Chemtrail Central
Member's Area
Member List
What's Popular
Who's Linking
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive
Top Websites

Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 1)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 45 pages long:  1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:


Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000

posted 02-28-2002 09:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thermit   Visit Thermit's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some times these things are "floated" just to gauge public and political reaction, but in this case it is probably to get everybody ready for what might happen, so as to lessen the surprise and reaction. Blair follows Bush to get the folks on his side of the pond preped...


Times World News

March 01, 2002

'Evil' Iraq must face action says Blair
By Philip Webster, Political Editor

TONY BLAIR began preparing Britain for the second phase of the war on terrorism yesterday when he said that Iraqs development of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to world stability.
In a heightening of the rhetoric against Saddam Hussein Mr Blair virtually lined himself up behind President Bushs portrayal of Iraq as part of an axis of evil. It is an issue that those who are engaged in spreading weapons of mass destruction are engaged in an evil trade and it is important that we make sure that we take action in respect of it, he told Australias ABC Television shortly before leaving for the Commonwealth summit in Australia yesterday.,,3-222284,00.html

IP Logged


Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000

posted 08-13-2002 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thermit   Visit Thermit's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GWII... Quiet preparations?


4,000 U.S. troops arriving in Jordan for major exercises

Tuesday, August 13, 2002
AMMAN Jordan is preparing for the arrival of thousands of U.S. troops for a large-scale military exercise later this month.

Jordanian officials said the 4,000 U.S. soldiers are sailing through the Red Sea toward the Hashemite kingdom. They said the first U.S. soldiers arrived on Monday, Middle East Newsline reported.

IP Logged


Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000

posted 08-13-2002 01:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thermit   Visit Thermit's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


US moving helicopters, arms to Red Sea

LONDON: The US Navy is seeking to charter a large ship to carry military helicopters and ammunition from the United States to two ports in the Red Sea, shipping brokers said on Monday.

The request follows a recent order for a vessel to carry military hardware from Europe to the Middle East Gulf, heightening speculation that the United States is pre-positioning equipment for a possible strike on Iraq.

IP Logged

increase 1776
Senior Member

604 posts, Oct 2000

posted 08-14-2002 07:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for increase 1776     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's so nice to have a say on this matter.Sadaam could commit suicide live on TV for the whole world to see and we'd go in anyway.Gotta have that Distraction and hell might as well take the oil while were at it,then Saudi,Iran,on and on........This way another terrorist attack can be blamed on the designated boogie-man.

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!

Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 08-14-2002 11:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. Navy Retracts Denial of Arms Shipment to Gulf

August 13, 2002 02:25 PM ET

By Stefano Ambrogi

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy confirmed on Tuesday it was seeking a large ship to carry helicopters and arms from the United States to the Red Sea, a day after denying it had placed such an order.

The request, following a recent order for a vessel to carry military hardware from Europe to the Middle East, has heightened speculation that the United States is pre-positioning equipment for a possible strike on Iraq.

Monday a U.S. Navy spokesman denied a Reuters report that Military Sealift Command (MSC) had placed the order, but when presented with documentary evidence, MSC spokeswoman Trish Larson confirmed Tuesday there had indeed been a tender. "There is a request for proposals from private industry to provide a roll-on roll-off ship," she told Reuters.

These ships, and oil tankers to carry military jet fuel and marine diesel oil, will top the U.S. military's most wanted list of vessels if war breaks out.

The charter for a vessel to carry 48,000 square feet of helicopters, ammunition and assorted "rolling stock" will load at two ports in the southeastern United States and discharge at two Red Sea ports in late August, the order shows.

The square footage is roughly equivalent to a soccer field. Brokers and commercial shipping sources said the ports were most likely to be in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

Oil prices jumped Monday after the Reuters report and market brokers cited increased concerns of a military build-up in the region.


The Military Sealift Command is the agency responsible for shipping the bulk of equipment used during the 1991 Gulf War.

Shipping brokers who chartered ships to MSC then said the recent order, with a cargo covering an area of 38,000 square feet and with the heaviest item at 50 tons, was most likely to be carrying tanks and armored vehicles.

Navy Commander Dan Keesee at U.S. Central Command in Florida did not link the activity to any build-up for U.S. attack on Iraq, and said the chartering of the second ship had been planned for two years.

"Central Command charters ships on a regular basis and this is a routine matter," Keesee told Reuters Tuesday. Military and naval analysts have told Reuters there are tentative signs the United States has begun to move military supplies to the Gulf for some kind of operation against Iraq, although movements are at nothing like the rate needed to wage a full-scale war.

There are other signs the United States could be readying to shift more material.

Last week the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a massive contract to U.S.-based Maersk Line, part of Danish shipping giant Maersk Sealand, to run eight ships capable of carrying ammunition, tanks and ambulances.

The Pentagon said the ships will be positioned around the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean but must be deployable worldwide.

IP Logged


Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000

posted 08-15-2002 12:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thermit   Visit Thermit's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

U.S. letter to Arab leaders: 'There will be no turning back'


Thursday, August 15, 2002

LONDON The United States has warned Arab leaders to prepare public opinion for a change in the Iraqi regime.

Diplomatic sources said the Bush administration has sent letters to the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the Middle East. The letters, said to be nearly identical, assert that Washington is determined to topple the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!

Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 08-29-2002 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. general tells Israelis war will start by late November

Thursday, August 29, 2002

TEL AVIV The United States has told Israel that it will attack Iraq before the end of November.

Israeli military sources said a a senior U.S. military visited Israel earlier this week and toured facilities where the U.S. military has prepositioned equipment and weapons for an emergency in the Middle East.

The sources quoted a visiting U.S. general who heads army logistics as saying that Washington intends to strike the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by late November.

The Israeli sources said the two countries discussed Israel's role in any U.S. military attack, Middle East Newsline reported.

The general was quoted as saying that Washington's aim is to topple the Saddam regime. The general was not named.

In joint military discussions earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said Iraq would be only the first stop in the U.S. war on terror, an Israeli parliamentarian said.

Yuval Steinetz, chairman of the Knesset subcommittee on military doctrine, said he held talks with senior Pentagon officials in June regarding Washington's vision of a post-Saddam Middle East. Steinetz said Washington envisions a new order in the Middle East after Saddam is toppled and a democratic regime is installed.

