treeman, I have done searches on Salman Pak (be careful w/ that Salmon, AK, btw) and I have primarily gotten a bunch of conspiratorial links from journals that use language like "red china", etc. I got a pbs link, but the information seems to be conjecture by a former Iraqi. Does our government have information separate from what this guy has given them? Also, isn't the link between Ramsi Youssef and Iraq a bit tenuous? Even your conspiracy-theory sites (likes newsmax) describe Youssef as "more than likely an Iraqi operative". btw, in the end, I try not to get too worked up about a war with Iraq... I think that it's going to happen no matter what my opinion is... and I think that terrorist attacks will occur afterwards in response. It sucks for all of us, but the ME problem isn't going to just go away... well, as long as we support the colonialists in Israel, it's not going to just go away.
Achebe: Never heard of newsmax, and I don't go for conspiracy theories in general... I do believe that Powell mentioned it, though. In 1995 Saddam's son-in-law Kamel fled Iraq and had a little sit-down with our guys, and alot came out then. We have quite a few defectors "in our possession", many of whom have personally worked at Salman Pak. There is quite a bit of information out there on it... Search harder if you are actually curious, it's there. Look up a woman named Laurie Milroy re: Ramsi Youssef. I would agree that the war is going to happen no matter what your opinion is on the matter. Or mine, if it makes you feel any better. We will be attacked, IMO. But we will be attacked anyway, and the only way to curb future attacks is to go after the source. The ME will calm down considerably after an initially rocky ride following the war, IMHO. It will certainly be a safer place with Saddam gone and an American army in a position to directly influence the region. Also, IMHO, the Israeli-Palestinian problem will be far easier to solve after an Iraq war for two reasons: 1) we will be in a position to directly and materially influence the situation (go after terrorists), and 2) Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists (quite extensive there) and general meddling will stop. This should alleviate the terrorism situation there and allow the Israelis to pull back a bit... And then we can take it from there.
BBob, That is just plain wrong. That b*stard Saddam is using handicapped kids as human shields in his sleeper cells. See how the guy in green is pointing and saying "kill them over there - the cripple and the darker-skinned guy." Saddam has already learned how to manipulate our Amercian values (hating cripples and darkies) and is turning them against us. Does his evil know no end?
Iraqi drones to attack the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you sure this wasn't from the National Inquirer? Give me a break. Are the prowar guys getting desperate? Now Sadam is not only insane, he is an evil genius with fiendish near supervillain powers. He is Dr. Evil of Austin Powers. HA HA HA. Good one.
As soon as i read this thread I was waiting for the 1st right-winged " This is exactly why we have to go in and get that b*stard!" response...and here it is. Specious reasoning... 1) We claim to have information ( from US intelligence)which justifies invading another nation, and destroying it's government. 2) We prepare to do just that, and act annoyed with rest of world for dragging it's feet in said action. 3) We then claim to have information ( from US intelligence) that the nation we are preparing to invade is apparently unwilling to fight this war by our agenda ( ie. on their land, in their cities, etc.) alone, and actually has theoretical military plans to try and strike back at the nation set to invade it if said invasion takes place. 4) Some people say that this is exactly why we need to invade this guy... If this doesn't show that some people are prepared to see anything and everything as a reason why their position is correct, irrespective of merit, I don't know what else to say. I honestly can't envision any occurence which would shake their faith in the rightness of their cause...and that's scary, because I feel it might be reflected, if somewhat more cynically, at the top. There's a reason they put blinders on horses...to get them to charge straight ahead without looking at anything else...
What past history is this? He had WMD during the Gulf War...and didn't use them. Nor did he use them to invade Kuwait, or in his war with Iran...I have often heard supporters of the invasion make statements like this, but have yet to hear any actul basis for this claim, other than the " But he's a really, really bad guy...and bad guys do stuff like that!" argument. In order to use nuclear arms, Hussein would have to be insane or incredibly stupid..and had shown himself to be neither. If you think he is the former, than consider the reason you yourself are about to state for why he didn't use WMD during the Gulf War...because it would have been sucide, and as he's not insane or an idiot, he didn't do it. There is absolutely no evidence to show that this man, who has remained in power in a very unstable region for over 30 years, who has prioritized personal political survival above all things, will suddenly turn into a raving lunatic bent on nuclear holocaust, nor is there any evidence to show that he is so idiotic as to not be able to forsee the repercussions of using nuclear arms...this is kindergarten mud slinging. There is significantly more historical record to show that the US is quite capable of using nuclear arms against a nation that doesn't have them than there is to show that Hussein will use them against nations who do, or who have allies who do. Is he a despot, a fairly immoral and ruthless tyrant? yes...but there are many of those running around, and we helped put/keep enough of them there to know. I know, I know...we had different priorities...we had competition for the World Heavyweight title, and we needed all the friends we vould get. But now that we won that bout, the things these guys we helped put in power are just so wrong, so repulsive that we have a moral imperative to invade...It just might suggest that our moral priorities are just a little tied into our own best interests, and have just a little less to do with the best interests of those we are trying to 'liberate', but oh, well...
