100 jets join attack on Iraq

[Mandrill]

The 100 planes wouldn't have been 100 strike air craft. You'd have your ground attack planes, electronic warfare planes to jam the radar, and you'd have fighters flying cover incase Iraq decided to send up some planes to intercept.

they've regrouped and rebuilt over the last 10yrs. While they are no match for a US coalition, they do have substantial air defenses, unlike Afghanistan

They've also had 10 years of sanctions and frequent attacks on air defense locations. Plus the first time around when they were at full strength, they weren't very effective anyways.

 

[StattlichPassat]

U.N. inspectors say satellite photos show unexplained construction at sites they were banned from...

Linkage

 

[SuperTool]

It's a shame that all this momentum of the WOT is being wasted on Iraq, which even by the best of estimates will be a quagmire at least in terms of us getting stuck there for several decades and spending $100B in nation building. We all know who struck us (15/19), so all this beating around the Bush is just plain offensive to me. If Bush doesn't deal with the Saudis, this will be a failed WOT. Wahabbis attacked us on 9/11, not Bathists. Bush needs to put national security ahead of oil interests. Also, I don't care how many countries Bush strikes, if the economy is as bad in 2004 as it is now, he is a one termer. He should ask his father, and learn from his mistakes. It's the economy, moron.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Mandrill
The 100 planes wouldn't have been 100 strike air craft. You'd have your ground attack planes, electronic warfare planes to jam the radar, and you'd have fighters flying cover incase Iraq decided to send up some planes to intercept.

they've regrouped and rebuilt over the last 10yrs. While they are no match for a US coalition, they do have substantial air defenses, unlike Afghanistan

They've also had 10 years of sanctions and frequent attacks on air defense locations. Plus the first time around when they were at full strength, they weren't very effective anyways.

Well, the sanctions hurt the people more than the government and military. An oil rich country like Iraq, stuff gets in and out. Russia, China, France, even Iran have probably helped them militarily. As for comparing it to the gulf war, completely different scenario is shaping up. During that war, Iraq was on the offensive most of it. They were beaten badly, their armed forces was in shambles, their Airforce was almost completely destroyed, morale was probably very low, they obviously had supply problems and lines of communication were severly damaged. This time around they will be on the defensive. They have had time to tool up, supply, repair communications..to dig in so to speak. If you watch video from the nighttime bombing raids on Baghdad during the gulf war, you'll see they had decent, not great, but decent, air defenses, and that was already after they had gotten their asses kicked. This time around I think it will be a little harder to get past them. If we march on Baghdad, I expect a lot of US casualities.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's a shame that all this momentum of the WOT is being wasted on Iraq, which even by the best of estimates will be a quagmire at least in terms of us getting stuck there for several decades and spending $100B in nation building. We all know who struck us (15/19), so all this beating around the Bush is just plain offensive to me. If Bush doesn't deal with the Saudis, this will be a failed WOT. Wahabbis attacked us on 9/11, not Bathists. Bush needs to put national security ahead of oil interests. Also, I don't care how many countries Bush strikes, if the economy is as bad in 2004 as it is now, he is a one termer. He should ask his father, and learn from his mistakes. It's the economy, moron.

You're such an idiot.

WOT? Wahibbis? Perhaps I'm an idiot too- please clarify. The Bush Administration is certainly making this a matter of national security over special interests. Do you not even listen to his speeches at the least?

The economy may very well be the same way next year (or not- remember the term "the economy could use a good war"? oil prices are already way up.), if that makes you think he's a 'one termer', good for you. Nobody said we were going to kick everyones asses and jump the DOW up to 12 grand within 8 months.

Patience, grasshopper...

 

[Parrotheader]

I too am a little curious about the timing and if this ties into something that's already been given a thumbs-up. If for nothing else, the very fact that Bush is supposedly going to share information with Congress to show them why he feels we need to take Sadaam out ASAP. Every other time he's shared inside intelligence information with Congress it's been leaked within 24 hours; even worse than White House leaks. Not surprising really. You tell Congress, and the darkest secrets that might have taken years of painstaking intelligence work will be on CNN by the end of the day. They've got to know that going in so I would assume it's one of the following: (1) They plan to have something already underway by the time Congress knows so that a mission won't be jeopardized by leaks. (2) The information is SO damning they're sure Congress will rally to support them and not leak key info(3) They're only going to share bits and pieces of info to try and convince them, but not enough to jeopordize any planned operations. (4) This whole thing is part of a broader sabre-rattling strategy to try and create an unstable situation in Iraq where a coup either happens naturally or LOOKS close enough to happening that it can be pulled off with CIA support. I still think the last one is a distinct possibility. It makes the best strategic sense from a political and foreign affairs standpoint. That's just my uninformed opinion though.

 

[Mandrill]

Well, the sanctions hurt the people more than the government and military.

Remember, the sanctions aren't hurting the Iraqi people. Saddam's diverting of funds to his military and to the rebuilding of his palaces have.

Actually Iraq was on the defence during the Gulf War. Remember all of the ditches filled with oil, dug in tanks, etc ? Iraq went on the offensive in that abortive attack on Khafji.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Well, the sanctions hurt the people more than the government and military.

Remember, the sanctions aren't hurting the Iraqi people. Saddam's diverting of funds to his military and to the rebuilding of his palaces have.

Actually Iraq was on the defence during the Gulf War. Remember all of the ditches filled with oil, dug in tanks, etc ? Iraq went on the offensive in that abortive attack on Khafji.

I should have been more clear.

they were the aggressors duing the invasion of kuwait, they were on the offensive. They were not expecting the US to attack them. They didn't have enough time to posture themselves and provide an effective defense. We could have walked all over Baghdad in 1991.

 

[JellyBaby]

Oil. "Out, out, damned spot!"

 

[UltraQuiet]

Bush needs to put national security ahead of oil interests

They are one and the same.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Well, the sanctions hurt the people more than the government and military.

Remember, the sanctions aren't hurting the Iraqi people. Saddam's diverting of funds to his military and to the rebuilding of his palaces have.

Actually Iraq was on the defence during the Gulf War. Remember all of the ditches filled with oil, dug in tanks, etc ? Iraq went on the offensive in that abortive attack on Khafji.

I should have been more clear.

they were the aggressors duing the invasion of kuwait, they were on the offensive. They were not expecting the US to attack them. They didn't have enough time to posture themselves and provide an effective defense. We could have walked all over Baghdad in 1991.

No we couldn't have...we had to appease all the European UN nations who have been kissing too much Middle East heiny

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: res1bhmg

Britain and Kuwait are on board now, who else is next?

Nobody. Oh wait, Israel is in our pocket, they'll probably pull up their skirts too.

Add the Netherlands now.

The Hague - The Netherlands will back an eventual American attack on Iraq, even without a mandate of the UN Security Council. This became evident Thursday evening during an emergency-debate of the Tweede Kamer (the Dutch government). The governing coalition and a majority of the Tweede Kamer think a UN resolution would be more appropriate, but not neccesary that the Security Council supports a US military operation.

Can a Dutch speaker verify?