"Iraq is the key but not the last stop [in the U.S. effort]," Steinetz said. "It is the first stop. After that there will be massive [U.S.] pressure on Syria and Iran to halt weapons of mass destruction programs and Syria's occupation of Lebanon."

U.S. military sources and analysts said Washington has sent tens of thousands of soldiers and military personnel to Gulf Arab states, Central and South Asia and the Levant. They said the force includes at least 1,000 military planners who have prepared for a rapid airlift of forces in case Washington decides on a war against Iraq.

Israeli officials have confirmed that both military and civilian officials from Israel and the United States have been discussing Washington's plans to attack Iraq. They said the talks have included the Bush administration's vision of a post-war Iraq and U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The military talks, the officials said, have focused largely on Israel's response to any Iraqi missile or air strike on the Jewish state. They said Israel and the United States have reviewed a series of scenarios of whether and how Israel would react to an Iraqi conventional or nonconventional missile strike.

Israeli military sources said the level of Israel's response would depend on the number of casualties and damage caused by any Iraqi strike.

The sources said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told the Bush administration that it would not pledge any policy of restraint as that during the 1991 Gulf war.

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!

Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 09-05-2002 01:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. buildup estimated at 100,000 troops, 1,000 military planners

Special to World


Wednesday, September 4, 2002

The United States continues its military buildup in and around the Persian Gulf with analysts estimating up to 100,000 troops within striking distance of Iraq.

U.S. military sources and analysts said Washington has sent tens of thousands of soldiers and military personnel to Gulf Arab states, Central and South Asia and the Levant.

They said the force includes at least 1,000 military planners who have prepared for a rapid airlift of forces in case Washington decides on a war against Iraq.

The U.S. Defense Department has been bolstering its transport ship fleet as well as preparing its air cargo fleet to defend against Islamic insurgents and Iraqi forces, Middle East Newsline reported.

On Aug. 27, the Pentagon said it awarded Northrop Grumman a $23.2 million contract to provide the C-17 transport aircraft with systems to defend against infrared surface-to-air missiles.

The Pentagon has also awarded a $20.5 million contract for the maintenance and overhaul of the U.S. Navy's reserve air fleet.

The award for iBASEt, based om Lake Forest, Calif., is meant to support a range of air programs.

Analysts said the total number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf and surrounding regions now number around 100,000. They said this could enable a U.S. attack on Iraq within weeks of a decision by President George Bush.

The Washington-based Center for Defense Information said the U.S. troop deployment effort has been muted and taken in cooperation with host countries.

The center said in a report that the cooperation is meant to keep the airlift out of the public eye.

"Notably, the command posts throughout the southern Gulf states and their implication of offensive operations are as politically sensitive as ever," the center said in a report authored by [Ret.] Rear Adm. Stephen Baker and Colin Robinson. "The U.S. 'footprint' in each country requires actual personnel numbers, amount of prepositioned equipment and support/cooperation agreements made with each country to be kept out of the publics knowledge."

The center said the United States maintains 8,000 troops in Afghanistan with several thousand more aboard naval ships in the Arabian Sea. More than 20,000 additional soldiers are deployed in Gulf Arab countries.

{On Aug. 30, Germany Defense Minister Peter Struck warned that Berlin would withdraw its military personnel from Kuwait if the United States attacks Iraq.

Germany maintains 52 soldiers and Fox infantry fighting vehicles and has been training Kuwait in defending against a weapons of mass destruction attack.}

Moreover, more than 1,000 military planners, logistics experts and support specialists have been deployed in command posts throughout the Persian Gulf, the report said.

They are in real-time contact with U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla. by video teleconferencing, satellite imagery and data link and have drafted plans to ship up to 200,000 tons of heavy weapons and other equipment to the region.

The center said the United States could also use military bases in Egypt and Jordan for an attack on Iraq. Currently, the U.S. 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit is exercising with Jordanian forces and the center did not rule out that the maneuvers comprise a cover for prepositioning forces at well-sited forward staging posts.

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!

Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 09-06-2002 01:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
US sends heavy armour to Gulf as campaign grows

By Kim Sengupta

05 September 2002

Signs that preparations for a new Gulf War are well under way were highlighted yesterday when America stepped up the movement of heavy armour to the Gulf.

The US Navy has booked a giant commercial transporter to take tanks, artillery, ammunition and back-up vehicles to the region. It is the third shipment of arms and military hardware in a month using commercial shipping.

Military analysts said it showed the US Navy had probably exhausted the capacity of its own fleet and resorted to the open market.

The shipment is the latest step in a process that has continued while public debate ebbs and flows over an attack.

Military commanders in America and Britain have been highly sceptical of the arguments put forward by hawks in the Bush administration for another Gulf conflict. But they have also been aware that George Bush is likely to plump for war and they will have to produce a plan that would win it with the lowest number of allied casualties.

This time around the strategists face more constraints, primarily antipathy to an attack launched from Arab states that backed the war against Saddam Hussein 10 years ago. The most important dissenter is Saudi Arabia. The decision by the West's staunchest Arab ally in the region to veto the use of its territory for an attack on Iraq has meant the planning has had to be modified.

Saudi Arabia was the launch-pad for Western forces in the Gulf War and played an important role in later actions against Iraq. American and British warplanes still use the kingdom to patrol the southern no-fly zone. But now Washington and London find they cannot use the 500-mile Saudi-Iraq border for a main armoured land thrust. Nor can they use the technically advanced Prince Sultan air base, set up to be a nerve centre for precisely this kind of air war.

A replacement for Prince Sultan has been found at Al-Udeid, in Qatar, which has been the scene of a concerted US construction programme. The base has a 12,500ft runway and hangars, fortified against chemical and biological attacks, for 120 aircraft. There are four warehouses with enough tanks and armour for a mechanised brigade.

Kuwait has also expressed disquiet about an attack on Iraq. But it is likely to be the place from which the West would attack in the south. Al-Jaber air base already hosts dozens of USAF F-117 Stealth fighters, A-10 Thunderbolts, FA-18 Hornets and F-16s.

Another air base, Ali al-Salem, is used by RAF Tornados.

