RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 29, 2005.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Yeah I kind of assumed the spikes in US bombing of Iraqi air defense targets was in preparation for war. Once again it really sucks to have been right.
     
  3. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #3
    It's called an "asymmetrical" response to attacks on our aircraft. What's missing in the article is that the number of Iraqi attacks on Coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone also increased during this period. Asymmetrical merely means that instead of taking out the missile launcher that began the attack, instead the command and control infrastructure in the area would be destroyed. (American Soldier, Tommy Franks).
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Obviously the Iraqis would increase their air defence activity to match the number of targets. Circular argument. This was clear provocation.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #5
    The Iraqis had their missile systems turned off,so as not to be targeted easily.RAF and USAF destroyed them and various houses, hospitals,Iraqis going about their business anyway. :mad:
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    I can't seem to recall any Iraqi attacks, asymmetrical or otherwise, on American soil.

    But what do we know? We're not reading junior ratzi textbooks.
     
  7. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #7
    No, but check the treaty set in place after the Gulf War before you start trolling...the no-fly zones were set in place to protect minority groups in northern and southern Iraq from Saddam's air force.

    And could I see a source about the hospitals and houses that were destroyed?

    Skunk...the point is that they weren't ALLOWED to increase air defense activity to suit the number of targets. They weren't allowed to shoot at us. They did. We shot back, and put more planes in the air to dissuade them from shooting back. They kept shooting, we began taking out C2 resources. Simple.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Except that they did not protect anyone from helicopters, and were a complete anomaly in International Law.
    Too simple. This was a twelve-year exercise in provocation. You cannot expect a sovereign country to abandon its air defence.
     
  9. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #9
    It doesn't matter if it was an anomaly in international law, the fact is it was international law, and a law that Iraq agreed to.

    And no one expected them to abandon air defense. We simply expected them to stop shooting at us, since we weren't shooting at them.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    Why don't you check the bloody treaty and tell me where it sets the no-fly zones in place.

    Oh, it doesn't. Who's trolling?

    Nah:

    link

    We'd been attacking them for a decade straight.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    You can claim it's self defense, but the point of the article was that Bush was using that as an excuse to conduct war operations before the war started. And yes, it's just a claim right now, but it comes from a pretty high-up source which should demand investigation into what is a pretty serious charge.
     
  12. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    Ok, add in the Downing Street Memo, which is the most significant piece of evidence showing that this war was going to happen no matter what. The fact that UN inspectors were rushed in and out without finding anything and stating that, then the Administration claiming that Iraq had WMDs that never were, as well as non existent terrorist ties, and it should be pretty clear.

    The amount of evidence proving that Iraq was a threat diminishes daily while the amount of evidence showing that this war was intentionally starts increases almost daily.

    It's bad form to accuse someone of trolling, especially when your entire defense of the situation seems to be a quote from Tommy Franks. Now you know he is going to be objective about the whole matter.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Yeah, most people don't realize that we've been bombing them since Desert Storm. I have friends in the military, you should hear the stories. But then I'd have to kill you. :eek: ;) :p
     
  14. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #14
    LOL

    offtopic:
    well i had to sign an agreement as well but in the austrian army the system is called "security through confusion combined with bureaucracy"

    heck there is a book for lawn mowers where the one who is useing them has to write in (by hand of course) when i has mowed which lawn and when he refilled the tank with how much liters etc.

    but on the other side: all trucks have the same keys for starting the engine and only different keys for the doors
    but at least all trucks were ordered with stereo radio systems which got manually removed by the army in nearly all of them
     

Share This Page