is imminent when the press begins discrediting the inspectors.

SOP in the logistics playbook.

i cannot pass judgement on blix..i certainly don't have all the info for that decision...

but i find it interesting that he was chosen for the job if he falls so far below expectations. and how incredibly convenient that france and germany could place someone so intent on supporting their agenda in the lead role of an action that the u.s. instigated.

talk about your conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:

Judo
Mar 11, 2003, 04:03 AM
Ohh yes B2TM Hooray for America.

I'm thinking that less civilian casualties are a bit of an after thought with smart weapons and they were developed to be more lethal to what ever they are targeting.

Why spend money on the idea of trying to save a few people but then spend a HUGH amount of money on Chemicle, Biological and Nuclear weapons ie: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

leprechaunG4
Mar 11, 2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Judo
Ohh yes B2TM Hooray for America.

I'm thinking that less civilian casualties are a bit of an after thought with smart weapons and they were developed to be more lethal to what ever they are targeting.

Why spend money on the idea of trying to save a few people but then spend a HUGH amount of money on Chemicle, Biological and Nuclear weapons ie: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Do you read your own posts? Just as much damage could be done to the enemy by simply carpet bombing, however, that is no longer the method of the US military. Why? To protect as many innocent lives as possible. As for your comment on WMD remember the large problem here is Saddam's manufacturing such weapons. If Saddam simply complied with the requirements from the ceasefire from the gulf war, there would be no issue. He has not, so we are not even truely starting a new war. The last war never ended as Saddam never met with the requirements of the cease fire, meaning the cease fire can be lifted at any time.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Judo
Ohh yes B2TM Hooray for America.

I'm thinking that less civilian casualties are a bit of an after thought with smart weapons and they were developed to be more lethal to what ever they are targeting.

Why spend money on the idea of trying to save a few people but then spend a HUGH amount of money on Chemicle, Biological and Nuclear weapons ie: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Wow, that is really deep. Since I have a family member that has worked on the development of the JDAM systems, and one of the top goals was to minimize civilian casualties. Yep. I am right. You are wrong. But hey, that is ok. As for the rest of your post. That is just stupid. We actually don't spend a HUGE amount of money on those weapons, and in fact are currently dismantling our chemical and biological weapons here in the US. MY point (I will say it slow for you) is that we use these types of munitions so that civilians don't get killed. If we did not care, hey, B-52's at 40,000 feet would work, and do a **** load more damage.

SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE WILL YOU!

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh shut up!


actually Badinthesac i will not shut up. i only asked people to please dont bash france. if you wanna talk about their opinions in a less hostel tone then go ahead, but im not going to shut up for YOU.

macfan
Mar 11, 2003, 04:46 PM
Why not bash France? They deserve a good deal of bashing in this entire Iraq episode. It is their attitude of appeasement toward Iraq that has contributed to this being the problem it is today. They deserted the coaltion against Saddam, leaving the US and UK to bear the burden alone and have sought to undermine it for many years. They are satisfied with the idea that the US and UK should maintain a huge military presence for an indefinite period so that they can go on trading with Saddam and lining their pockets with his petro dollars. France should send their own six carrier battle groups, their own Marine forces, their own air force and their own heavy divisions to the region in order to apply pressure to Saddam. If they were proposing a multi national force with a huge French contingent, then we might want to take their drivel a little more seriously. They are not. They are proposing that the US maintain a huge force on a war footing for an indefinite period of time in the Middle East while they continue to sell spare parts to Iraq for their sorry air force and while Saddam remains in power to threaten his neighbors and his people. All the talk about the French being cowards is misplaced. However, they are not cooperating to solve the problem in Iraq.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
actually Badinthesac i will not shut up. i only asked people to please dont bash france. if you wanna talk about their opinions in a less hostel tone then go ahead, but im not going to shut up for YOU. OK, love the little comment on the sac. That was really original for a 12 year old little girl. That being said, I am not bashing the French people. To the contrary, I compliment them during WWI. I do think that they were cowards during WWII, but hey, after WWI who can blame them right? So, I am not bashing the French people, but their government that has continued to be a thorn in the side of our foriegn policy. They have continued to be jokes. No UN vote on Bosnia, but have to have one on Iraq. Come on! They violate the UN resolutions banning sales of weapons to Iraq. They have $60 billion in oil investments there. They say NEVER to a resolution that would authorize force against them. Basically, they are saying they are allies with Saddam. that is fine. If that is the stance they want to take so be it. But believe me the american people will not take it. We will boycott their products, we will get rid of trade with them. We have a 9 Billion dollar a year trade deficit with France. So who does it hurt? THEM!

