It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A huge air assault uisng 100 planes on Iraq 1 month before Congress gave Bush go ahead

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Misfit

Considering the dollar amount per day being spent since the Iraq invasion started, you lend yourself no credence with that statement.


And you missed the title of this thread. This was alledgedly 1 month BEFORE the initial invasion...not SINCE.

Considering it would take thousands of personnel, months of planning, weeks or months of TWO completely seperate commands of two seperate countries attacking from multiple directions. How many of those people who were involved, or witnessed the build up, would/could actually keep it secret from the worlds media?

By your reasoning, the monies involved would be in the many millions....don't you think THAT would have been noticed by those in Washington, who have no other interest than to embarrass President Bush?

Seems to me, YOUR credence, and sound reasoning, is sadly lacking.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Army
And you missed the title of this thread. This was alledgedly 1 month BEFORE the initial invasion...not SINCE.

Seems to me, YOUR credence, and sound reasoning, is sadly lacking.

Man you completely missed my statement.

You are saying that 100(+) aircraft for 1 month of bombing operations is an outrageous undertaking.

I am simply comparing that scenario to the now 14 months of full country invasion.

I just don't see how this can be lacking of reason.

30 days / 100 aircraft = far fetched operation
5,100 days / damn near whole military = acceptable operation?

I never stated a belief, to be discredited, of weather this 30day deal did or did not happen. I'm simply correlating plausability.

I never brought into my scenario politics/media/public ........ just correlation of plausability

Considering it would take thousands of personnel, months of planning, weeks or months of TWO completely seperate commands of two seperate countries attacking from multiple directions.

Again, why does this miss you? Jeezuz dude, the US military has invaded and overtaken the entire country, has been fighting day and nite for 14 months, yet a 1 month bombing operation you can't see as logistically feasable?


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Army
Considering it would take thousands of personnel, months of planning, weeks or months of TWO completely seperate commands of two seperate countries attacking from multiple directions. How many of those people who were involved, or witnessed the build up, would/could actually keep it secret from the worlds media?

By your reasoning, the monies involved would be in the many millions....don't you think THAT would have been noticed by those in Washington, who have no other interest than to embarrass President Bush?

What you seem to be missing is the fact that they already had over 200 aircraft and many thousands of peronnel in the area for Operation Southern Watch.

Here are the figures for personnel and aircraft for the various bases as of September 2002:

Saudi Arabia - Eskan Village 1,500 Personnel
Saudi Arabia - Prince Sultan Air Base [PSAB] 72 Aircraft 4,500 Personnel

Diego Garcia ? 20 Aircraft ? 1,000 Personnel

Bahrain - Muharraq Airfield 1 Aircraft ? 50 Personnel

Kuwait - Ali Al Salem Air Base ? Aircraft 1,500 Personnel
Kuwait - Al Jaber Air Base 77 Aircraft 1,200 Personnel

Oman - Masirah Air Base 14 Aircraft 1,300 Personnel
Oman - Thumrait Air Base ? 10 Aircraft ? 1,000 Personnel

Qatar - Al Udeid Air Base 12 Aircraft 3,500 Personnel

UAE - AL Dhafra Air Base 7 Aircraft ? 500 Personnel

[edit on 14-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:18 PM
Those bombings were rather routine. We blew up their SAMs, artillery and forward deployed mobile missiles, they shot at our planes. It wasn't an invasion, we didn't target civilians. It was S.O.P, end of story in my eyes.

EVEN IF this were true, and we bombed Iraq to the stone age and back before Congress voted to invade, what does it mean? Bush did something else bad in your eyes? What else is new?

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:29 PM

"But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially

The office of the president can do this, he can move troops and have them attack targets without the approval of congress.

Hell, the US never declared war on vietnam, so whats the difference anyway?

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:42 PM
No smoking gun to anything, here.

Agreements made between the coalition forces and Hussein ceased hostilities. There is a big difference between the cessation of hostilities and an end to a war.

Hussein broke all the agreements, or played technicalities while raping the intent of the agreements, and because of this, there was no reason not to continue the hostilities, and the continuoance did not require any approval.