Thirty-five miles from the Iraqi border is the Kuwaiti military complex, an obvious base for land operations. America has 8,000 troops already stationed there and there is space for another 30,000. The cutting edge of the armour would be provided by the US Army's Abrams tanks and Britain's Challenger IIs. But the British tanks would have to be refitted for desert conditions, at an estimated cost of 90m.

A northern attack into Iraq would be likely to come through Turkey. Ankara has also spoken out against a war, but the Americans believe it will come on board. The air base at Incirlik holds US F-16s and RAF Jaguars, and is used to patrol the northern no-fly zone.

Western troops might be able to set up in the semi- autonomous Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, but there are political and diplomatic sensitivities over the area.
Bahrain would be an ideal base for air and naval operations. The RAF used it extensively during the Gulf War, and would want to do so again if the ruler can be persuaded to join an anti-Saddam coalition.

As the Afghan campaign has shown, America is able, with air-to-air refuelling provided by the British, to mount sustained bombing raids with its B-52, B-1 and B-2 Stealth aircraft. The British Indian Ocean base at Diego Garcia is a prime launch-pad, but the USAF is also able to fly directly from its home bases. A war against Iraq would also be likely to involve more use of unmanned aircraft.

Global Hawks can be launched from both Diego Garcia and America, while the smaller Predators have to be based locally.

Facing this, Iraq has about 300,000 troops, 100,000 of whom are better equipped and led by the Republican Guard.

Its armoured strength comprises about 2,000 ageing Russian tanks. The air force has about 300 jets, also elderly, and several dozen Scud B missiles.

Strategists believe President Saddam would be likely to deploy his troops in built-up areas to maximise the difficulty for an attacker of avoiding civilian casualties. As a last resort, he might even use chemical weapons.


100 jets join attack on Iraq

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 06/09/2002)

About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

The Prime Minister promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans "when the shooting starts".The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months.

Although only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.

The strikes were carried out by nine American F15 Strike Eagles and three RAF Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft flying from Kuwait.

At least seven types of aircraft took part.

Fighter cover was provided by US F-16 Fighting Falcons and RAF Tornado F3s from Saudi Arabia.

RAF VC10 tanker aircraft flying from Bahrain were among the support aircraft.

These also included EA6b Prowlers, which send out signals to confuse enemy radar, and E3a Awacs aircraft that co-ordinate operations and carry out reconnaissance of any response.

RAF Tornados also took part in the reconnaissance. American central command refused to go into detail about the number of aircraft involved in the raid.

It said: "Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defence measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft."The Pentagon said that the raid was launched in "response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone".

Iraq had made 130 attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft this year.The Ministry of Defence in London refused to confirm that RAF aircraft had taken part, but defence sources said that Tornado ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft played a key role.

The attack on what the American central command described as an "air defence command and control facility" was the first time that a target in western Iraq had been attacked during the patrols of the southern no-fly zone.

Until yesterday, all strikes had been against air defence sites in the south, around Basra, Amara, Nassairya and Baghdad.

Central command said it was still assessing the damage caused by the attack. If the air defence installation was not destroyed, a second raid is expected.

As well as blinding Iraqi radar to any special forces helicopters, the loss of the H3 installation would allow allied aircraft mounting major raids on Iraq a trouble-free route into the country.

In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar.

Thomas White, the army secretary, said: "We have done a lot with pre-positioned stocks in the Gulf, making sure that they are in the right spot to support whatever the president wants to do."

Any war on Iraq is likely to begin with a gradual intensification of attacks on air defences. But yesterday's raid appears more likely to be related to the special forces Scud hunts.

It was the SAS which specialised in the attempts to hunt down the Scuds during the Gulf war.

Although the raids were largely unsuccessful, they spawned a series of rival books by former members of the regiment.

Mr Bush, speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, said that, besides having talks with Mr Blair, he would be meeting the leaders of France, Russia, China and Canada over the next few days. He would tell them that "history has called us into action" to oust Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq.

He said he was looking forward to the talks, but suggested that the US could do the job on its own if need be."I am a patient man," he said. "I've got tools; we've got tools at our disposal. We cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons."

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!

Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 09-13-2002 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Today: September 13, 2002 at 15:05:26 PDT

Official: Iraq Solution Expected Soon


UNITED NATIONS- After meeting Friday with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the European Union's foreign policy chief said a Security Council resolution on Iraq was expected within weeks.

"I wouldn't say months, but weeks," said Javier Solana, when asked about the timing of a resolution that would likely demand Saddam Hussein allow the return of weapons inspectors.

Asked whether the 15-member EU would support military action, Solana said: "We'll face the question when it comes."

Powell said he was "very pleased with the discussion."

The meeting was held on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly debate that opened Thursday with a speech by President Bush who said Saddam must disarm "or action will be unavoidable."

Besides Iraq, the second day of the General Assembly also focused on the broader war on terrorism, tensions between India and Pakistan and the conflict in the Middle East.

There were more than 100 bilateral meetings during Friday's session of the General Assembly and 24 foreign ministers were taking part in the ongoing annual debate.

Foreign ministers from about 20 countries concerned with Afghanistan began meeting behind closed doors to strategize about the next moves for rebuilding the country.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan met over lunch with Powell and the four other foreign ministers whose countries hold powerful seats on the Security Council: Britain, France, China and Russia.

They all agreed that something needs to be done about Iraq. Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said there was no discussion with Powell about a possible deadline for Iraqi compliance or any consequences that could ensue.

"The EU has a common perception and position of the absolute necessity of bringing the weapons inspectors back into Iraq as soon as possible and without conditions. Let's take these things step-by-step," he said after the meeting.

In their speeches to the General Assembly Friday, both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said they favored working through the United Nations to resolve the crisis on Iraq.

Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan - whose country can veto any U.N. Security Council resolution - appeared to agree.

"The Iraqi issue should be resolved within the framework of the United Nations," Tang said, according to a report by the official Xinhua News Agency.

Sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that its weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. Inspectors left the country four years ago without doing so.

Since then, Iraq has refused to let inspectors return and the stalemate has split the Security Council several times.

On South Asia, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee used his turn at the microphone to counter accusations by Pakistan that his government was pushing the region toward another conflict.

Instead, he blamed Pakistan for training and harboring Islamic terrorists who launch attacks in India-ruled Kashmir and elsewhere. In a special address early Friday,

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thanked the world for its outpouring of support in the past year as the war on terrorism, conflict in the Mideast and tensions between India and Pakistan took center stage at Day Two of the annual debate.

