Thread: Why Do People Not Take Iraqs Targeting Of U.S. Aircraft Seriously?

Everytime I bring up the fact that for YEARS, Iraqi forces tried to lock on surface to air missile radars on U.S. and British aircraft patrolling the no fly zones its gets blown up like its nothing.

A common response seems to be

"It is their country".

Why don't people take this more seriously?

Attempting to lock radars on an aircraft is considered a hostile act.

And for people carping about the no fly zones.

Remember, the U.S. and Britain set up the no fly zones because Saddam Hussein was using helicopters and aircraft to conduct massive air attacks against Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.

Whatever you think of the no fly zones, they were set up to save the lives of Iraqi groups oppressed by the Hussein govt.

A government that loses a war doesn't get to pick and choose the conditions it will agree to.

I don't know Dayton. I don't remember not taking attacks on US forces in Iraq "seriously."

This seems like old news, since we've, well...been at war with Iraq (whomever we happen to be fighting today) for five years.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

I don't know Dayton. I don't remember not taking attacks on US forces in Iraq "seriously."

This seems like old news, since we've, well...been at war with Iraq (whomever we happen to be fighting today) for five years.

By that standard, WMDs, Al Queda and other issues are old news as well.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Everytime I bring up the fact that for YEARS, Iraqi forces tried to lock on surface to air missile radars on U.S. and British aircraft patrolling the no fly zones its gets blown up like its nothing.

A common response seems to be

"It is their country".

Why don't people take this more seriously?

Attempting to lock radars on an aircraft is considered a hostile act.

And for people carping about the no fly zones.

Remember, the U.S. and Britain set up the no fly zones because Saddam Hussein was using helicopters and aircraft to conduct massive air attacks against Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.

Whatever you think of the no fly zones, they were set up to save the lives of Iraqi groups oppressed by the Hussein govt.

A government that loses a war doesn't get to pick and choose the conditions it will agree to.

First of all we only have our lying government to claim that they did, second of all the no fly zones were shit. They were created because Poppy Bush told the Iraqi's to raise up and we will help overthrow Saddam. They had no intention of helping and therefore became complicit to the deaths of hundreds of thousand Iraqi's, but they did get their no fly zones and continued the first gulf war for over 12 years. Thats why.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

By that standard, WMDs, Al Queda and other issues are old news as well.

And they are. Have you noticed how little coverage the war gets compared to the campaign? Maybe you should ask where the original war cheerleaders have gone. I was always opposed (even if Iraq HAD the weapons we claimed they did), so to the concern about targeting our planes? War is hell.

And Bin Laden is a "out" as Brittany and Bush.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

"It is their country".

Thank you. I accept your apology.

If anybody shows up off the coast of Jersey, I expect my country to Bless these intruders with extreme Hostility. You've answered your own argument, you just don't accept that you were wrong about the war from the beginning.

Originally Posted by michaelr

First of all we only have our lying government to claim that they did

Why would the Clinton Admin. have reason to lie about U.S. aircraft being targeted in the no fly zones??

It was never their war.

Michael, when I started posting here you were calm and reasoned in your arguments.

Now, just five months later, you are bordering on "9-11 was an inside job" territory.

What happened?

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Why would the Clinton Admin. have reason to lie about U.S. aircraft being targeted in the no fly zones??

It was never their war.

Michael, when I started posting here you were calm and reasoned in your arguments.

Now, just five months later, you are bordering on "9-11 was an inside job" territory.

What happened?

Why would Clinton lie about it? You're right, he wouldn't. The mission was at fault, not the intel..

Our aircraft wouldn't have been a target if they were at Andrews..

Originally Posted by Babylon

Why would Clinton lie about it? You're right, he wouldn't. The mission was at fault, not the intel..

Our aircraft wouldn't have been a target if they were at Andrews..

That kind of post reaks with isolationist sentiment.

Isolationism is another word for loser.