Regardless of the resolutions, agreements or the fact the hostilities had been ceased and not the "war", the president doesn't require the approval of Congress at this time. The appearance of an approval was merely to continue the illusion that all is well in the U.S., the voters have the last word and the constitution means something to the government.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:49 PM
Perhaps I misread the part in the initial thread, when Arnold stated that this was a SINGLE sorty, not a month long campaign.

A single sorty of nearly 100 aircraft on a mission of destroying command and control a full month before any grounds troops went in, is not only illogical, but wouldn't happen without the many media outlets in-country seeing it happening.

Again, it didn't happen without the LOGISTICS getting in the way of a cover-up.

Don't get pissy with me, when I am simply answering the wording of the original poster.

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:33 AM
At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

goose writes-(Here is the link to the original article evidently there is proof recently released, so I am off to find those documents if I can and put a link to them here for you. Hubby is ex-military one thing I know for sure that this would not neccessarily get out, if they order you to keep your mouth shut you do its that simple as for press not reporting even if they knew the press are not reporting much of anything they the government don't want you to know, anyway they got real important stories to discuss, I mean Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch in her studio during an interview is big news. The other morning when I flipped on a major news network that was what the so called journalists were discussing.)

The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by goose]

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:33 PM
amy goodman who is the news woman for "anarchy now" is often refered to as a progressive "scholar" and "reporter" and such and is very biased and liberial. The interview is a load of ####### from the left. THe no fly zone was in place to protect the kurds from saddam's airplanes and restrict there movments. I thought progressives were for the u.s helping oppresed peoples. For liberals the exeption is the rule.

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:20 PM
If you don't like that source I'll give you another.
An Air Force Magazine article from 2004 that quotes General T. Michael Moseley.

A year ago, as Gulf War II was about to begin, another conflict in Iraq was already at its peak. US forces were engaged in a systematic but undeclared air campaign that set the stage for the coalition’s rapid victory over Saddam Hussein’s regime. And it, in turn, was aided by almost 12 years of combat air patrols in the Iraqi no-fly zones.

Unlike Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Operation Iraqi Freedom officially began (on March 20, 2003) with a ground campaign. Unofficially, a preparatory air campaign already had taken place. Since the end of the first Gulf War, the US and Britain had flown hundreds of thousands of combat and support sorties over Iraq in two no-fly zones that enforced UN resolutions. Air operations intensified greatly in the final months before the start of the ground war.

As Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the air boss for Iraqi Freedom and now the Air Force vice chief of staff, explained in a wartime press conference, “We’ve been involved in Operation Northern Watch for well over 4,000 days ... [and] Operation Southern Watch for well over 3,800 days.
... We’ve certainly had more preparation, pre-hostilities, than perhaps some people realize.”

A few days later, Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF Chief of Staff, expanded on Moseley’s comments. He said, “We started our work in the air component back in June of last year [2002], and, between June and March, we actually flew about 4,000 sorties against the integrated air defense system in Iraq and against surface-toair missiles and their command and control.”

Here's Rumsfeld commenting on the change in tactics in an interview in September 2002:


Q: General Pace, you didn't really answer whether -- is that laying the groundwork for an Iraqi strike? In other words, why the change on this? Some might say this was just laying the groundwork

Rumsfeld: Well, it can't hurt. I directed it.

Q: Why did you direct it?

Rumsfeld: Because it seemed right at the time. The -- I don't like the idea of our planes being shot at. We're there implementing U.N. resolutions. The -- it's not just the United States. It's the British, the coalition forces involved. And the idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me.

Q: Can you --
Q: When did you direct the change?

Rumsfeld: And I don't like it. I don't like it. And so what we are doing is we are attempting to, in an orderly way, as the general indicated, arrange our response options in a way that we think -- hope -- we hope will be net harmful to their capabilities on the ground. We can't know for sure if it has been net harmful, but our intention is to make it net harmful.

Q: But is this laying the groundwork for Iraq? That's the question.

Rumsfeld: The President hasn't made a decision with respect to Iraq.
Didn't I say that earlier? I thought I said that.

Q: When did you order the change?
Q: When did you order this? When did this change take place, Mr.

Rumsfeld: Hmm.

Q: Now? (Laughter.)

Rumsfeld: Less than a year -- less than a year and more than a week.
(Laughter.) I think less than six months and more than a month.