Some 50 presidents and prime ministers and more than 125 foreign ministers will speak during seven full days of open debate. The meeting, held under tight security, ends Sept. 20.

Besides the numerous one-on-one sessions between leaders at this year's session, senior officials from the United States, the United Nations, the EU and Russia will meet Tuesday to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

IP Logged

Senior Member

1242 posts, Jul 2000

posted 09-14-2002 02:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ellyn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

The US War Party's Imperial Plans
By Patrick J. Buchanan
2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

IP Logged

Commitees of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
6025 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-14-2002 08:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Qatar's Role to be Key in Iraq conflict. U.S. troops now stationed and ready to fight..

AL UDEID Air Base (Doha, Qatar)

Due to the loss of Saudi Airfields for combat operations, the U.S. is readying another strategic point in the Gulf to launch strikes against Iraq.

Qatar has agreed to host pre-positioned equipment for an Army brigade, and in 1996 it hosted an air expeditionary force consisting of 30 fighters and four tankers. Air Force pre-positioning was facilitated by the construction of what may be the premier air base in the Gulf at Al-Udeid. The Qatari philosophy behind construction was likened to build it and they will come -- obtain the best defense by providing the best facilities for US and coalition forces. The Al-Udeid Air Base was built at a cost of more than a billion dollars. Its runway measures 15,000 long -- the longest in the Gulf. The facility's shelters can accommodate nearly a hundred aircraft, rather more than needed by the Qatari Air Force, which has only a dozen fighters. The facility is owned and operated by the Qatari armed forces.

In 1999, Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid.

In April 2000, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen discussed ways in which Al-Udeid [Udaid or Udayd] may be used in the future, in a crisis situation for air expeditionary forces. Qatar and the Pentagon continue to discuss an agreement on giving US warplanes access to an air base here in times of crisis or when US aircraft carriers are absent from the Gulf. Access to the Qatari base would give US forces a broader network of bases in the region from which to project force and counter potential threats from Iran as well as Iraq. Among the issues that have to be worked out is who would pay for upgrades that would be required to accommodate an air expeditionary force of about 30 to 40 fighter jets. Hangars, prefabricated maintenance buildings, aprons, and sunshades for the fighters would have to built at Al-Udeid, a huge air field about 35 kilometers south of Doha.

In the autumn of 2001, the US began installing computers, communications and intelligence equipment and other assets at Al Udeid Air Base, in order to establish an alternate command center. By early 2002, the numbers of US warplanes and personnel at the base had increased substantially, with

As of mid-March 2002 several thousand American troops were stationed at Al-Udeid in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these troops were supporting the large complement of US aircraft, which included F-16 fighters, JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft, and KC-10, KC-130 and KC-135 aerial tankers.

By late March 2002 the US was moving communications and computer equipment from Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia to Al-Udeid, in a move intended to provide long-term operational flexibility to war commanders in the region. The equipment relocation would allow various forces in the region to operate better together. These preparations have made it possible for the United States to set up a new headquarters in the space of a few days. The facility is an alternative Combined Air Operations Center [CAOC - pronounced kay-ock], though the modest Qatar facility is not a complete replica of the CAOC at Prince Sultan AB in Saudi Arabia.

US Central Command denied that the move indicated an impending attack on Iraq, or that it was a sign that the US was leaving Prince Sultan Air Base. The US arrangement with Qatar allows a wider range of military operations than are permitted by the US agreement with the Saudi Arabia. The Qataris have indicated they would not place limits on rules of engagement.

By April 2002, about 2,000 troops were living in the desert in a large military tent city known as "Camp Andy" and named after Air Force Master Sgt Evander Andrews, the first US casualty of Operation Enduring Freedom, who died as a result of a forklift accident in October 2001. By mid-June 2002 over 3,000 Americans were stationed at Al-Udeid. The American compound is a temporary living and working area of nearly 200 heavy-duty, tan-colored tents first set up in September 2001.

As of mid-June 2002, construction of the first swimming pool at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, was nearing completion. Prior to that, only two military-issued, above-ground pools were present at the facility.

The United States may station up to 50 warplanes and several thousand US troops permanently. Qatar has offered to spend about $400 million for upgrades at the base, including permanent housing, storage tanks with a capacity of one million gallons of aviation fuel, and a command-and-control facility.

USAF Prepositioned War Reserve Materiel (WRM) provides support to bare base systems, medical, munitions, fuels mobility support equipment, vehicles, rations, aerospace ground equipment, air base operability equipment, and associated spares and other consumables at designated locations. Responsible for asset receipt, accountability, serviceability, storage, security, periodic inspection and test, maintenance, repair, outload, and reconstitution of prepositioned WRM. Current WRM operating locations include Seeb, Thumrait, Masirah, Oman; Al Udeid, Qatar; and Manama, Bahrain. United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF), the designated air component of United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), uses prepositioned war reserve materiel (WRM) to support apportioned combat forces deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA). Prepositioning is a force multiplier for providing bare base systems; medical; munitions; Tanks, Racks, Adapters, and Pylons (TRAP); Fuels Mobility Support Equipment (FMSE); vehicles; rations; Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE); Air Base Operability (ABO) equipment; and associated spares and other consumables at designated operating locations. Prepositioning also mitigates transportation requirements and time/distance realities involved in moving like assets from the continental United States (CONUS) to SWA. The Contractor is responsible for asset receipt, accountability, serviceability, storage, security, periodic inspection and test, maintenance, repair, outload, and reconstitution of prepositioned WRM in the USCENTAF Area of Responsibility (AOR).

The State of Qatar is situated halfway along the west coast of the Persian Gulf, on the eastern side of the Arabian peninsula. The present population is estimated at 600,000 inhabitants most of whom reside in Doha, the capital city. It is a Peninsula that extends northward covering an area of 11,437 sq. km. as well as a number of islands in the coastal waters of the peninsula. The terrain is generally flat. However, there are some hills and sand dunes which reach an altitude of 40 metres above sea level in the areas of Dukhan and Jebel Fuwairit in the western and northern parts of the country and Khor Al-Udeid in the south.



[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 12-21-2003]

IP Logged

Commitees of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
6025 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-14-2002 08:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
More leaks....

