• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

When the US saw that 1000 vehicles of the Iraqi Republic guard were moving...

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
why didn't they bomb them? I guess it wasn't too easy hm? My friend thought that the bombs weren't too accurate and that they could maybe hit friendly troops.

Thanks for your comments.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
that report turned out to be false, otherwise, as you point out, our airpower would have anniliated them
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Yeah, large moving convoys are very difficult for our precison ammunition to hit ......
.....just like in 1991.......link
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: Jmman
Yeah, large moving convoys are very difficult for our precison ammunition to hit ......
.....just like in 1991.......link
Well I'm just telling you cuz the coalition hit also something in Iran, an Oil refinery.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
In this conflict we have used what, 7000 precision guided weapons like Tomahawks or JDAM's, and how many have not hit their target? 10? You do the math.....:)

Furtherrmore, before the First Gulf War a missile had never been shot out of the air with another missile. How many missiles have we shot out of the air that were headed to Kuwait this time around?
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: Jmman
In this conflict we have used what, 7000 precision guided weapons like Tomahawks or JDAM's, and how many have not hit their target? 10? You do the math.....:)
What about the one at the market place? no one knows for sure. I was just wondering WHY they didn't bomb them if they knew for sure they were moving.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
the missile that hit the kuwait market/pier was not a ballistic missile like the SCUDS , the patriot missile batteries have thier radar configured to look for SCUDS, not surface skimming cruise missiles like the silkworm
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
Originally posted by: ndee
It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
the key word in your statement there is "anything" , you say you will not believe anything they show on CNN

so you are totally biased against the war, then why bother to watch CNN? i wouldn't watch the Iraq TV news either for the same reason, so there you go
 

wyvrn

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
10,074
0
0
You can choose to believe what you want. But is is obvious you have very little evidence to support your viewpoint. Facts show our missiles are very accurate, and one of the reasons you don't see footage of errant missiles is because they just don't miss that often. Typically news stations like CNN show the same footage over and over, which probably leads you to believe it is propoganda when it is really a lack of footage either way.

Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: ndee
It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
the key word in your statement there is "anything" , you say you will not believe anything they show on CNN

so you are totally biased against the war, then why bother to watch CNN? i wouldn't watch the Iraq TV news either for the same reason, so there you go
I meant not everything. English isn't my native language. Sorry for misunderstanding.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
How about the fact that there are lots of people moving around Baghdad; restaurants are open and it is business as usual to a certain degree. If our weapons were so imprecise, don't you think the Iraqi citizens would be hunkering down in the basement or something instead of eating lunch in a restaurant? If we were blowing up schools, mosques, etc, it would be all over Al-Jazeera. The only incident so far is the market bombing, and there is a debate whether that was even our weapon.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: wyvrn
You can choose to believe what you want. But is is obvious you have very little evidence to support your viewpoint. Facts show our missiles are very accurate, and one of the reasons you don't see footage of errant missiles is because they just don't miss that often. Typically news stations like CNN show the same footage over and over, which probably leads you to believe it is propoganda when it is really a lack of footage either way.

Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
I just take everything with a grain of salt. When they are so accurate as they say, there would be nearly no civilian casualties, right? I'm not so anti-war as you guys may think :) I'm all for taking Saddam out of power, also with military power, I just think the coalition was too optimistic at the beginning of the war.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: Jmman
How about the fact that there are lots of people moving around Baghdad; restaurants are open and it is business as usual to a certain degree. If our weapons were so imprecise, don't you think the Iraqi citizens would be hunkering down in the basement or something instead of eating lunch in a restaurant?
I'm not doubting that your weapons aren't imprecise. I'm just saying that it might have been a reason why they didn't bomb those 1000 vehicles.
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
There was no 1000 vehicles, it was more like 100 pickup trucks.. And they did get bombed.
 

wyvrn

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
10,074
0
0
Your expecting 100% accuracy from the sounds of it. That's like expecting 100% efficiency from gasoline engines. Neither is grounded in historical performance. The facts are that the US military has some of the most accurate weapons ever produced, and this very fact has cut down on casualties in the last two wars on Iraq. Add in the fact there is 1000x as much media coverage as wars in the past, and it is easy to skew your expectations about the amount of destruction. When one marine or Iraqi citizen dies, it is carried by every major news agency competing for your news dollars, and you see it so many times it seems like the whole planet is dying at once.

People are always going to die in war until we fully automate vehicles and planes, but that technology obviously doesn't exist yet.


Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: wyvrn
You can choose to believe what you want. But is is obvious you have very little evidence to support your viewpoint. Facts show our missiles are very accurate, and one of the reasons you don't see footage of errant missiles is because they just don't miss that often. Typically news stations like CNN show the same footage over and over, which probably leads you to believe it is propoganda when it is really a lack of footage either way.

Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
I just take everything with a grain of salt. When they are so accurate as they say, there would be nearly no civilian casualties, right? I'm not so anti-war as you guys may think :) I'm all for taking Saddam out of power, also with military power, I just think the coalition was too optimistic at the beginning of the war.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
There will probably be a published review and analysis after the conflict quantifying the results. Of 670 cruise missiles fired thus far, 7 landed in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. These particular missiles did not detonate because they were not on target.

As far as the targeting images are concerned, CNN, Fox, BBC, Al-Jazeera, <insert name of news organization> obtain them from DoD. In turn, DoD obtains them from the respective branch of service for that particular engagement.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: wyvrn
Your expecting 100% accuracy from the sounds of it. That's like expecting 100% efficiency from gasoline engines. Neither is grounded in historical performance. The facts are that the US military has some of the most accurate weapons ever produced, and this very fact has cut down on casualties in the last two wars on Iraq. Add in the fact there is 1000x as much media coverage as wars in the past, and it is easy to skew your expectations about the amount of destruction. When one marine or Iraqi citizen dies, it is carried by every major news agency competing for your news dollars, and you see it so many times it seems like the whole planet is dying at once.
I know that people will always die in a war. But again, my point was, if they knew they were moving(false alarm according to fobot), why didn't they bomb them. And I just stated that it COULD have been a reason :)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: wyvrn
Your expecting 100% accuracy from the sounds of it. That's like expecting 100% efficiency from gasoline engines. Neither is grounded in historical performance. The facts are that the US military has some of the most accurate weapons ever produced, and this very fact has cut down on casualties in the last two wars on Iraq. Add in the fact there is 1000x as much media coverage as wars in the past, and it is easy to skew your expectations about the amount of destruction. When one marine or Iraqi citizen dies, it is carried by every major news agency competing for your news dollars, and you see it so many times it seems like the whole planet is dying at once.
I know that people will always die in a war. But again, my point was, if they knew they were moving(false alarm according to fobot), why didn't they bomb them. And I just stated that it COULD have been a reason :)
Fobot is correct.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: wyvrn
You can choose to believe what you want. But is is obvious you have very little evidence to support your viewpoint. Facts show our missiles are very accurate, and one of the reasons you don't see footage of errant missiles is because they just don't miss that often. Typically news stations like CNN show the same footage over and over, which probably leads you to believe it is propoganda when it is really a lack of footage either way.

Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
I just take everything with a grain of salt. When they are so accurate as they say, there would be nearly no civilian casualties, right? I'm not so anti-war as you guys may think :) I'm all for taking Saddam out of power, also with military power, I just think the coalition was too optimistic at the beginning of the war.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the MOST reliable new media?
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: wyvrn
You can choose to believe what you want. But is is obvious you have very little evidence to support your viewpoint. Facts show our missiles are very accurate, and one of the reasons you don't see footage of errant missiles is because they just don't miss that often. Typically news stations like CNN show the same footage over and over, which probably leads you to believe it is propoganda when it is really a lack of footage either way.

Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jmman
Our weapons are incredibly precise. Did you see the footage of the Iraqi tank that was hiding beneath a bridge? The JDAM went in sideways and blew up the tank under the bridge without even damaging the structure........
well, I'm just not falling for all that propaganda how precise they are :) Only showing how they hit their targets.

It's just my opinion not to believe anything they show on CNN, that's all.
I just take everything with a grain of salt. When they are so accurate as they say, there would be nearly no civilian casualties, right? I'm not so anti-war as you guys may think :) I'm all for taking Saddam out of power, also with military power, I just think the coalition was too optimistic at the beginning of the war.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the MOST reliable new media?
You mean my news resource? You can't deny that propaganda is made on both sides. I just think it's somewhere in between, but not sure where.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jimbo


Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the MOST reliable new media?
You mean my news resource? You can't deny that propaganda is made on both sides. I just think it's somewhere in between, but not sure where.
I like them ALL . . . well FOX is sensationalism an more entertainment than news - it was more like watching COPS with the commentary of the Coalition forces kicking in doors . . . I listen to the BBC also.

When I say "all', I mean Western sources . . .

And I do not believe the bombs are quite as "precision" as they are made out to be by out millitary. We only see the hits . . . have you ever seen a "miss"? We KNOW there are misses.

And I do believe Saddam bombed his OWN marketplace to get arab sympathy. ;)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Jimbo


Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the MOST reliable new media?
You mean my news resource? You can't deny that propaganda is made on both sides. I just think it's somewhere in between, but not sure where.
I like them ALL . . . well FOX is sensationalism an more entertainment than news - it was more like watching COPS with the commentary of the Coalition forces kicking in doors . . . I listen to the BBC also.

When I say "all', I mean Western sources . . .

And I do not believe the bombs are quite as "precision" as they are made out to be by out millitary. We only see the hits . . . have you ever seen a "miss"? We KNOW there are misses.

And I do believe Saddam bombed his OWN marketplace to get arab sympathy. ;)
No one has every claimed that our weapons are 100% accurate. A few have and will fail. The stuff we are using today is significantly more accurate and reliable than that was used 12 years ago.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY