Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (42393)	9/6/2002 2:32:07 PM
From: BigBull	Respond to of 281500

Baghdad confirms the airstrike in the West: reuters.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (42393)	9/6/2002 3:34:13 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re the big US attack on Iraq involving 100 planes. There is a very significant paragraph in that story: The paper said that the large numbers involved stemmed from the many support aircraft that took part even though only 12 jets actually dropped precision-guided bombs onto the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan. foxnews.com One might question why it is necessary to have ~88 support aircraft for 12 fighter / bombers. The simple explanation is that the aircraft had to fly all the way from the US (and / or Britain) as none of our allies in the area gave permission for us to use more convenient airfields. To put this into perspective, note that there were 7,000 sorties flown in just the first 4 days of the Gulf War (i.e. Jan 16-19th): history.navy.mil In other words, the press isn't making it into a big deal because it wasn't one. -- Carl