US tries to start the war without anyone noticing

[Cbass]

From Independent.co.uk
US and Britain pound Iraqi defences in massive escalation of airstrikes

By Raymond Whitaker

23 February 2003


Iraq has been ordered to destroy dozens of missiles which violate UN limits, but the US and Britain are not waiting to see whether Saddam Hussein complies.

In recent days, an Independent on Sunday investigation reveals, they have stepped up attacks on missile sites near Basra which could threaten the military build-up in Kuwait and the Gulf.

The raids are being carried out by aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq, established by the victors after the first Gulf war. They claim the patrols are being carried out in the name of the UN – especially ironic, given the passionate debate over the need for a second Security Council to authorise war on Iraq.

Some have always disputed whether the "no-fly" zones have UN authority, but now the US and Britain have widened the "rules of engagement" to the point where warplanes are effectively preparing the way for an imminent invasion.

Targets have included surface-to-air batteries as well as an anti-ship missile launcher which was considered a threat to the growing concentration of naval vessels in the Gulf. In the past two weeks there have been at least three strikes in the same area on Ababil-100 mobile missile batteries. They are capable of rapidly firing four missiles a distance of nearly 90 miles, each with a single explosive warhead or up to 25 anti-tank "bomblets". From Basra they could easily reach the ground forces building up in northern Kuwait, which has been declared a closed military zone.

Attacks on such battlefield weapons, rare until recently, are part of a semi-secret air campaign, conducted under cover of the no-fly patrols, which has intensified sharply since the beginning of the year. Allied aircraft have gone into action over Iraq almost every day. By the end of this month the number of missions is likely to overtake the 78 flown during the whole of 2002.

While the number of attacks and the targets are known, important information is almost always kept back, including the number and type of aircraft deployed, the weapons used and the success or otherwise of each attack: US Central Command communiques routinely say "battle damage assessment is ongoing", and further details are never released. The Iraqis ritually say civilians have been killed; equally ritually, this is denied. What is certain, however, is that no allied aircraft has been shot down in more than a decade of patrols

Significantly, the air attacks have been heavily concentrated in the south of Iraq, with only one having been reported north of Baghdad since the beginning of the year. Millions of leaflets have also been dropped in the south, some warning Iraqis not to repair bomb damage, others giving the frequencies of anti-regime broadcasting stations.

The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, proclaimed last week that there were sufficient forces in the Gulf region for war to be launched at any time. At the weekend, the Pentagon claimed that it had some 200,000 troops in the region, roughly half of them in Kuwait.

Within days there will be five US carrier battle groups in and around the Gulf, as well as the Ark Royal and its task force. The number of strike aircraft, including a third of the Royal Air Force's strength, is climbing to about 500. They will be able to unleash devastating power against Saddam when ordered to do so, but already Iraq's air defences have been significantly eroded by months of military action.

Mr Rumsfeld's announcement took military chiefs by surprise, however. Delays in reaching agreement with Turkey have hampered the deployment of some significant elements in the US invasion plan. Britain's Challenger 2 tanks and about half the 42,000 personnel in its combined force are still on the high seas.

Sharp rise in number and type of targets
Until last summer, coalition aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones over Iraq hit back only at missile or artillery batteries that opened fire on them, or loosed AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles at radar units "locking on" to them. But with an invasion looming, the number and type of targets attacked have increased sharply.

* Last September, in a raid given unusual publicity, more than 100 British and US warplanes hit the main Iraqi air command and control centre in the west of the country, which would direct any Scud attacks on Israel.

* Air defence command bunkers along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of Baghdad, and the fixed communications that link them to missile and gun positions, have come in for repeated attack.

* Fibre-optic links get the most attention, since they are quickly repaired. The Iraqis are warned through leaflets that repair crews may be targeted.

