Iraq - US drone Shot Down

[Midnight]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73735,00.html

If Iraq keeps this up.. war won't be far off.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GScholz
That the UN/US/UK try to enforce this does not surprise me either. Incidents like this are bound to happen.

The no fly zone is not in any way UN mandated.  It was unilaterally imposed by the US and UK.  Iraq makes no breach of any UN resolution by shooting down that drone.

Unforunately, I don't expect any survivors.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Drones are drones... no people... why would you expect survivors?

Must be a canadian thing, you guys put men in unmanned drones?

-SW

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Thrawn


Unforunately, I don't expect any survivors.

-Sik

[Thrawn]

[Innominate]

Why is everyone treating this as a big deal?  It's an important step sure, but nothing new.

Iraq shoots at american planes daily.  They've had jets try to shoot down predators before.  They shoot us, we bomb them back.  Nothing new, been going on for some time now.

The loss of a predator drone is hardly important, thats the whole point of using drones.

God help them if they manage to hit a piloted aircraft.

[GRUNHERZ]

This is certainly the mother of all shoot downs!

[muckmaw]

Congratulations to the Iraqi Air Force!

You shot down a souped up Cox Remote Controlled Plane!

No playgound is safe now! What's next? AAA fire against kites?

It was probably a HO, too!

The missle they used to knock out the drone probably cost more than the drone itself.

Unless these brave Iraqis got into a wicked turn fight with the R/C and gunned it down.

Next, they'll be having a parade for the brave pilot who took down the Zionist intruder!

[midnight Target]

Does this seem... "Tonkinesque" to anyone?

[Innominate]

Originally posted by muckmaw

You shot down a souped up Cox Remote Controlled Plane!

The missle they used to knock out the drone probably cost more than the drone itself.

There have been times where iraqi pilots have made gun passes on predator drones...missing completly.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Thrawn
The no fly zone is not in any way UN mandated.  It was unilaterally imposed by the US and UK.  Iraq makes no breach of any UN resolution by shooting down that drone.

Unforunately, I don't expect any survivors.

You forgot France.

Also, have you forgotten why it was imposed? Maybe something to do with the extermination of 5,000 Kurds?

[culero]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Does this seem... "Tonkinesque" to anyone?

Good point. Answer: It might, except that the circumstances aren't the same. Its merely the latest in a decade-long series of similar Iraqi actions. The fact they finally "scored" against a drone doesn't really seem to raise the ante. We've been hitting back solidly all along against their assets used to make these attacks, after all.

If GWB is looking for reasons to escalate the conflict, this wouldn't seem to qualify IMO.

culero

[Toad]

Like everything else, there's plenty of gray to balance out the black and white.

Do politicians EVER vote or sign anything that doesn't give them a huge amount of "wiggle room"?

Provision in U.N. resolution could trigger Iraq war even before inspections begin

...One sentence in Resolution 1441 says Iraq "shall not take or threaten hostile acts" against any personnel of any U.N. member state who are "taking action to uphold" any Security Council resolution. Some in the Bush administration say this is relevant to the flight-interdiction patrols because the flights were implemented to uphold an April 1991 U.N. resolution designed to keep Iraq from repressing its civilian population. That view is not universally accepted, however, because the patrols are not explicitly authorized by the Security Council.

...Central Command said Iraq's movement of the missiles violated U.N. resolution 688, adopted in April 1991, one month after the Persian Gulf War ended in a cease-fire. Resolution 688 demanded that Iraq end repression of civilian populations, mentioning only the Kurdish people of northern Iraq, whose attempted revolt against President Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War was brutally put down by Iraqi forces. The resolution says nothing about prohibiting movement of Iraqi surface-to-air missile batteries.

Simple solution: The Security Council meets RIGHT NOW and resolves the "no fly zone" issue. It's either approved or disapproved. Right Now.

Any bets on whether or not any member of the Security Council would have the balls to bring this to the table will full media fanfare?

No chance. All of 'em like it just the way it is. Lots of wiggle room.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Hmmm ... sure the Iraqis can no longer bomb the Kurds. They'll just have to use tanks.

They used chemical weapons before. Without air support, their tanks would be reduced to scap metal in short order. Even with their ill-equipped air forces they wouldn't last a week in  a serious confrontation, probably not even a day.

[miko2d]

Last time we declared war on Iraq and killed about 80,000 of them because they trew away some pre-term babies from the maternity-ward incubators.

 Since that whole baby-story proved to be a hoax and US population had nothing else against them in 1991, I think they are entitled to one free athrocity or a few minor transgressions.

 So we should forgive them an incident with the drone that left no survivors...

 miko