The shut up was for the infantile nature of your statements. They are not opinion, but uneducated banter.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 11, 2003, 05:06 PM
back to the mac is right they are siding with Saddam even though they have skirted the U.N. If they want to side with this killer? And i do mean killer then so be it. Lets not buy french made products. Right is right wrong is wrong and keeping anyone like Saddam in power is wrong. If he had killed 1 person that was too many but thousands? Am i missing something here or is France backing a MURDERER? Is there any Morals left in France? Over and over Saddam has lied about his weapons programs. I dont think the french will change their minds unless they had a direct attack by Saddam and even then iam not sure.

3rdpath
Mar 11, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
MY point (I will say it slow for you) is that we use these types of munitions so that civilians don't get killed. If we did not care, hey, B-52's at 40,000 feet would work, and do a **** load more damage.

actually, according to most public records we did a lot of that during desert storm. All total, B-52s flew 1,624 Desert Storm missions, delivered 72,000 weapons weighing 25,700 tons, and accounted for 29 percent of all U.S. bombs dropped and 38 percent of all Air Force bombs.

secondly, our smart weapons aren't that smart...sure we all saw the same 4 or 5 video clips from desert storm but lets look at the numbers:

approx 80% of our tanks were destroyed by friendly fire...

most of our casualties and injuries were from friendly fire...

the patriot missle defense was a miserable failure...

the success rate of the patriots was downgraded from around 70% to 50% and many experts( including an MIT expert on physics) really feel the success rate was at best 10% and quite possibly 0%. also, the official military criteria for success is (1)that the patriot goes where its supposed to and (2)the scud does no damage...there is absolutely no criteria for the missle to actually be intercepted.

don't believe the hype. ;)

job
Mar 11, 2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
friendly fire

there's no such thing as "friendly" fire. ;)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 11, 2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
actually, according to most public records we did a lot of that during desert storm. All total, B-52s flew 1,624 Desert Storm missions, delivered 72,000 weapons weighing 25,700 tons, and accounted for 29 percent of all U.S. bombs dropped and 38 percent of all Air Force bombs.

secondly, our smart weapons aren't that smart...sure we all saw the same 4 or 5 video clips from desert storm but lets look at the numbers:

approx 80% of our tanks were destroted by friendly fire...

most of our casualties and injuries were from friendly fire...

the patriot missle defense was a miserable failure...

the success rate of the patriots was downgraded from around 70% to 50% and many experts( including an MIT expert on physics) really feel the success rate was at best 10% and quite possibly 0%. also, the official military criteria for success is (1)that the patriot goes where its supposed to and (2)the scud does no damage...there is absolutely no criteria for the missle to actually be intercepted.

don't believe the hype. ;) 80% of our own tanks destroyed by our own guys? whatever you are smoking i want some!

MrsBacktothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
actually Badinthesac i will not shut up. i only asked people to please dont bash france. if you wanna talk about their opinions in a less hostel tone then go ahead, but im not going to shut up for YOU.

The first thing is that yes, I am a Republican, but do I like the idea of war? No! And I am tired of people acting like people that support Bush on this are horrible. We are not! We are just realistic. The more I hear all of these liberals talking about why they think we should not go to war, the better they make me feel about myself, and my President.

They seem to base their opinions on nothing substantial. They seem to live by Cliche's like "Give inspections time" "My Bush says no war", etc. What kind of grounds for a real argument do they stand on? Where is there alternative other than waste more time for an outcome that will not happen as they plan? We cannot wait for France's outcome, because the result could make 9/11 look like a cakewalk.

I consider myself an extemely understanding person when it comes to other peoples feelings. but I honestly have to admit that I cannot understand why the entire US doesn't have a unified support for this war. To me it seems so crystal clear what is going on. I feel like the people that don't see what is going on do not want to see what is going on.

I can understand the younger generation, being so far removed from the times of war, not understanding the purpose of war. Just think about this. Everytime you go through a drivethru window, or go to a movie, or make any choice in life that is YOUR CHOICE, war did that for you. And the soldiers that fought and died did it FOR YOU!

But the people that are closer to my age and older that do not support the war, I just don't get it. What are you thinking? Are you just forgetting the 1.5million people that he has slaughtered? His OWN people! What about human rights? if you don't trust your government, who do you trust your enemy?

Here is a cliche for you. JUST DO IT!

Lets be the Penicillin that gets rid of this infection on humanity.