US military builds up huge attack force: Warmer words at UN mask activity

By Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor

As George Bush was displaying his grasp of diplomatic vocabulary in front of the UN yesterday, 7,000 miles away in the Gulf his fellow Americans were speaking a different language.

Their words were military terms: frigates, bombers, air defence fighters, refuelling tankers, carrier battle groups, reconnaissance planes, special forces. All these things are on their way to the region or already in position in readiness for a possible attack on Iraq.

In the most blunt indication yet that the US administration's threat is not an idle one and it will force Iraq if necessary to meet its UN pledges, the US central command will move its headquarters to Qatar in November, perhaps indefinitely. The relocation is the culmination of a series of low-key moves on the Gulf chessboard designed to put all the pieces in place for a rapid US assault should the UN route now being pursued by Washington fail. The establishment of command posts and the pre-positioning of heavy equipment in the region over the past year have put central command (Centcom) in a position to launch a strike on Baghdad within a fortnight of the order being given, if it is decided to mount the operation with a fast and light force of 50,000. There are about 30,000 American troops in the region already.

"It would take 10 days to bring in the additional equipment, 10 days to airlift the troops and 10 days to get to Baghdad," said John Pike, the head of, a thinktank which closely monitors military movements.

Nor would it take long to complete the military build-up if it were decided to play it safe and gather an overwhelming force of 200,000 or more before striking. Under Centcom's blueprint for a full-scale invasion, nattily titled Operation Plan 1003, the force could be assembled in just two months. That would be much faster than the six months' build-up in the last Gulf war, partly because it would involve fewer troops, partly because the sluggish US military machine has become gradually more nimble.

The deployment of Centcom's headquarters from Florida to Qatar is officially part of a biennial exercise called Internal Look and is supposed to last a week. However it is highly unusual for General Tommy Franks, the man who would command an Iraqi invasion, and 600 of his top staff, to take part in such a distant relocation. The Pentagon has also made it clear that the move could be permanent.

Over the past few months, the Dollars 1.7bn al-Udeid base in Qatar has been expanded and enhanced to serve as an alternative to Saudi Arabia, which acted host to US headquarters in the first Gulf war but which has refused to get involved this time. Some Pentagon officials still believe that the Saudis will relent at the last moment and say the Prince Sultan air base near Riyadh, where a hi-tech command and control centre was completed only last summer, is still their first choice.

The US air force has been hard at work since the spring, moving computer equipment and munitions to al-Udeid, home to the longest runway in the region (15,000ft - 4,500 metres). Engineers are also at work replicating the base's state-of-the-art combined air operations centre, from where complex large-scale air raids can be coordinated.

Viewed on their own, each of these individual chess moves looks quotidian. Taken together though they start to look like a well-implemented game plan.

There are already 400 US warplanes in the region.

Gen Franks's force commanders are also already in the Gulf, having quietly established and expanded command posts there over the past few months.

The US third army, Centcom's ground component, set up its headquarters in Kuwait in November, and work has been under way since then to transform it into a hub for ground operations. A specialised marine unit with equipment to detect chemical biological or radiological attacks, is also on the way to Kuwait.

The marine headquarters was ordered to Bahrain in January this year, to set up camp alongside the US Navy's fifth fleet, which has been based there for years.

Copyright 2002 Guardian Newspapers Limited


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-16-2002]

IP Logged

Senior Member

1242 posts, Jul 2000

posted 09-15-2002 07:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ellyn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Stiffing The World
By Gillian Norman


Israel Authorizes US To
Use Its Military Bases


10 Reasons Why Many Gulf War
Vets Oppose Invading Iraq
By Anonymous


Proof Israel/Richard Perle
Dictating War On Iraq?
From Dick Fojut

[Edited 7 times, lastly by Ellyn on 09-15-2002]

IP Logged

Commitees of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
6025 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-16-2002 02:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All Things Considered National Public Radio (NPR) September 13, 2002
Consultations with the Congress and UN could preclude quick strike on Iraq by weeks or months

JACKI LYDEN, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Jacki Lyden.

ROBERT SIEGEL, host: And I'm Robert Siegel. One day after presenting his case for action against Iraq to the United Nations, President Bush has expressed doubts that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will meet his demands and head off a military confrontation. President GEORGE W. BUSH: I am highly doubtful that he'll meet our demands. I hope he does, but I'm highly doubtful. And the reason I'm doubtful is he's had 11 years to meet the demands, and for 11 long years he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care.

LYDEN: Speaking to reporters in New York, Mr. Bush said the US is already holding talks at the United Nations to craft a tough resolution on Iraq, one that would include consequences if Iraq does not comply in short order.

Pres. BUSH: There will be deadlines within the resolution. Our chief negotiator for the United States, our secretary of State, understands that we must have deadlines, and we're talking days and weeks, not months and years.

SIEGEL: But even limited consultations with Congress and the United Nations may take some time, and as NPR's Tom Gjelten reports, the requirements of diplomacy and military planning could yet come into conflict.

TOM GJELTEN reporting:

For much of the summer, it appeared the Bush administration was ready to go it alone on Iraq whenever it seemed militarily convenient. But then the president agreed to seek congressional approval for military action and even, as he said yesterday, to work with the UN Security Council on necessary resolutions. And now it's not clear how long these processes will take. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said yesterday he sees no rush to act.

Senator TOM DASCHLE (Minority Leader): I think that it's very important for us to be deliberate. I've said now on several occasions, and I think the vast majority of members of Congress believe this, that we want to do it right. We don't care if we do it quickly.

GJELTEN: At the United Nations, the deliberative process may take awhile. Diplomats have to draft a Security Council resolution forceful enough to satisfy the Bush administration. Iraq could then be given a short time to agree to the return of UN weapons inspectors. In the event Saddam Hussein unexpectedly meets that demand, it could take several more weeks for the inspectors to get there and resume their work. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, whose government is Washington's closest ally, says this whole diplomatic exercise should be given enough time to bring results.

Mr. JACK STRAW (British Foreign Minister): If we can ensure by rigorous unconditional inspection that Iraq is rid of those weapons of mass destruction in a peaceful way, then the argument about military action recedes.