* While continuing to dismantle Iraq's air defences, coalition aircraft are increasingly attacking battlefield weapons in the far south of Iraq, the likely focus of an invasion. Fixed and mobile surface-to-air missile batteries have been targeted, as well as surface-to-surface missiles threatening US and British land and naval forces.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=380766

[taranaki]

The U.S. and Britain have been launching attacks against Iraqi facilities and aircraft since 1991.It is hardly surprising that the Iraqi government has repeatedly refused to comply with U.N. resolutions when the most powerful alliance in the world continues to make terror attacks on Iraqi soil.Nobody in their right mind could expect the U.N. to work effectively under these conditions,the U.S. has lost the plot completely when it comes to defining peacekeeping.

[Cbass]

Very good points, I can't disagree with any of them.

My point is, the US and Britain are now stepping up their air attacks to war levels. By the time they invade, the air strikes against strategic locations may be nearing completion. I guess at that point, they're need to bomb out the hardcore fanatics in Baghdad, as well as their families.

[taranaki]

true that.Don't forget the children,be sure to bomb them as well,you never know which of them is going to grow up into a terrorist.Bomb them all,in self-defence.

[Cbass]

We all know that the children will be the first to become suicide bombers, as has been proven again and again in Israel

Why not just prevent any future terrorists at all? Blanket the region in some sort of agent that will sterilize all the Arabs. Are you going to wait for them to be bombing the US before you do anything?

[dolla_bill0913]

Get your facts straight, the war has been on going for the last 12+ years, ever since the UN told Saddam to disarm at the end of the golf war. Now it is just being talked about more because Bush is tired of Saddam dragging his feet and not disarming. As far as if we go to war with saddam again, everyone will know about it. Bush wants to try to use the UN to handle saddam, but if the Un wont make saddam disarm, Bush will. But before we would go to war, he would let anyone who would want to leave iraq(reporters, un inspectors,scared families,etc.)to do so. He would not lie to the people of the US, he would tell them the truth. Bush hates war as much as anyone else, but you have to do what you have to do. You guys should check out his speech he gave on march 6th, it explains what his future actions will be towards saddam.

[1985_BMW318i]

Time has passed. Several times over in FACT!. Saddam has had many chances in over 12 yrs to disarm. They even kicked the inspectors out once before remember? But I guess some kissass iraqie lovers would rather bash the US and Britain over the UN Mandated No Fly Zone attacks that are carried out with FULL UN support. Get your facts straight. Jeeze sometimes posey sniffing tree hugging liberals get under my skin worse then kids

[Darth Cypher]

I have heard years ago that the no-fly zones are UN supported. However, only recently am I hearing how they are not. Why is that? And don't say propoganda because honestly I don't watch that much news anyhow.

And please don't say that the reason the UN Inspectors were kicked out was because one of the inspectors really was a spy. Iraq has used that excuse when the inspectors went back in. Are there any spies now? Nope. Iraq is simply pointing accusing fingers in a bid to keep the inspectors from finding what they are looking for.

And once again. The newest resolution calls for full compliance. Why after months of these games is saddam now disarming some missles? A little here, a little there. Let's feed the UN enough to keep them satisfied. It's not up to the UN inspectors to prove saddam has disarmed. It is up to saddam. And if he was in full compliance with those terms he would have divulged and disarmed those missles months ago when this thing kicked off.

[Cbass]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Get your facts straight, the war has been on going for the last 12+ years, ever since the UN told Saddam to disarm at the end of the golf war. Now it is just being talked about more because Bush is tired of Saddam dragging his feet and not disarming. As far as if we go to war with saddam again, everyone will know about it. Bush wants to try to use the UN to handle saddam, but if the Un wont make saddam disarm, Bush will. But before we would go to war, he would let anyone who would want to leave iraq(reporters, un inspectors,scared families,etc.)to do so. He would not lie to the people of the US, he would tell them the truth. Bush hates war as much as anyone else, but you have to do what you have to do. You guys should check out his speech he gave on march 6th, it explains what his future actions will be towards saddam.

Get YOUR "facts" straight. Saddam is not "dragging his feet", Iraq cooperated, while not 100%, with the UNSCOM team in destroying most of his weapons of mass destruction. Butler withdrew the team in 1998, Saddam did not kick them out. The reason the Security Council passed that resolution, and sent the inspectors back in, is because they want to avert a war that would destabilize the world economy, and leave the US holding all the cards, which is EXACTLY what Bush wants.

