quote:

Originally posted by NVW3Navy:
The thing about it is somebody messed up way back at the munitions point. If the warheads had been taken out the missile they would have been counterweighted. From the outside a live nuke and a counterweighted missile look the same . And something else, when I was in, the pilots flew every mission like they were carry live. You fight the way you were trained. We trained to carry live ordnance. The problem here is with the folks who leaked the information. You don't need ordnance to make a plane deadly (hint 9/11) I would like to know why this leak is not being plugged. Literally plugged if I had my way!!

quote:

Originally posted by 89Dgirl:

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan_Pollard:
And even if air transport is standard, is it standard to mount them on the wings as happened today or is it standard to put them in the belly of the plane?

On the wings when the warhead is mated to a missile. When the warhead is being shipped alone, it has its own shipping container, designed for maximum safety and containment for that particular warhead, and then it's shipped like any other piece of fragile freight. I'd much prefer air travel to ground, as the likelihood of ambush is lessened.

But what's at issue is how could the people responsible for loading the missiles on the plane either grab the wrong ones, or not check to make sure that the warhead has been replaced with a counterweight instead? That's where I think folks need to be concerned.

Just my two cents,
Helen

quote:

Originally posted by 89Dgirl:But what's at issue is how could the people responsible for loading the missiles on the plane either grab the wrong ones, or not check to make sure that the warhead has been replaced with a counterweight instead? That's where I think folks need to be concerned.

Just my two cents,
Helen

quote:

The obvious worst-case scenario is that Cheney et al are actually planning on using these to start yet another illegal war of aggression.

quote:

Originally posted by Woody_in_La:

quote:

The obvious worst-case scenario is that Cheney et al are actually planning on using these to start yet another illegal war of aggression.

By what, dropping them on US targets? Guess you think they did an inside job on 9-11? And pray tell what illegal war did they start before? See my thread in the Conspiracy Theory NG about the hats, I will be glad to help you out.

quote:

Originally posted by Woody_in_La:

quote:

Originally posted by 89Dgirl:

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan_Pollard:
And even if air transport is standard, is it standard to mount them on the wings as happened today or is it standard to put them in the belly of the plane?

On the wings when the warhead is mated to a missile. When the warhead is being shipped alone, it has its own shipping container, designed for maximum safety and containment for that particular warhead, and then it's shipped like any other piece of fragile freight. I'd much prefer air travel to ground, as the likelihood of ambush is lessened.

But what's at issue is how could the people responsible for loading the missiles on the plane either grab the wrong ones, or not check to make sure that the warhead has been replaced with a counterweight instead? That's where I think folks need to be concerned.

Just my two cents,
Helen

I agree with your assessment of the real issue with the exception of it not being who loaded the bird. It should be directed at the munitions point, who are the ones that selected them to be loaded. That is who is at fault!

quote:

Originally posted by GavriloPrincip322:

quote:

Originally posted by Woody_in_La:

quote:

The obvious worst-case scenario is that Cheney et al are actually planning on using these to start yet another illegal war of aggression.

By what, dropping them on US targets? Guess you think they did an inside job on 9-11? And pray tell what illegal war did they start before? See my thread in the Conspiracy Theory NG about the hats, I will be glad to help you out.

In case you weren't aware, the Iraq war was illegal according to international law. And since the United States was a signatory to treaties which codified said sentiment, any violation thereof is automatically a violation of US law. (and yes, I'm going to search for precedent which I will then post).

You can't just go and invade a sovereign nation that does not pose an imminent threat, and clearly the only threats posed to us by Iraq was the synthetic ones cooked up by the Neocons.

Also, no, not by dropping them on US targets, but by bringing them to the Barksdale staging ground to then be delivered to Iran via B-2. That being said, I wouldn't put it past this cabal to detonate a nuke in some liberal city and then blaming it on Iran in order to get their next war on.

Authoritarian/Totalitarian regimes have exacted violence on their own citizens (or in the case of the Bush administration, "subjects") and then blamed it on some vague, foreign threat as a way to trick the population into supporting insane policies.

quote:

Originally posted by GavriloPrincip322:

Also, no, not by dropping them on US targets, but by bringing them to the Barksdale staging ground to then be delivered to Iran via B-2. That being said, I wouldn't put it past this cabal to detonate a nuke in some liberal city and then blaming it on Iran in order to get their next war on.

quote:

Originally posted by GavriloPrincip322:
For Example:

UN & Nuremberg Charters part of "the supreme Law of the Land" Article VI of the US Constitution states that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme Law of the Land which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says "or which shall be made" so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.
Violation of The United Nations Charter
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:

3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
Violation of the Nuremberg Charter
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

quote:

Originally posted by 14696684:

quote:

Originally posted by GavriloPrincip322:
For Example:

UN & Nuremberg Charters part of "the supreme Law of the Land" Article VI of the US Constitution states that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme Law of the Land which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says "or which shall be made" so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.
Violation of The United Nations Charter
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:

3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
Violation of the Nuremberg Charter
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.