GJELTEN: Where would this diplomatic or inspection activity leave US war planning? Military commanders think carefully about the timing of an operation. Weather conditions, for example, can be a factor, especially in a place like Iraq, where US troops could be confronted with chemical or biological weapons. John Pike, a military analyst with, says spring or summer heat could complicate an operation.

Mr. JOHN PIKE ( American troops are going to have to wear heavy chemical protective gear, and that basically means that a ground campaign would probably have to be concluded by the end of February.

GJELTEN: The US military official speaking on background says war planners in the Pentagon are basically making that same assumption. For military action to conclude by the end of February, preparations, of course, would have to begin well before that. Some senior commanders say as many as 200,000 US troops would need to be deployed to the region to carry out an Iraqi operation with a good chance of success. John Pike does the math.

Mr. PIKE: That would require military buildup of anywhere from two to three months before the ground campaign began, which would mean that American troops would have to start moving into Kuwait sometime around Thanksgiving.

GJELTEN: Would a drawn-out, consultative process on Capitol Hill and at the United Nations get in the way of those preparations? Perhaps. But retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, who commanded troops during the first Gulf War a decade ago, says it would be worth the wait to get broader support, and McCaffrey argues that it would be wrong to conclude that a war in Iraq could only be fought in the winter months.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (Retired, US Army): January-February, Desert Storm '91, it was freezing cold, driving rains, sand storms, miserable weather up in the Euphrates River Valley. On the other hand, you know, our Army forces go out to the National Training Center in 114-degree temperatures and operate day and night. So I think we're capable of carrying out aggressive military operations under any weather conditions.

GJELTEN: The first Gulf War began only after Iraq was given a series of ultimatums. There were high-level negotiations, and only after that process broke down did military action commence. But US officials insist they'll be far less patient this time around. Elliot Cohen, a professor of national security studies at Johns Hopkins University, says US commanders will want some measure of tactical surprise, and they won't want to telegraph all their moves ahead of time.

Professor ELLIOT COHEN (Johns Hopkins University): I don't think it will be anything like that sort of diplomatic minuet leading to a conflict. I think there will be a sense of some period, which may be weeks, may be a little bit longer than that, in which there is a serious effort to work through the UN and acquire some new resolution and then something will happen. But when that will happen, whether it'll be two months from now or six months from now or even up to a year from now, I don't think anybody can really say with confidence.

GJELTEN: In any case, the Iraqis themselves may streamline the war-planning process. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said flatly today that his government rejects the US conditions and will not allow UN weapons inspectors to return unconditionally. If that position is maintained, there may be less to discuss at the United Nations. Tom Gjelten, NPR News, Washington.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-16-2002]

IP Logged


Hayward Ca.U.S.A.
801 posts, May 2002

posted 09-16-2002 11:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for emfx13   Visit emfx13's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
UNITED NATIONS (Sept. 16) - Iraq agreed Monday to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, a reversal coming days after President Bush warned Baghdad to comply with U.N. resolutions or face military action. The White House dismissed the offer as a tactical move.

''This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in the statement. The statement called it ''a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action.''

The statement demanded a ''new, effective U.N. Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region and to the world.''

Four years after U.N. weapons inspectors left Baghdad, Iraq said in a letter addressed Monday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that its decision to allow them to return was taken in order ''to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.''

Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri signed the letter and gave it to Annan, who announced the decision.

Alluding to talk of a possible attack, Iraq called on the members of the Security Council, which includes the United States, to ''respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq.''

The announcement came days after Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly debate and said that Iraq must comply with Security Council resolutions or face a military strike.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has been lobbying the other 14 members of the council to support a resolution that would mandate the return of inspectors and permit the use of force should Iraq refuse.

But there was no mention of the United States in the letter Iraq sent late Monday. Instead, Iraq said it was responding to an earlier appeal by Annan for Baghdad's compliance with Security Council resolutions calling for unfettered access to inspectors, and to an appeal by the Arab League and other Islamic countries.

Annan forwarded the letter to all 15 members of the council and to the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix.

It was not clear when the council would meet to consider the letter, a first step before sending inspectors back. Blix has said he could have inspectors on the ground within days but it would take his teams several months to set-up on the ground before they could begin monitoring Iraqi sites.

In a statement, Blix welcomed the Iraqi letter and said he was ready for immediate talks with the Iraqis ''on the practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections.''

In Baghdad, there was no word of the news on state-run media but the letter was released following high-level meetings Saddam held earlier Monday with top officials in his Baath party and his Cabinet, including his deputy prime minister and vice president.

''I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work,'' a pleased Annan told reporters, nearly four years after inspectors left Iraq.

''There is good news,'' Sabri said moments earlier. The Iraqi foreign minister refused to comment further and left U.N. headquarters after a day of negotiations on the text of the letter.

Sabri and Arab League chief Amr Moussa had met late with Annan to transmit the letter from the Iraqi government.

Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that its weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. Inspectors left the country in December, 1998 ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes to punish Iraq for not cooperating with inspections.

Since then, Iraq has said it would only allow inspectors to return if the sanctions were lifted. The five powers on the Security Council - the United States, Britain, Russian, France and China - have remained divided over what the next steps should be.

But on Thursday, Bush told the U.N. General Assembly, at the opening of its annual debate, that the world body could no longer tolerate Iraq's defiance of council resolutions.

''We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind.''

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohamed al-Douri, had sharply criticized Bush's remarks, saying the speech lacked credibility and was motivated by revenge and political ambition.

But Annan credited Bush late Monday.

''I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community,'' Annan said.

The secretary-general also said the Arab League had played a key role in bringing about the Iraqi response and he thanked the league's chief, Amr Moussa of Egypt, ''for his strenuous efforts in helping to convince Iraq to allow the return of the inspectors.''

AP-NY-09-16-02 2125EDT

IP Logged

Commitees of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
6025 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-19-2002 01:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush Seeks OK for Military Force
Thu Sep 19,11:46 AM ET

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush asked Congress Thursday for authority to use military force to disarm and overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein, saying the United States will take action on its own if the U.N. Security Council balks.

The president was sending to Capitol Hill his proposed wording for a resolution that he wants Congress to approve before lawmakers adjourn to campaign for the Nov. 5 elections.

"That will be part of the resolution authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office.

"This is a chance for Congress to indicate support, a chance for Congress to say we support the administration's ability to keep the peace, that's what this is all about."