EDIT: Trimmed a few lines off of quoted text.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:56 PM
Yes Ace, for the last time, no one is ignoring that air strikes occured before the Iraq war. The question was the intention. Either way we invaded, and even if we hadn't the same military strikes would have been justified as a policing of the no-fly-zones.

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:53 PM
Below is an explanation as to what the no fly zone is, of course this explanation is pretty old and it could have changed but from what I am reading we are there to keep them the Iraqi from flying anytime, not to blow up parts of the country with a huge asault just because we deem it a wise thing to do. Lets not forget this was a month before Congress agreed to war. There are rules of engagment to follow in a no fly zone.
DoD News Briefing

Tuesday, October 7, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
Captain Mike Doubleday, DASD (PA)
Q: Has Iraq been violating the no-fly zone with impunity lately?

A: What I will say on that is that there have been violations of the no-fly zone by Iraqi aircraft, but that the coalition continues to enforce the no-fly zone and we will do so in the future.

Q: That sounds like a contradictory statement. You say they're continuing to violate it and the United States continues to enforce it. No planes are getting shot down. How can you square that?

A: I think you need to go back and take a look at what the purpose of the no-fly zone is. The no-fly zone is designed to keep the Iraqi aircraft in check. I think the signal of the aircraft carrier going to the region and the constancy of our flights over there make it very clear that the Iraqis are very restricted in their ability to carry out flight operations. If they do carry out flight operations they risk getting shot down. We've done that in the past. We stand ready to do it in the future. But I'm not in any position to predict if and when that will occur.

Q: How many violations of the no-fly zone have there been in the last week? And can you describe any of them and how they were... When they were...

A: I will describe them as primarily just skirting the no-fly zone. I'm not going to get into a play-by-play on where and when they occurred. I don't think that is productive.
What was going on? There were very strict rules of engagement in the no-fly zones. The allied pilots were authorised to fire missiles at any Iraqi air defence weapon or radar that fired at them or locked on to their aircraft. As was noted in Foreign Office legal advice appended to the July 2002 briefing paper, they were only "entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems".

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:29 AM
Read this it is about the downing street memos notice I say memos there were more than one leaked apparently, if anyone has a link to all of them please post. anyway this link clearly says BRITS consulted lawyers who told them this action would be illegal under international laws.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by goose]

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:34 AM
Oh, boo hoo cry me a river for the Iraqi anti aircraft installations that got blow away. They would be destroyed anyway, might as well do it sooner than later.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
I can't even count how many times US aircraft or Navy ships fired on Iraqi air defences after the Iraqi's fired SAM's at US aircraft patrolling the Southern No Fly Zone. The US aircraft were mandated by the UN to patrol that area of Iraq, and the US was not the only country to patrol that area. For more than 10 years there were Iraqi firings and US responses on a nearly daily basis. ANY ONE OF THOSE ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICAN AIRCRAFT were an act of war on the part of the Iraqis. Even if we did launch a raid with 100 aircraft against Iraqi SAM and C&C sites, who cares? The raid would be more than justified by Iraq's continuing unlawful attacks against American aircraft in that area. We should have done that much sooner, like in 1992.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:19 AM
There are rules and international laws to follow whether you guys like it, or excuse it, the facts are the facts, the law is the law. You guys are saying its ok to break those laws due to the fact Saddam did so and in retalliation we get to break them too. Now in an old western that is the way it is done but not supposed to work that way in a civilized society.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:58 AM
What part of attacking American forces is an act of war against the United States don't you understand goose? When that happens the U.S. has the right to attack back and defend itself under international law and more importantly under U.S. law.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:35 PM
Amazing that this never turned up in the news... major stuff!

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:07 AM
So what!!! We all knew that Gulf War 2 was on its way by then. A little softening up of the Command and Control structures in Iraq to blind the Iraqi military. The attacks probably assisted in cutting down ground forces losses when the real attack stepped off later.

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:56 PM
Because at the time the Bush Adminstration was trying to get UN support before invading and also were giving Saddam the option of turning over all WMD's and there would be no invasion.

I think this report pretty much shows that they always intended to go into Iraq, that there really were no options on the table for a peaceful resolution, that war was always the only option the Bush Administration was willing to go for.

Also, the fact that this was never reported at all by the mainstrem media should tell you something about the press & make one wonder about the quality of news reporting by the mainstream media, what else are they not telling the American people?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in