Iraq

[Boris_G]

what airplanes will USA use in its war agains Iraq?
what bases is it gonna use?

[ozzy72]

The Turkey arrangement looks to be sorted now, and there is a base on the Eastern coast of Romania that will be used. Otherwise all the bases will be in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait etc.
As for aircraft, well almost everything in their arsenal I should imagine from F117s to A10s, B2s to B52s.

Ozzy

[Tequila Sunrise]

I thought the Saudis' weren't going to let western aircraft land at their bases And then theres the 6 carrier groups 5 USN and 1 RN.

[Crumbso]

Well monitering activity in england quite alot of tornado Gr.4's F.3's and some jaguars have flown off to the gulf and a few aircraft carriers with a whole load of harriers have moved away over near turkey on an"exercise" .

[pete]

[concience mode on].... & all for one man. An oppressor & dictator who has killed over 1 million of his own, already oppressed, people & who will - if the going gets tough, be off in one of his multitude of private jets. He is a multi billionaire with secret

[Blade]

For the US Navy it will be F-14D Tomcats, F/A-18C-F Hornets, S-3 Vikings, SH-60 Seahawks, and E-2 Hawkeyes, along with C-2 Greyhounds for logistics. For the US Air Force, it will be F-15C and E Eagles, F-16C/D Falcons, F-117A Nighthawks, B-2 Spirits, B-52 Stratofortresses, RC-135 Rivet Joints, E-3 Sentrys, KC-135 Stratotankers, KC-10 Extenders, C-130 Hercules, C-5 Galaxys, C-17 Globemasters, and HH-60 Pavehawks. For the US Army, it will be AH-64 Apaches, CH-47 Chinooks, and UH-60 Blackhawks. For the US Marines it will be UH-1 Hueys, and CH-46 Seanights. Also don't forget the Marines amphibious carriers, they carry our own AV-8B Harriers.

[tvale80]

Blade

    Dont forget the B1Bs of the 28th Bomb Wing

[Blade]

DOH!  ::)

[Crumbso]

I am not a hippy or anything but I disagree with the war. Saddam is an awful leader true but he has total control of his people becuase he opresses them with his secret police. I just believe that we should wait a get a clearer goal with better evidence. We will have soldiers that don't have any clear goal or really know who the're fighting. This could turn into another vietnam.  I for one am ashamed of my country for getting into this ridiculous situation. If it was really about saddam just send in some SAS or assasins. Its all about bloody oil. Yes saddam needs to be taken down but not the rest of his country. Its the point Francis Coppola was trying to make with his film "Apocolypse Now". We have a person who we thought that we had control of but the moment we feel we lose that control we go ballistic and will do anything to get him.

I am just ashamed of my government.

[Tequila Sunrise]

 (sarcasm mode)no, no, no. Its not about oil, its about "weapons of mass destruction", you know, the ones that Britain America and France sold to Sadam.
Anyone see that sketch show on Ch4 "between Iraq and a hard place"? It was funny as hell, and took the p*** out of the Brittish Army and most of the big shots in washington

[Woodlouse2002]

People get real. Saddam needs to be removed. He should have been removed in 1991 when we had the chance to. But did we? No. If saddam isn't a theat at the moment then he will be in the future. As our rediculos prime minister said "If I told you in August 2001 that there was a terrorist network called Al queda that is a potential threat that must be removed. You would all have disagreed then as you are doing now." The fact is that saddam needs to be removed. He rules a dictatorship and kills his own people. Gasses any who oppose him and uses civillians to protect his industries by forcing them to live there.

Please. If he isn't disposed of now then he will be in a few years after many many civillians have been killed.

[Woodlouse2002]

Oh and a note to you Americans. Please don't kill so many of us Brits this time. Remember. Were on your side.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing Sadam. But why do you need a few hundred fighters, 5 aircraft carriers and 120,000+ infantry to kill one man, if one sniper and one bullet can do the job?

[denishc]

Crazy Craig,
 I know one man one bullet sounds like a good idea, but how long before another bully or thug takes Saddam's place and the whole mess begins again?

 I have to agree with Woodlouse, but going to war should not be taken lightly and all options should be explored before force is used.  Unfortunatly force and violance are the only things some people understand.

 And, once the war is over, what then?  Station troops there for the next 40 years, like what was done in eastern Europe after the Second World War, or until that region stabilizes?  I belive in 1991 that option was not feasible, too many different factions in play, so what has changed to make it viable now?

[Smoke2much]

This is a tricky one that seems to have polarised public opinion opinion here in the UK.  I am firmly on the fence.  The child in me that remembers round 1 back in '91 can't wait to see the patriots starting to fly - the best firework show I ever saw was footage from Bagdad when we hit it with some cruise missiles.

The adult in me who has accident and emergency experience as a registered nurse deplores the possibility of war and the pain and suffering that events like the "firework" show I mention above will cause.

Dictatorships like Hussains (I am not on 1st name terms with him) are evil and need to be stopped.  But the reasons seem to be more revenge based than anything else.  I cannot perceive that Iraq is a danger to anyone but Iraq.  The "Links" with Bin-Laden are a joke.  Time will tell as to whether these links are real, but as it is the victor who writes the history books I am sure we will see plenty of evidence in the next three months.

Will