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said that in the past Bush "has been very respectful of the prerogatives of Congress" and would likely give Congress a draft that outlines his major points. "He will expect us to make the formal drafts," Armey said.

Bush spoke to journalists after meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell on his uphill diplomatic work to draft a United Nations Security Council resolution against Iraq that could overcome strong reservations by Russia and France, who have veto power in the Security Council.

"The United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm," Bush said.

"And if the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will."

The gap between Russian and American viewpoints was underlined Thursday in comments by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Upon arriving at the Pentagon to meet with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Ivanov said he believed U.N. weapons inspectors will succeed in settling the question of whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

"Being experienced in that sort of business both Americans and Russians I think we can easily establish (whether) there exist or not weapons of mass destruction technology," Ivanov said. Rumsfeld, who stood by silently as Ivanov spoke, has said repeatedly that inspections cannot be 100 percent reliable because Iraq has a long history of deceiving inspectors.

Bush declined to name any of the allies he's counting on for support, saying only that "time will tell."

"I think you're going to see that a lot of nations love freedom. ... We're confident that people will follow our lead," the president added.

As he spoke, White House advisers were behind the scenes telephoning congressional leaders with notice that Bush's proposed resolution was on its way to Capitol Hill.

Following his meeting with Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bush then gathered a dozen Democrat and Republican lawmakers behind closed doors at the White House, immediately beginning the drive to build support for what would amount to a blank check from Congress.

Bush said he wanted the legislature to give him not only the power to make war with Saddam, but also an explicit restatement of U.S. policy that Saddam must be overthrown.

"That's the policy of the government," Bush said, adding that he wanted Congress' approval before lawmakers adjourn to campaign for the Nov. 5 elections.

Three senior White House aides familiar with the resolution's draft said it would give Bush maximum flexibility to confront the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, including an explicit OK to use military force.

Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that Congress must act before the Security Council does.

"Delaying a vote in the Congress would send a message that the U.S. may be unprepared to take a stand, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning the Iraqi regime to consider its options," Rumsfeld said.

The Iraq resolution was expected to win overwhelming support from both parties in the House and Senate, possibly within two weeks. Although some prominent Democrats have called for caution, both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said they supported Bush on the issue.

"We want to make sure that whatever we do, we make the right decision," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz ( news, bio, voting record), D-Texas.

A group of House Democrats, however, on Thursday condemned the move toward military action, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich ( news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio, calling it "unjustified, unwarranted and illegal."

Rep. Barbara Lee ( news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said she was introducing a resolution with 20 cosponsors calling on the United States to work with the U.N. to carry out weapons inspections in Iraq. "A preemptive, unilateral first strike would set a terrible international precedent," she said.

While U.N. officials in New York prepared for the inspectors' return, U.S. and British officials began working on a new U.N. resolution aimed at authorizing use of force should Baghdad fail to comply with Security Council resolutions.

Western diplomats said the U.S.-British draft likely would include new instructions for weapons inspectors and a timetable for disarmament that would be tighter than one laid out in an existing resolution passed in December 1999.

Britain, which helps the United States patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, has been the staunchest public ally for Bush's threats of war. Rumsfeld said several other U.S. allies have said privately they would support a military strike against Iraq, but he declined to say which countries or how many.

"There are a number of countries afraid of Saddam Hussein" and therefore reluctant to let their cooperation be known publicly, Rumsfeld said.

Associated Press 2002

Yes, Folks it looks like Bush is going to play vigilante after all. Yesterday was proof enough for me. I spotted (2) B-1B Lancer Long range bombers land at a nearby Air Force base where I live.

You never see that type of aircraft here unless we are going to strike. Many c-130's were in and out a well which confirms that they are moving supplies overseas.


[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 09-19-2002]

IP Logged

Senior Member

Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002

posted 09-19-2002 09:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for PacerLJ35   Visit PacerLJ35's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not going to say those aircraft *weren't* part of any kind of pre-Iraqi invasion force, but consider some other possibilities:

1) B-1Bs are currently deployed to forward bases (like Diego Garcia) in support of the current operation in Afghanistan. They also occassionaly deploy to the Gulf Area of Operations (AOR).

As such, they rotate aircraft and crews in and out all the time, like we rotate our C-21s in and out of the AOR. You can't indefinitely keep an airplane over there because eventually it will need to go to depot, etc, for major maintenance. That, and the environment over there is pretty harsh on an airplane and they try to allow exposure over the fleet and not concentrate the effects of sand and high heat on a few airframes. I've got a good friend who was recently supposed to take a Bone (nickname for the B-1) to Diego to swap out with some other crews...dunno, maybe you saw him?

2) The presence of Herks doesn't really mean much in my book. For one thing, Herks are pretty much ubiquitous....they're everywhere. 2/3s of all the states in the US have C-130s in their Guard/Reserve inventories. And being that they are short-field trash haulers that can pretty much do anything with very little external support, they are probably among the more common aircraft seen at non-military airfields.

Larger airlifters such as the C-5 (Fred) and the C-17 generally don't fly to civilian airfields much because most of the airfields aren't stressed for their weight, and they (Fred in particular) require extensive facilities. We've got a neighboring unit here at Maxwell that flies the Herk (and since my future assignment will include flying the airplane, I've taken to asking questions and visiting them to talk about the aircraft and it's mission). The 908th flies all over, and they routinely visit alot of civilian airfields where most military aircraft don't fly to.

Another live in the northeast. It's quite common for aircraft headed for points east (Saudi, Afghanistan, etc) to stop over for fuel out that way...we often fly to Gander to get fuel, but many airlifters go to McGuire, etc to get gas before making the trip "over the pond". One friend of mine who flew active-duty Herks stated that each Herk squadron pulls two desert (Saudi) rotations a year, each one being 90 days in length. They will often deploy as a squadron, flying in twos or threes over the Atlantic. From there, a third of the squadron will go straight to Saudi while the rest of the set up stage in Germany (stage is sort of an airlift hub). So it's also very common to see Herks crossing the pond for normal deployments, as they have been doing for the past 11 years.

IP Logged

Commitees of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
6025 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-20-2002 03:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Welcome back Pacer,...Sierra Hotel

Yes the C-130s may just be either on training exercises or otherwise. I see them from time to time, however....The B1-B LANCERS are not frequent visitors to this part of the country unless something is going down. Before the Gulf War they were flying over my house at least once a week and thus far as of today i've spotted more than the fingers I have on both hands.

