Does Baghdad Airport have any strategic value?

[DanS]

1. He gave an interview to Iraqi TV saying that the military plan of the US had failed, giving comfort to the enemy.
2. He gave very specific information about location and future battle plans.
3. No, congress didn't officially declare war, but gave Bush permission under the War Powers Act to take action.
4. Basra is supposed to partially under Brit control at this time, including a presence in the city center. Nasiriyah is mostly under US control, although there are still pockets of resistance.

[Q Classic]

never much liked geraldo or arnett anyways. if it weren't for the fact that american troops would have died, that geraldo fiasco could have led to positive results: i.e., no more geraldo.

[Zero]

i hear d that the airfields already have some craters in it.

Im guessing practicality of using it as airbase is nil.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Calc II
i hear d that the airfields already have some craters in it.

Im guessing practicality of using it as airbase is nil.

I would imagine that the crators could be easily repaired or or marked off and avoided by landing planes, if they are few enough.
Our combat engineers are quite handy, im sure they could think of somethn.

[DinoDoc]

Do you people have DanS on ignore or something?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=716&e=14&u=/nm/20030406/ts_nm/iraq_airport_landing_dc

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Rivera is goddamned lucky he's not locked up facing charges of aiding and abetting the enemy.

What exactly did he do? I missed that part.

PS Never mind, my question has been answered already.

[Sava]

Yes, the Airport is of great significance. Now that it has been taken, I heard on NPR and on CNN that when Allied troops start doing operations in Baghdad, they will have 24/7 close air support which would have been more difficult without the airbase.

[raghar]

It's common US tactic - capture airport. Common vikings tactic was - raid bigest house, capture leader, get money. US are working, supposedly, on part two of that plan.

[Sava]

Part 3 is the biggest motive for the war

[raghar]

re arnett

Originally posted by DanS
1. He gave an interview to Iraqi TV saying that the military plan of the US had failed, giving comfort to the enemy.

IT made me good laught.

Is there some link with transcript of his speach?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/2917635.stm

Months before the current hostilities began, Phillip Knightley, author of a book on war reporting, The First Casualty, said Gulf War II would mean the demise of the war correspondent "as an objective, independent person trying to find out what is going on".


"The Pentagon has been out to get Peter Arnett ever since he reported from Baghdad in Gulf War One," Knightley tells BBC News Online. "It hates war correspondents being there and has pressurised all their employers to withdraw them.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0331_030331_arnettfired.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/

well I hope I didn't do big threadjack. This thread should be about US capture of US bombarded airport and US soldiers that was shoot from near buildings. /if any of them was hit of course/

[Kramerman]

"It hates war correspondents being there and has pressurised all their employers to withdraw them.

yes, the pentagon hates them so much that they embeded them in with the troops