I think I would had acted as naive as many here if I heard two years ago that members of a terrorist organization were penetrating American borders so they can carry out a terrorist plot. One that would involve the hijacking of a number of American airliners simultaneously that would target the WTC, Pentagon, and Whitehouse. A plot that would be a decapitation attempt on the United States targeting the economy, defense and executive branch. After witnessing on television the collapse of the twin towers the act of using drones is less dramatic thus more so feasible.
Macbeth: What part of this is difficult to understand? It is not a great leap of logic to conclude - *based on past behavior* - that it is highly likely that Saddam will use terrorist outlets to attack us in the future - regardless of whether or not we invade. We *know* that Saddam is a huge supporter of terrorist groups - Salman Pak is not a mythical place concocted by right-wing warmonger conspiracy theorists, we know for a fact that he supports terrorism against Israel (a far lesser foe to him than we are), Ansar al Islam is not a fairy tale either, he regularly publicly proclaims his intent to strike back in the ongoing "Motrher of all battles"... WTF are you so quick to assume that there is no threat? You don't seem to understand that the rules changed on 9/11. We are now no longer going to wait for the other guy to hit first. You think that the prospect of Saddam giving WMD to Al Qaeda-type groups is a joke? That it's all a smoke screen for the administration to take over the world (or a chunk of its oil), and that there really is no threat? You blithely ignore all evidence that points to the threat, and for some god-awful reason assume that Saddam is suddenly going to start acting like a rational human being. Nuts. Hello??? Iran ring a bell? Close to a million friggen dead Iranians, many from Saddam's gas. How about the Kurds? Gassed them too. Invaded Kuwait - didn't need gas there. Over a million chem/bio alerts in the Gulf War (that is historical record, BTW), who knows what he tried to use then? Threatened Saudi... Do you know what the central party platform of the Baath Party is, Mr. Know-It-All? It is to unify the ME under a single Baathist banner. It has been Saddam's dream for over 25 years to accomplish this feat - as he has periodically reminded us over the years. Don't give me any crap about slant drilling in Kuwait - it was to be his first step southward and westward after he failed to expand eastward. A nuclear weapon (a few, rather) would virtually ensure that we would not attempt to stop him. What else would he have needed one for before 1990-1? Was his massive effort up until 1991 to acquire nuclear weapons just another fabrication of US intelligence? Was Osirak real? You simply ignore or attempt to alter all recorded history (to say nothing of simple logic) when dealing with this issue (yes, I have noticed your previous posts) - didn't use WMD against Iran??? - , and I therefore do not expect to have a successful debate with you on it. It's difficult to have an honest discussion with someone who is either ignorant of historical record or blatantly disingenuous.
Who writes the checks over at FoxNews, anyway? Iraq can't build a drone that could get anywhere near us. This administration sure wants us to get all freaked out over B.S., just to appear they're there to save us. Hope everybody kept the receipt on their duct tape.
ummmm...i think they're talking about terrorists releasing drones from inside the United States. not as far-fetched as say, taking flight training in the United States; learning only how to do take-offs and skipping landings; hijacking four planes; crashing them into the WTC, the Pentagon and aiming another at the D.C. area.
What this thread really needs is a list of other things that are equally as unlikely as Iraqi WMD drone attacks on the US but still possible: Bush growing a brain Cheney growing a new, fully functional heart Rumsfeld discovering that the current year is not 1953 Bush Admin discovering diplomacy ad nauseum
Exactly! I'll keep these newly released spy images coming until you people get the message. So far, only Rimbaud has embraced the full horror of Attack of the Drones.
Well B-Bob....you have your spin; I'll have mine. This thing looks remarkably like the crop dusters I always see off of 288....except it's radio controlled. I have to admit....it does seem farfetched. But MadMax is right, it's not as far-fetched as say, taking flight training in the United States; learning only how to do take-offs and skipping landings; hijacking four planes; crashing them into the WTC, the Pentagon and aiming another at the D.C. area
Pole, don't get my silliness wrong -- it could happen. ... But people are talking about something 8-feet across carrying any sort of payload? That's absolutely freaking hilarious. We can calculate the max payload of an 8-foot wingspan if you want. The photo you've got there has a craft of about, what, 18 feet, 20 feet of wingspan? So, if it wasn't aimed directly at the ground, that one could be a problem.
in all honesty, doesn't this seem like one of the easier things to do? i mean, it requires little training...my three year old son can pilot a remote controlled plane...it would scare the crap out of an entire city...even if it weren't that effective from the standpoint of dispersion of the chemical or biological agents, the attempt would be an easy one. just attach it, make sure it has good duracells and go. helluva lot easier than what was accomplished on 9/11 which took months of these guys being in the country defying immigration laws.
payload?? we're talking about dispersing chemical weapons...it doesn't take much of a payload of sarin to have an effect. we're not talking about dropping warheads here.
