Ooops.

[Soldier]

Sorry, I don't have the citations; some of it was Air Force stories I'd heard, that kind of thing. But yes, they did fire on manned craft plenty of times.

[jeff]

"Fired on" - yes, I'd heard that. "Hit" or "shot down" is what I didn't think actually happened (thank goodness!)

[Soldier]

There were some hits, and I believe one or two losses.

As an aside - had you heard that one of the new Raptors crashed just a few weeks ago?

[jeff]

No, I hadn't On its own or due to hostile action? I think unmanned craft are going to be the wave of the future. Don't have to protect them, our guys are safe, can put them under high G forces, less cost, all kinds of benefits.

(I still don't recall any of our guys being shot down in pre-war "no fly zones)

[Soldier]

Well, considering there's no Raptors in combat yet, I'm going to guess pilot error. Anyway, the point is that you frequently don't hear about even relatively major losses (like a brand new Raptor).

And yes, UAVs are definitely going to be the next big thing. They just...make infinitely more sense.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

There were some hits, and I believe one or two losses.
{snip}

There were no losses of manned planes to Iraqi fire. Three drones were destroyed. Also, 2 helicopters were shot down by friendly fire. (at least as of 3/03).

AFA article

ONW article

Not sure about hits--probably some small caliber hits, I'd imagine.

Fair amount of illuminations, AAA fire and missile fire over the years.


--Philistine

[Soldier]

I'm not seeing the "no losses" in your citations; I'm about 99% sure we had one or two (though no, I don't know the citations offhand).

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I'm not seeing the "no losses" in your citations; I'm about 99% sure we had one or two (though no, I don't know the citations offhand).

From the 1st Source: (page 51 at bottom--middle column) "
Through 11 years of enforcement of the no-fly zones, the coalition lost not a single manned aircraft to enemy fire, despite the fact that Iraqi air defense operators became more cunning and went to school on American air operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the intervening years. At least three
pilotless drones have been lost to accidents or enemy fire, however."

From the 2nd: "The results of these engagements have resulted in a severe loss of Iraq’s integrated air defense systems with all coalition aircraft returning to base safely, despite a $14,000 bounty by the Iraq leader himself to anyone who downed a coalition aircraft."

Both are as of the end of February, 2003.

--Philistine

[Soldier]

Ah, thank you - missed them the first few times through.

Wow...could have sworn we'd lost some. Maybe I mixed my memories up with Allied Force.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Ah, thank you - missed them the first few times through.

Wow...could have sworn we'd lost some. Maybe I mixed my memories up with Allied Force.

Here's another citation you couldn't find. You're nto really very good with research and citations are you?

from Associated Press:
Iraq has never accepted the legitimacy of the no-fly zones and has tried for years to shoot down the pilots who enforce them. Iraqi gunners have used an extensive network of radars, surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery guns to challenge the aerial patrols, although it has never downed a pilot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...112-iraq02.htm

[Soldier]

I was going on the best my memory was serving me (which is generally quite well) - obviously I am mistaken. I did not claim to have looked it up and verified it. I have been shown to be wrong. Need we become nasty?

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I was going on the best my memory was serving me (which is generally quite well) - obviously I am mistaken. I did not claim to have looked it up and verified it. I have been shown to be wrong. Need we become nasty?

I'm not really being nasty. I've just been noticing the number of times you can't find your resources or challenge statements you don't look up for yourself. It's looking like your style to make statments without any back up.

[Soldier]

You say so.

I'm not trying to make statements without backing them up; I should shortly (end of the month) have about a zillion sources to back up my statements on global warming. I admit I did not have sources on this one; where else have I made statements with a gross lacking of sources?

[Larrison]

Actually we have lost planes -- but never a piloted one.

The Iraqis downed several unmanned survelliance aircraft while they were under UN sanctions.

