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

[ndee]

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]

that report turned out to be false, otherwise, as you point out, our airpower would have anniliated them

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that report turned out to be false, otherwise, as you point out, our airpower would have anniliated them

ah I see.

 

[Jmman]

Yeah, large moving convoys are very difficult for our precison ammunition to hit ......

.....just like in 1991.......link

 

[ndee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There was no 1000 vehicles, it was more like 100 pickup trucks.. And they did get bombed.

 

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.