Post Reply
Page 2 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View From the Beirut Daily Star - Syrian Scuds to Hezbollah?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2010 - 10:11AM #11
Amin21
Amin21
Posts: 4,209
Sometimes this traffic on the border can take hours... even though in actual distance more than two hours between Damascus and Beirut would seem a lot.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 01, 2010 - 8:25PM #12
Ricky
Ricky
Posts: 1,064

I am not an expert on military technology but have watched some discussions on the topic on CSPAN and other TV networks.  It has been discussed that there are infrared photos which are capable of detecting weaponry. Evidently, computerized tech is capable of ascertaining the contents of trucks and other vehicles if these contents are sophisticated weaponry.  Don't ask me how as I do not not understand any of it.


www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/


The above article discusses something about that.  It would take someone with expertise to discuss this at greater length. Still, there is no question that some visual proof can be obtained to prove the unproven allegation that wepaons are being transported.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 01, 2010 - 8:40PM #13
LeahOne
LeahOne
Posts: 14,488

Of course 'visual proof' could be obtained - but that doesn't mean the press or the general public has any right to see that evidence.


The US has no obligation to its enemies to explain how we know whatever we know - nor do its allies.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 01, 2010 - 8:55PM #14
Ricky
Ricky
Posts: 1,064

But the government does have an obligation to explain its policies to the people. 


For months before Bush launched his imperialistic war on Iraq I wrote to  politicians and journalists  and asked why  satellite photos evidencing the claim that weaponry had been transported across the borders hadn't been presented to the public. Nobody replied. Now we are stuck with two wars that continue unabated and the far right is insisting on another one in Iran which will bankrupt us completely.  The only way to avert that is with truth which is something we don't get from the controlled news media.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 01, 2010 - 9:07PM #15
LeahOne
LeahOne
Posts: 14,488

May 1, 2010 -- 8:55PM, Ricky wrote:


But the government does have an obligation to explain its policies to the people.


 


ONLY up to a point, and that's where national security is involved. 

Moderated by Merope on May 02, 2010 - 01:55AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 10:58PM #16
Ricky
Ricky
Posts: 1,064

"that's where national security is involved"


Nothing Saddam did involved our national security. Had Bush been taken to task as he should have been, and had he been compelled to disclose the "sources" of his WMD claims,  we would not have had that war.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 12:27AM #17
LeahOne
LeahOne
Posts: 14,488

Ricky:  It's useless to try and discuss the subject when neither of us has the highest security clearancesince neither of us has access to the pertinent information.


In point of fact, snce there was no peace treaty signed  for Iraq back in '91 - the US had the right to resume hostilities over ANY violation of the cease-fire terms.  And there were many such.  So I can't agree with your comment that the second Guf war wouldn't have taken place if not for lies about WMD's, etc....  the Iraqis had actually provided sufficient provocation.


The US 'press corps', far from being the 'rightwing muthpiece' many have proclaimed it, seem at times to be so eager to 'scoop' everyone that they'd announce a military action in advance if possible.  (They bitched like crazy that nobody told 'em ahead of time that we were going to Grenada...) 


 During the first Gulf War, the 'press' kept pestering the military to tell them the recongition symbol our troops were using on vehicles, DUH!  As we all knew, the enemy was also watching those CNN press conferences....


 
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 8:00PM #18
Ricky
Ricky
Posts: 1,064

"the Iraqis had actually provided sufficient provocation."


Read the Downing Street Memo and you will see how farcical that statement is.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 9:07PM #19
LeahOne
LeahOne
Posts: 14,488

Ricky, are you asserting that there were no incursions into 'no fly' zones and that there were no incidents of our aircraft taking fire from Iraqi forces on the ground?


NB:  I find your usage of 'farcical'  quite misleading.  I'd have accepted 'inaccurate' .....
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 06, 2010 - 12:16PM #20
Amin21
Amin21
Posts: 4,209

Saying Iraq was not a threat to American national security... shows a lack of understanding of modern economics at the very least...


Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was... on that note...


as for the legality of the war...


The US was authorized by the UN to fly in certain areas of Iraq.


Iraq on numerous occasions broke the ceasefire agreements firing on those planes... in return the US bombed targets in Iraq... this occurred regularly for a decade... the cease fire agreement made at the end of the Gulf war was null and void that entire decade and technically there was still a state of war, so far as international law and agreements were concerned...
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook