Article relating to the current topic of our lives

[Senator]

ARTICLE

[Tarkus]

Yes, but that was in the past. I'm sure he's cooperating now. Just ask the French.

Tarkus

[CamEdwards]

Senator,

quick question... not for attribution. When war begins, do you think we'll see the threat level elevated back to orange?

[Fritz]

good article Senator

[Senator]

Cam,

The chances of this are almost assured.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Senator,

quick question... not for attribution. When war begins, do you think we'll see the threat level elevated back to orange?

I'm not as edumicated as Senator, but I would guess yes, and quite possibly by tonight. Maybe even red if there is a real fear of threat.

[Fritz]

I hope not. That will really mess up my parking.

[mrskippy]

That Russia, China and France, whose troops are today operating in Chechnya, Tibet and the Ivory Coast respectively in promotion of narrow, national interests — and often brutally so — without any U.N. sanction, might veto the legitimate use of force against Iraq is the proverbial nail in the coffin for a United Nations that has consigned itself to irrelevancy.

Bingo!!!

[Hammer755]

I came across something interesting and I'm not certain why the US Government hasn't brought this up. I'm not sure if anyone has seen it, but PBS conducted an interview with an Iraqi scientist who claims that he was part of a division of the Iraqi government that trained terrorists. He described the Salmon Pak facility in detail, including the fact that they trained terrorists to hijack airplanes. The link to the interview is here:

PBS Interview with Sabah Khodada

Recently, Rush Limbaugh (please hear me out before hitting the Back button) contracted a commercial satellite to take pictures of the area where Salmon Pak was supposedly located. I understand that Limbaugh is not a credible source when involved in a political discussion. However, look at the pictures. Pictures don't lie.

Salman Pak Pics

The pictures support what defectors and US intelligence has been saying for months - that there is a 707 fuselage parked in a field there that is used to train terrorists to take airplanes hostage using groups of 3-6 men in unarmed combat.

[Samdari]

I agree that the picture shows an airplane in a field. I am sure that it could be confirmed to be where they say it is. How does that in any way prove that Iraq has supported terrorist attacks against the US?

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Samdari
I agree that the picture shows an airplane in a field. I am sure that it could be confirmed to be where they say it is. How does that in any way prove that Iraq has supported terrorist attacks against the US?

From the PBS interview:

And they trained people to hijack airplanes?

Yes.


For what purpose?

... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.

All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.

The pictures are confirmation that the training grounds referenced by several defectors are indeed there.

[cartman]

Just an observation, but in the first 45 years (1945-1991) of the Security Council, there were 686 resolutions passed, and in the 12 years since, there have been over 860?

It almost like Detente was an acceptable balance of power in the International community. Not that I am advocating a return to the cloud of imminent nuclear holocaust hanging over the world's head, but I wonder how many of these, obvious now, political resolutions would have been passed with a perceived challenge to the US global dominance?

Food for though, discussions encouraged.

[Fritz]

cartman,

I don't understand your question.

[cartman]

I guess what I'm getting at is how many of the Security Council resolutions were more politically driven, rather than related to specifc, global (not localized, and no chance to spread) security issues.

Example: Iraq, North Korea - definitely need to pass, global security compromised
Israel/Palestine - they are fighting over Jerusalem, and the borders of Pre-WW2 Palestine, and Pre '67 Israel borders. Not much chance of it spreading, more than likely will remain local to that area.

Most disputes before 1990 fell into one of two camps. Pro-US or Pro-Soviet. If one of the two sides hand any interest in the issue, the other would wield a veto, so things were handled locally, and not rely on the global community to try and solve the issue. Since 1990, there have been two (that I can think of) what would have been local issues that were tried to be resolved through the UN. One was Kosovo, and the other was the problems in Central/Horn of Africa. In pre-1990 days, either NATO or the Warsaw Pact would have gone in and TCB, no UN resolution needed. It seems since then, there has been false hope that a UN Security Council resolution would magically solve the problem.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Hammer755
From the PBS interview:
The pictures are confirmation that the training grounds referenced by several defectors are indeed there.

I don't feel they are proof there is anything an airplane there.

It is somewhat of a stretch to look at the airplane in the field, and deduce it is a training ground.

It is a huge stretch to see an airplane in the middle of a field and say that it is obviously a terrorist training camp.

Sometimes a plane is just a plane.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Samdari
Sometimes a plane is just a plane.

It just seems awful coincidental that there is a plane in the exact location where several defectors have indicated that a terrorist training camp existed that just happened to specialize in airplane terror training. You know how many planes are just lying around in random fields.

[cartman]

Originally posted by Hammer755
You know how many planes are just lying around in random fields.

Actually, this is a lot more common than you would think. In many countries, the airlines would just plain run out of money, and not even have enough cash to put some gas in the plane to fly it back somewhere. And Boeing/Airbus/Lockheed/etc would have serious questions about the airworthiness and not bother to go and get them, and just write the plane off as a loss.

Not covering for anyone, or making excuses, but there are literally 1000s of these abandoned planes around the world. Some from my failed airline experience back in Texas are no doubt among them!

[Easy Mac]

i thought this was about hattrick