Could some one please explain what is going on? I cant make heads or tails out of the news. Sounds bad....why are we even there?

-- renee oneill{md.} (oneillsr@home.com), February 16, 2001

Answers

Response to Iraq...whats going on?

Hi Renee, was just wondering the same thing. Dave just turned on the tv and is listening to the news.......

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), February 16, 2001.

Response to Iraq...whats going on?

Maybe I'd better turn on the news too! I don't have any idea what's going on! We hardly ever watch TV or listen to the radio.

-- Denise (jphammock@msn.com), February 16, 2001.

Response to Iraq...whats going on?

They broke into National TV (which was on at an elderly neighbors house) around 2:30 pm EST. It was described as a defensive strike to take out radar sites that were being expanded in frequency and sophistication.

Here is a link to "help" "inform". You may have to cut and paste the lengthy url.

-- Rick K (Rick_122@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

Response to Iraq...whats going on?

They broke into National TV (which was on at an elderly neighbors house) around 2:30 pm EST. It was described as a defensive strike to take out radar sites that were being expanded in frequency and sophistication.

Here is a link to "help" "inform". You may have to cut and paste the lengthy url.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.02/index.html

-- Rick K (Rick_122@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

Response to Iraq...whats going on?

The US is bombing as a member of the UN.
The attacks are missle strikes taking out anti-aircraft and communications sites.
The Iraqi's are accused of using these sites from within their side of the 33rd parallel to fire at US and British planes patrolling the no fly zone, the other side of that parallel.

At least thats the official story...

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 16, 2001.

I was over there on a 90 day rotation back in 98. Everyday our pilots, as well as those from several other countries (most notable Britain) enforce two "no-fly" zones in both Northern and Southern Iraq. These were UN mandated zones, to protect Kuwait in the South and the Kurds in the North (from genocide). Saddam was allowed to keep some military forces within the southern zone (Those that were already there before a certain date. If they leave the zone at a later time, they cannot come back. I don't know about the northern zone.)

Anyway, every several days, the Iraqi's decide to move forces or "paint" the Allied aircraft, as if they are going to fire on them. Technically the war is not over, and under the rules of warfare, not to mention the pilot's right of self-protection, they can fire upon those hostile targets. This happens quite frequently, I remember close to once a week. Only the really big deals make it into the news, like when we discover a built-up anti-aircraft site (new) or the such.

As far as why we are there, the US made a 10 year commitment to the Kuwaitis. I suspect that we'll be there a lot longer. Personally I thought it was the best training oppourtunity outside of force-on- force battle games. Every year it gets harder and harder to maintain the level of readiness here in the US. I'll stop at that before I bother to explain my political views as far as the military is concerned.

-- Chris Stogdill (cstogdill@rmci.net), February 16, 2001.

According to the news, its enforcement of the No Fly Zone regulation in place since 91.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

Hi all. It is my understanding that the British were involved in this strike in some way, as well. I assume because it's the US and British planes holding the 'no fly zones', and being fired upon repeatedly? Sure isn't the sorry Canadian military butt! Hope the US and Britain are taking better care of their military personnel than we in Canada are.

-- Rheba (rbeall@etown.net), February 16, 2001.

Really the only thing of note on this incident is, because the targets were outside the no-fly zone, the attack required Presidental approval. It was President Bush's first authorization of military action.

Think about the situation in this way. A bully comes in your yard and beat up your little brother. So BIG brother not only beats the snot out of him, but also gets a court order (UN mandate) the bully can't come in your yard anymore. However, the bully is now standing in the road and throwing rocks. BIG brother then went into the road and punched his lights out.

On civilian casualties, various new reports said anti-aircraft guns went off in several sections of Bagdad. Most AA fire is contact, rather than going off at a certain altitude. What goes up must come down somewhere else in Bagdad. People go outside to watch the fireworks, an AA round lands in their yard, suddenly it was dropped by the U.S.

A previous poster used the word "paint". What that meant was aircraft have sensors which tell it when a radar has locked onto it. Makes the pilot rather nervous. If it is done within the no-fly zone, it is an open invitation to an incoming anti-radar bomb which homes in on the beam. Story is when ordered to turn on the radar, operators would do so, then run like hell.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), February 17, 2001.

Great analogy, Ken! But what I heard is that the US and British planes stayed in the no-fly-zone and fired more sophisticated missiles that can travel long distances, like all the way to Baghdad and surrounding areas, fired at the radar sites. Kind of like the big brother in your analogy being a star pitcher on the high school baseball team and throwing bigger rocks at the bully. Is that right? Or was I misinformed?

-- Wingnut (wingnut@moment.net), February 17, 2001.

Go to www.worldnetdaily.com for news articles from around the world and commentary you won't get from the networks or your local paper.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), February 17, 2001.

If we can get another little war going, people will 'rally behind the flag' & not complain when corporations begin laying off here & otherwise looting the profits from the last 8 years of economic prosperity.

-- Sparrowhawk (sparrowkiak@yahoo.com), February 20, 2001.