As a former military person myself (E-4, Navy F/A-18 Mechanic) Even at the base I worked at (a major NAS) I did not see a lot of B-1B's, nor did I on most of my deployments(U.S. and abroad) with the exeption of Rammstein, Germany.

Nothing wrong with letting the public know.I trust their judgement to believe what's right.It could very well be that they are flying across the pond just "in case". That is a possibility.


[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 09-20-2002]

IP Logged

Senior Member

Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002

posted 09-20-2002 07:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PacerLJ35   Visit PacerLJ35's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As far as Air Power is concerned, we've got plenty already pre-positioned in Saudi and other Gulf states, not to mention the aircraft still deployed in support of Afghanistan, which since it has gone relatively "cold", could easily be diverted to support any future ops in Iraq.

I for one look forward to the possibility that this "conflict" can finally be resolved. The Gulf War never really did end. Thousands of US personnel remain stationed in the region, aircraft get shot at, and we occassionally have fired back. There was a "peace deal" that was never followed through on Iraq's part, and the idea that sanctions are going to ruin his power base has proven to be unrealistic, and more hurtful to the Iraqi people than to Saddam, who has powerful connections to black-market goods that were banned by the UN.

On a more personal note, since you were in the military, you can understand why military personnel are onboard for finishing what should have been done in 1991 (but all the politicians were afraid to do so). I saw on TV some interviews, and many people seem to support the idea of "containment", which basically means that we keep the status quo, camp out thousands of troops around Iraq, and keep sanctions in place.

Hey, that's fine, but then I say we all take turns as Americans to do the "babysitting" and the splendid 90 day rotations in Saudi Arabia and other "garden spots" like Turkey and Kuwait. It's easy to say "let the military 'contain' Saddam"....especially since you don't have to do the containing.

Next, containment hurts the wrong people. The Iraqi people have had to suffer enough with having a madman run their why punish them for their idiot leader? Since the "end" of the Gulf War and the imposing of sanctions supposedly meant to undermine Saddam, he's built dozens of new luxurious palaces, bought black market luxury cars, and built five-star resturants for his ruling-class elite, all while he uses the general population's poor condition (no running water, little real electricity, expensive and scarce food) to make the world think the US and the UN wants to kill Iraqi children.

And for at least the past few years, he's used Jordan and Iran as a back door for illegal arms shipments from China, among others.

If we took down Saddam, our presence in the region certainly wouldn't diminish, as we would have to rebuild the Iraqi government. But since the end of active hostilities in the ongoing (my term) Gulf War in 1991, few countries have stepped up to actually "contain" Saddam...they are more than happy to vote for containment, but much less willing to devote troops to do it, leaving 99% of the work to the US and Britain.

Were we to take out Saddam, and show the world that Iraq needs a fresh start, it might be much easier to convince our allies to perhaps step up and take on some responsibility, as they have in Afghanistan. Europeans are great...they hide in the bushes when the bully is in the playground, but they're the first ones out when they have a chance to act "humanitarian".

IP Logged


151 posts, Jul 2002

posted 09-20-2002 10:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GAS_MASK     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Funny how we get stuck fighting Isreal's wars for them, isn't it?


[Edited 4 times, lastly by GAS_MASK on 09-20-2002]

IP Logged


694 posts, May 2002

posted 09-20-2002 11:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alpha-Theta   Visit Alpha-Theta's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While we're busy imposing sanctions on IRAQ, Bush has just given groomlake total immunity from freedom of information act disclosure related to groomlake. Pacer, get a dictionary, and look up the word hypocrisy. Just do it.

Pacer professes to know a lot about this issue, however he intuitively knows nothing more than the typical brainwashed CNN watcher. Perhaps, Pacer, You would care to address any of these questions?

(originally posted by mark sky)
Ron Paul of Texas asks
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US-and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Alpha-Theta on 09-20-2002]

IP Logged

swamp gas
Persuader of air molecules

Jersey City
1881 posts, Jun 2001

posted 09-20-2002 12:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas   Visit swamp gas's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, you are correct on your assertions of the hypocrisy and lies by the United Snakes concerning Iraq. Pacer will most certainly answer your questions with,
1) "Yes, we have have done some bad things in the past, but try living in Central or South America"
2) "We are the biggest, meanest, most aggressive culture to live on the planet"
3) "We have to finish what we started. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Russia, Chad, Angola, ad nauseum."

Now, didn't every insane dictator or culture think this throughout history. Phoenicians, Pharoahs, Rome, Napoleon, Ghenghis Khan, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Stalin Russia, Nazis, Communist Witch Hunts, ConintelPro, and USA Patriot Act. All killing in the name of a god or want of territory with it's subsequent riches. Who will stop the U.S. from it's New Crusade? Ah ha, The American Public!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The numbers supporting Bushit's Holy Oil War are much lower than the Ministry of Propaganda would have us believe. I talk to left and right wingers, and hardly anyone is for this war except the most rabid, foaming at the mouth liberals and conservatives. Extremists. The rest of the world literally hates the U.S. government now. Not the people, though. It's up to us.

Pacer, you seem to know a lot about Air Force technology, but know close to zero about history. Why don't you answer Alpha-Theta's point-by-point. If you could, maybe you'd get more respect from this forum from people that are very knowledgable in the history of the world

IP Logged


151 posts, Jul 2002

posted 09-20-2002 12:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for GAS_MASK     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From the mouth of George Bush Sr. about Gulf War #1:

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."


IP Logged


694 posts, May 2002

posted 09-20-2002 12:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alpha-Theta   Visit Alpha-Theta's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Swamp Gas stated:
Pacer, you seem to know a lot about Air Force technology,

S/G I appreciate your concurrence and honesty. I just wanted to point out that Pacer has displayed very little knowledge in regard to Air Force technology aside from avionics and relative daily operations. I just wanted to point this out as it seems he never will elaborate or engage in discussion on a lot of the air forces joint projects and/or other technologies developed within the air force.

IP Logged

This topic is 45 pages long:  1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Money Forum | The Web Hosting Forum | Papa Guru
Contact Us | Chemtrail Central

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c