Iraqi Base Hit by U.S., U.K. Planes

Reuters ^ | 1/24/02 | Reuters

[michaelje]

MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) - U.S. and British warplanes bombed an anti-aircraft base in southern Iraq on Thursday after coming under Iraqi artillery fire, a U.S. official said.

The attack happened at 3:45 p.m. on Al Faw Peninsula, 290 miles southeast of Baghdad, said Maj. Brett Morris, spokesman for the Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. He said all aircraft returned safely to base and a damage assessment was under way.

Later Thursday, the official Iraqi News Agency quoted an unidentified Iraqi military spokesman as saying U.S. and British planes had attacked Iraqi ``civil and service installations'' in recent days.

Thursday's strikes marked the third time this year that coalition warplanes have returned fire on Iraqi forces and the second consecutive day that aircraft have come under Iraqi attack.

On Wednesday, coalition warplanes returned fire against an Iraqi military site near Tallil, 170 miles southeast of Baghdad.

U.S. and British planes have been patrolling the skies over northern and southern Iraq since after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). The patrols were set up to protect Kurds and Shiite Muslims from Iraqi forces. Baghdad says they violate international law and has been challenging allied planes since December 1998.

[michaelje]

Just a FYI.

[TADSLOS]

Just a little warm up in the bullpen...

[a_witness]

U.S. and British warplanes bombed an anti-aircraft base in southern Iraq on Thursday after coming under Iraqi artillery fire, a U.S. official said.

Okay Lumberjack, Iraq fired on our planes. That is an act of war.

[Mixer]

Let's Roll!!!

[michaelje]

Iraq fired on our planes.

This is surely not a first.

[longleaf]

If Iraqi planes continually violated Texas airspace, I would imagine our response would be the same, whether you called it an act of war or not. As a Texan, though, I'd call it self-defense.

[michaelje]

the second consecutive day that aircraft have come under Iraqi attack.

Getting courageous I presume.

[skateman]

If Iraqi planes continually violated Texas airspace, I would imagine our response would be the same, whether you called it an act of war or not. As a Texan, though, I'd call it self-defense.

When did Texas invade Kuwait?

[epluribus_2]

yeah - it's not iraqi airspace anymore, bucky, it belongs to the UN cease-fire resolutions.

[Asclepius]

U.S. and British warplanes bombed an anti-aircraft base in southern Iraq on Thursday after coming under Iraqi artillery fire, a U.S. official said.

When Baghdad is naught but a smoking crater, I'll raise my glass by way of a salute. But not a moment before.

[veryconernedamerican]

yes mr hussein signed onto this to avoid getting completely steamrolled

[Rebelbase]

"Iraqi artillery fire"

ok, Im being picky here, but isn'nt AA different from artillery?

[longleaf]

There is not a worldwide consensus that our bombing is justified legally by the cease-fire agreement. In fact, the U.S. and U.K. are the only two countries involved in enforcing it at this point. I realize pointing out these things is not going to change anything. I only wish to say that the "whole world" (as the first President Bush used to say) is not behind us anymore.

Are the Iraqi no-fly zones illegal?

[bayourod]

"As a Texan, though, I'd call it self-defense. "

Remember the Alamo? That was self-defense. This is tweaking the tail of the elephant.

Irag is just testing our technology to determine how long it is safe to activate their radar before we can get the coordinates and respond.

They also may be testing decoy radar units that are empty boxes broadcasting radar length waves.

They could be trying to test those new radar they bought from Bulgaria that can light up our stealth bombers.

Or it might have been that some Iraqi general found out that his mistress was having an affair with his aide. So he transferred his aide to this missle site, ordered them to activate their radar, remain in the same location, and fire their useless weapons at the American planes when they came to destroy every living thing within a mile of the missle site.

Regardless of what the reason was, it defenitely was not self-defense.

[a_witness]

If Iraqi planes continually violated Texas airspace, I would imagine our response would be the same, whether you called it an act of war or not. As a Texan, though, I'd call it self-defense.

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait.
2. The US obtained international support for a war against Iraq.
3. Congress authorized the war against Iraq.
4. The US-led coalition defeated Iraq.
5. Iraq agreed to a set of conditions as part of the cease-fire.
6. Iraq has not kept that set of conditions.
7. A state of war still exists.

[WhiskeyPapa]

ok, Im being picky here, but isn'nt AA different from artillery?

Well, another acronymn is AAA, which is anti-aircraft artillery.

Unfortuately for a lot of Allied tank crews in WWII, the German 88, designed as an anti-aircraft gun also made a great anti-tank gun. Soviet 85MM guns derived from T-34 tanks shot a hell ofa lot of ammo at our guys over Hanoi.

But you're right, the arty that fires anti--personnel type ammo is seldom if ever employed against aircraft.

Walt

[ohioman]

Who gives a shit what others think when we know that we are right!

[a_witness]

There is not a worldwide consensus that our bombing is justified legally by the cease-fire agreement.

There was not a worldwide consensus to defend Poland against German invasion in 1939 either. Your point ?

[clintonh8r]

I think most Americans don't care that the whole world isn't with us. They (the "whole world") want the job done, they just don't want to participate. They want us to keep them safe and then snipe at us for how we did it. Effem.

[Straight Vermonter]