Dang, them bombs shore is smart!

[Drake Tungsten]

I wonder if these missiles were part of the strike on Ansar-al-Islam? That would put their target close to the Iranian border, close enough that a relatively small problem might have caused them to enter Iran...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Rufus - the Iraqis don't have reason to downplay civilian casualties, and they're not claiming huge amounts. Considering what evidence is available, lots of the appropriate targets in Baghdad were burning, so there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

Accuracy over Baghdad seems to be better so far than GWI, if for no other reason than the Iraqis aren't putting up near as much AAA as they did originally.

Agreed, MtG. But given the sheer scale of the bombardment of Baghdad, I'll be truly impressed is each and every bomb hit its non-civilian target. And while I'm genrally one who bows to the facts in these dicussions, I'm still pissed about how the government lied its ass off about civilian casualties in GWI (and Panama, for that matter),and how our lap-dog media let them do it. So the facts, or "facts," we get this time had better be pretty convincing.

[Dis]

how did I know people would be cheering this.

You anti-war freaks would cream your pants if we actually killed some Iranians.

This just goes to show you want innocents do die so you can blame the U.S.

**** you all

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dissident
how did I know people would be cheering this.

You anti-war freaks would cream your pants if we actually killed some Iranians.

This just goes to show you want innocents do die so you can blame the U.S.

**** you all

WTF? Who the hell is cheering, Diss? Nobody wants civilian deaths; some of us think there may eventually be quite a lot and, further, that our government will try to cover them up. ("Governments lie during wartime" is up there with "2+2=4" as far as controversial statements go.)

If you're not trolling, you need to either sober up or take a break from the war coverage and watch something nice and soothing, like "Teletubbies."

[Dis]

you don't see what che is inferring to in his orginal post.

He is inferring that if a missile is that far off course, what could be happening inside the Bagdhad?

Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

Normally I would have no problem with that. But there has been no evidence of civilians dying yet. At least not by our hands. Some British journalists are dead or prisoner right now by Iraqi hands.

Reading between the lines. I gather he is saying: I told you so!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dissident
you don't see what che is inferring to in his orginal post.

He is inferring that if a missile is that far off course, what could be happening inside the Bagdhad?

Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

Normally I would have no problem with that. But there has been no evidence of civilians dying yet. At least not by our hands. Some British journalists are dead or prisoner right now by Iraqi hands.

Reading between the lines. I gather he is saying: I told you so!

Of course he's inferring that. I'm inferring that, too. When I see a car totalled on the side of the highway, I infer people got hurt; but I don't cheer about it, and I hope to God I'm wrong. Can you honestly not tell the difference, or have you swallowed the administration's "with-us-or-against-us" tripe? The latter would be pretty ironic fro a guy who calls himself "Dissident."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Agreed, MtG. But given the sheer scale of the bombardment of Baghdad, I'll be truly impressed is each and every bomb hit its non-civilian target. And while I'm genrally one who bows to the facts in these dicussions, I'm still pissed about how the government lied its ass off about civilian casualties in GWI (and Panama, for that matter),and how our lap-dog media let them do it. So the facts, or "facts," we get this time had better be pretty convincing.

Actually, the Panama civilian casualty myths were pretty well settled - the Panamanians were short on casualties, but realistic and methodical estimates from independent sources put the actual number, based on missing persons reports, bodies at morgues, graves, etc. at between 280 and 350, depending on the source, compared to approximately 250 as estimated by the Panamanian government. This is way off from the rather baseless claims of mass graves, etc. - several "mass graves" turned out to be less than massive, and one of the reasons for overestimates of casualties was that due to a loss of electricity and strain on rather limited mortuary capacity, a number of non-combat related deaths ended up being buried in groups in hasty graves, along with the combat deaths. The number of bodies recovered on exhumation of the grave sites was a little over the 350 mark, but appeared to contain some non-combat deaths.

Civilian and military casualties in GW1 are still subject to a lot of dispute, but the high numbers claimed are pretty baseless. The real numbers are worse than the official US claims, but on a scale from the US claims to the higher claims, the amount is very likely to be on the lower end.

As far as the current generation of bombs, undoubtedly there will be some misses, but there are two major differences from GW1 - the use of satellite guided bombs, freeing the pilots or SOF teams from active target designation from bomb release til impact, and the lack of Iraqi AAA fire.

BTW, the three stray missiles are now reported by IRNA to be Iraqi, not US.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

There's no need to infer. One report has it that 77 civilians were killed in a bombing attack.

[Dis]

source?

[Clear Skies]

I don't have a source on the civilian casualties claim, but what I do have a source on is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

An RAF Tornado and its crew are missing after being downed by a US missile close to the Kuwaiti border.

[Dis]

yes this is terrible.


too many aircraft and too much **** going on.

And people say how much better this would be if we had more nations in this coalition? 2 is already too many. We cannot coordinate all these aircraft. Things would be worse with other U.N. nations in the way.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
I don't have a source on the civilian casualties claim, but what I do have a source on is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

An RAF Tornado and its crew are missing after being downed by a US missile close to the Kuwaiti border.

That's one of the problems with this war plan. Everything comes in and goes out of Kuwait, except for a trickle that flies over Jordan.

When you have the Iraqis firing missiles along the same corridor your strike flights are using, then there's bound to be problems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's no need to infer. One report has it that 77 civilians were killed in a bombing attack.

Big whoop. Even if true, that's what, one civilian per 20 tons of bombs? Sorry, but if anyone thought zero civilians would die, they're nuts, and the anti-sanction people have been whining, claiming sanctions have killed half a million Iraqis, which would be over 100 a day since 1991. (another BS number, but let's assume it has some validity, just for the sake of argument) So let's keep things in perspective - 77 civilian fatalies isn't a hell of a lot.

[Alexander's Horse]

I was reading that only 25% of the "smart" bombs hit their target. The ratio is higher now but they still miss.

[Dis]

I heard 99.8%