Heavyarms Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Supposedly, Hans did not mention something that could be the smoking gun that the United States has been looking for. According to this report, a unmanned drone which is capable of delivering biological or chemical weapons is a violation of resolution 1441. Hans most likely attempted to hide this, because he does not wish for more war. Does this change anyones mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms Hans most likely attempted to hide this, because he does not wish for more war. Right. Source that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 well, i'm sorry for attempting to elaborate. Some new details on this "drone." Saddam says it was declared in one of their semi-annual weapons reports they must give. It is not capable of biological or chemical weapon release. It is remote controled, not really a "drone." It can carry a payload of 20 kg(about 44 lbs) Now, that's a serious problem! That thing most likely CAN distribute some kind of mass destruction weapon, and even if it doesn't, you can make a pretty big boom with a remote controled device and a 44 pound block of c4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms Now, that's a serious problem! That thing most likely CAN distribute some kind of mass destruction weapon, and even if it doesn't, you can make a pretty big boom with a remote controled device and a 44 pound block of c4! You can fabricate a pretty powerful bomb from household materials. The thing that's curious is this: Suppose Hussein surrendered all of his WMD to the weapon inspectors. Provided absolute proof that all materials in the manufacturing of them had been destroyed and that all his biological facilities were not operational. What if Saddam Hussein produced all of the required evidence to meet the standards of disarmament rules, but stayed in power? Would USA still attack him? I've a feeling they would. Which worries me. It's all hypothetical though. Hussein is course going to keep pushing the 1441 and try to avoid try disarmament - which is going to be used as cassus belli. But it does worry me a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 A smoking gun is only smoking after u shoot it. Seeying as no-one has shot anyone else (yet), this is a poor metaphor. A "finger on the trigger" is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 A smoking gun is only smoking after u shoot it. Seeying as no-one has shot anyone else (yet), this is a poor metaphor. A "finger on the trigger" is better. it's a term used in the US as incriminating evidence against Iraq. It wasn't me who came up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Now, that's a serious problem (emphasis)! That thing most likely CAN distribute some kind of mass destruction weapon, and even if it doesn't, you can make a pretty big boom with a remote controled device and a 44 pound block of c4! May I ask why? Most fighters can carry a payload of 20kg, so I don't see why there should be a problem with Iraq having one that doesn't need the potential sacrifice of a human pilot? F-4: Payload of 20, probably. Needs a pilot. Drone: Payload of 20. No pilot sacrificed if killed. I ask again, why is this wrong? Oh, and there have already been countless smoking guns in the form of bio and chem missiles. We didn't go to war over those; we made Iraq dismantle them. If Iraq wanted to invade the Middle East, why does he let inspectors in and disarm missiles? Why doesn't he just invade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Heh, if he does come up with evidence he disarmed everything he's been proven to have I would certainly not back a war... there's no grounds to do so!!! But your what if about that is about as ludicrous as me saying, What if the U.S. became a dictatorship? Oh, and none of this it is or it's going to because too many people are clinging on to a slice of the pie for anyone to have a big enough piece for eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 dagobahn, do you realize how big 20kg is? that's 44 pounds, most bombers carry 5 one ton bombs or even more. Plus, this "drone" could slip through a night watch or something, might be the size of a decent sized remote control airplane. All it needs to do is slip past the defense a little, and then nab its target. and, artoo... did you ever hear of resolution 1441? That's why the US claims it can attack Iraq. I just presented this information, because it might be a rather vital piece of information... hell, I wouldn't want that flying through a city or something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Artoo, I said he dismantled those we found, not the ones we suspect he has. Oh, and Heavyarms, of course you're right about the size. Obviously, that's the creepy part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms it's a term used in the US as incriminating evidence against Iraq. It wasn't me who came up with it. Yes, but it's a poor term anyway. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.