P.S.
Backtothemac makes just as good a point in the sac as he does on Macrumors! And we all know how good that is

:eek:

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
actually, according to most public records we did a lot of that during desert storm. All total, B-52s flew 1,624 Desert Storm missions, delivered 72,000 weapons weighing 25,700 tons, and accounted for 29 percent of all U.S. bombs dropped and 38 percent of all Air Force bombs.

Oh, the liberal hype. Yes, that is true. Not in Bagdad they did not, but in the troops in the desert. BIG difference.



secondly, our smart weapons aren't that smart...sure we all saw the same 4 or 5 video clips from desert storm but lets look at the numbers:


yes, they are that smart.


approx 80% of our tanks were destroyed by friendly fire...

your right of the 3 destroyed 2 were from Friendly fire.


most of our casualties and injuries were from friendly fire...

BS! There were about 129 dead from the Gulf War. Nearly 100 were in a Scud attack in Bahrain.


the patriot missle defense was a miserable failure...

the success rate of the patriots was downgraded from around 70% to 50% and many experts( including an MIT expert on physics) really feel the success rate was at best 10% and quite possibly 0%. also, the official military criteria for success is (1)that the patriot goes where its supposed to and (2)the scud does no damage...there is absolutely no criteria for the missle to actually be intercepted.

don't believe the hype. ;)

Ok, MIT. I don't care about their stats. I know people that were there. They had about a 60% success rate. Not bad for a weapon that had never been tested in battle.

BELIEVE THE HYPE!
:)

job
Mar 11, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
your right of the 3 destroyed 2 were from Friendly fire.

roflmao. :D

stick it to 'em bt2m. ;)

3rdpath
Mar 11, 2003, 08:27 PM
b2tm,

once again, you're wrong.

our tank losses numbered 35( M1A1 abrams and M2 Bradleys) of which 27 were destroyed by friendly fire. nice try.

here's a quote for ya regarding the patriots:

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

and i stand corrected, only 25% of our troops were KIA by friendly fire. wow, that statistic really makes me comfortable...
:rolleyes:

i smackdown because i care.;)

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 09:25 PM
Sorry. I did not realize that there were 35 lost tanks. Any links for that info? And when only 129 are dead and 29 are friendlies out of over 400,000 deployed. That is really great % don't you think!

LethalWolfe
Mar 11, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
b2tm,

once again, you're wrong.

our tank losses numbered 35( M1A1 abrams and M2 Bradleys) of which 27 were destroyed by friendly fire. nice try.

here's a quote for ya regarding the patriots:

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

and i stand corrected, only 25% of our troops were KIA by friendly fire. wow, that statistic really makes me comfortable...
:rolleyes:

i smackdown because i care.;)


Can you post a link to those tank loses? I did a search and found 3 sources each saying 4 US tanks lost. BTW the Bradley is not a tank. :)


Lethal

3rdpath
Mar 11, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Can you post a link to those tank loses? I did a search and found 3 sources each saying 4 US tanks lost. BTW the Bradley is not a tank. :)


Lethal

hey guys,

looking for the link...purged my history so it might take awhile.

and regarding the M2 bradley not being a tank..you're really splitting hairs here...

1980 -USA M2 Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle

Armament:___________ 1 - 25mm chain gun (Hughes Helicopter)
________________________________ 1 - 7.62mm coaxial MG
________________________________ 1 - twin launcher for TOW anti-tank missiles
Engine:_________________ Cummins, 8cyl., water-cooled, turbo-
________________________________ charged, diesel, VTA-903T, 500 hp
Speed:_________________ 45 mph
Range:_________________ 300 miles
Crew:___________________ 3
Weight:________________ 21 tons

Army's first infantry combat vehicle. Can carry up to 7 infantrymen. Hull is made of aluminum with a layer of spaced laminate armor for added protection. The 25mm cannon in the power turret is stabilized for firing on the move. The rear troop compartment is fitted with firing ports and periscopes. Night vision and NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) defense systems are standard. Negatives: high costs, poorly armored, difficult to maintain. Over 8,000 produced.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 11:57 PM
Great post 3rd path, but not a tank. Look at the specs on the M1-A1 and you will see my point. Nothing like a 105MM howitser to say good morning. :)

beatle888
Mar 12, 2003, 12:06 AM
hehehe yea i can see the grey area here. it does seem like one would be splitting hairs. im sure it would be considered a tank.

Backtothemac
Mar 12, 2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by beatle888
hehehe yea i can see the grey area here. it does seem like one would be splitting hairs. im sure it would be considered a tank.

Actually the Bradley is considered an APC. Not a tank. Big difference between the two.