Saddam needs the inspectors there to prove he is disarming. Saddam claims that after the Gulf war, he voluntarily destroyed all of his biological weapons. The US claims, since there was no UNSCOM record of this, it's a lie. If he disarms without inspectors overseeing it, the US will just accuse him of lying.

Saddam knows the US is going to invade Iraq, and he is probably pretty certain he's going to lose that war. Do you REALLY think he is THAT keen to hold on to a few chemical and biological weapons?

Bush will. But before we would go to war, he would let anyone who would want to leave iraq(reporters, un inspectors,scared families,etc.)to do so. He would not lie to the people of the US, he would tell them the truth. Bush hates war as much as anyone else, but you have to do what you have to do.

That is the funniest thing I have heard in quite a while. Bush stands in front of the camera, and spews forth lies every week. The worst part is, people like you believe them

Bush has already recalled all diplomats and other US personell in Iraq, and has advises reporters they are there at their own risk. Hans Blix is not going to recall those inspectors like Butler did though. The UN can still delay this war, but I doubt they can prevent it. Only Bush can do that, and he is not too keen on that notion.

[dolla_bill0913]

Originally posted by Cbass


That is the funniest thing I have heard in quite a while. Bush stands in front of the camera, and spews forth lies every week. The worst part is, people like you believe them

Bush has already recalled all diplomats and other US personell in Iraq, and has advises reporters they are there at their own risk. Hans Blix is not going to recall those inspectors like Butler did though. The UN can still delay this war, but I doubt they can prevent it. Only Bush can do that, and he is not too keen on that notion.[/b]

The UN inspectors are working at sites which the US would attack, you think Bush is just going to drop bombs on groups of UN inspectors who are checking out sites in Iraq. Do you know how much bad press he would get if he killed a reporter, that is over there just doing their job. What are you smoking? He has to give warning ahead of time, before he declares war. Its not like the US needs a sneak attack. Heavy air campaign, bombing the shit out of Saddam, then go in with ground forces to clean up whats left. Bush could tell Saddam a week ahead he was going to attack Iraq and Saddam couldnt do a damn thing but run. Get YOUR "facts" straight. Saddam is not "dragging his feet", Iraq cooperated, while not 100%, with the UNSCOM team in destroying most of his weapons of mass destruction. <HOW CAN YOU CALL NOT DOING WHAT YOUR TOLD TO DO NOT DRAGGING YOUR FEET. Its funny how Saddam didnt start destroying missles, till the US was in position to start a war, dont you think.

Saddam knows the US is going to invade Iraq, and he is probably pretty certain he's going to lose that war. Do you REALLY think he is THAT keen to hold on to a few chemical and biological weapons? <Yes, he is that dumb. What does he have to lose. He has 2 chocies, Do what ever he can to stay right where he is or go underground and spend the rest of his life running from the US.

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki
true that.Don't forget the children,be sure to bomb them as well,you never know which of them is going to grow up into a terrorist.Bomb them all,in self-defence.

Or they could just leave our children orphans like they did on Sept. 11. Who exactly is going to be bombing these children? The so-called baby-killing soldiers who anti-war activists say should come home because we can't afford to spill American blood? So which are they, baby-killers or innocent young soldiers?

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


Or they could just leave our children orphans like they did on Sept. 11. Who exactly is going to be bombing these children? The so-called baby-killing soldiers who anti-war activists say should come home because we can't afford to spill American blood? So which are they, baby-killers or innocent young soldiers?

the grunts on the ground have my respect.It's the assholes in charge who should be treated as war criminals.

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki


the grunts on the ground have my respect.It's the assholes in charge who should be treated as war criminals.

Which asshole's? You specifically said somebody was going to bomb children. I don't believe 4-star generals are the ones doing the bombing. And which assholes in charge? Give me some names. Who are the baby-killers?

[Cbass]

The Generals are the ones giving the orders to bomb those children. You mean to imply that the US can drop thousands of tonnes of ordinance on Iraq without killing civilians?

Oh I forgot, those "precision weapons" can't kill civilians