One of the reasons I remember this, is one event is claimed to be the first case of robot versus pilot dogfighting in combat. The rumor (from Aviation Week magazine, known in the industry as "Aviation Leak"), was that the US was flying a Predator remotely piloted vehicle, which is known for being able to carry small missiles. The Iraqis had made several attempts to shoot down other unmanned survelliance aircraft using a jet fighter which would do a scramble take off, zoom to the vicinity of the survelliance aircraft and fire upon it. For self protection, this Predator was armed with a couple of small Stinger air-aircraft missiles. The Iraqis made an attack on the Predator, and the pilot was quite surprized when the unmanned Predator turned into the attack and fired off a couple of Stingers at him. Didn't work of course -- the Stingers are very short range and really need to look into the hot blowpipe of a jet to get really good results -- and the Predator was shot down. But the Iraqis didn't try attacking the unmanned vehicles with piloted aircraft for some time after that, either.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

You can deny anything you like - no matter how obvious it is that what you deny is true

And you can just keep insisting that that which has not been demonstrated has been. It doesn't advance your argument, but it must be a very comfortable technique for maintaining your personal convictions.

The administration had prior knowledge of falsified WMD evidence and presented it as fact anyway. Lie.

Braaawwwk! Lie! Braaaawwwk! Lie! Polly want a cracker...

Maybe "Pieces of eight" would be more entertaining.

They edited out caveats and presented the remaining material as incontrovertible fact. Exaggeration. They presented WMD threat to USA, and culpability in 9/11 as justification, despite your selective memory of that.

You must be in great demand for jury duty; you are so easily convinced to vote "guilty".

Besides snippy comebacks and tap-dancing, you've not responded to any of those points.

I begin to think you aren't worth anything but sharp retorts, at least on this subject. You certainly don't seem to listen to anything else. Just keep repeating your mantras, "Lie, deception, exaggeration, it's true, it's true, it's true!"

I imagine you would have found ways to claim Nixon was innocent, despite the tapes, using equally valid "logic" as you pursue today.

I would far prefer to assume innocence until proven guilty than to follow your lead and assume guilt on the flimisiest of "inferences". Even for Tricky Dick. I leave it to your conscience to decide which is the more noble course.

[Inquartata]

Your arguments consist exclusively of saying "You're wrong! You're wrong!"

As I suspected, your judgement has been clouded by your conviction. As I've been at pains to say several times now, I do not in fact know that you're wrong. Indeed, you may well be entirely right. Or partially right. What "my arguments" say, in fine, is not "You're wrong", but rather "I don't know, and neither do you, no matter how fervently you elieve that you do, because there is insufficient evidence either way".

It is true that, not knowing, I prefer extending the benefit of the doubt to hurling accusations of "Liar!" Obviously, you are less concerned with being fair than I. That's OK. It's your choice. Just don't expect to drag me down into the bog with you.

Your inability to see something placed in front of your face does not constitute a proof of non-existence.

When the "something" is as substantial as the Emperor's new clothes, I rather think it does...your "facts" are quite naked, sir.

The facts are not only lying around but have been repeatedly explained to you. Sadly for you, your last sentence above applies to yourself.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

The judge would ask "can you decide this case on its merits rather than your pre-existing opinions". I would have no problem passing that test.

Show him some of the howlers of hasty assumptions, leap-of-faith inferences and credulous interpretations of what constitute "undeniable facts" on this thread...

"The juror is excused. Thank you for your service."

Not to say that an attorney wouldn't reject me (or you) on peremptory challenge - their job is to win, not an impartial search for the truth.

Oh, I'm sure they'd give us both the boot, though maybe for different reasons.

What kind of proof do you need for "intent" besides "knowingly said things that previously were shown to be false" or "knowingly removed material counter to the position to be fostered" - both well documented in this particular argument.

I can only shake my head sadly that you still believe this...or that you think reiterating it for the umpteenth time is going to make it any more accurate.

Hah, hah. I expect that my job has much more to do with exercise of logic and inference than yours does.

If the way you've plied your "logic" on this thread is any indication, I am unlikely to trust your judgement in that regard, either...

Is it your assertion that acquiring weapons and a ski mask, and then proceeding to commit a bank robbery would NOT be shown in court to establish premeditation?

Ah, now you add a condition! Nice ad hoc rescue! ( But did you think I wouldn't notice that you'd edited your original post? )

One part is the edited intelligence reports where equivocal comments or expression of doubt were removed, the other is the Niger uranium. If this is news to you, or you think they're fictional, then get thee a newspaper subscription. Begone, Sirrah!

No doubt you think I can be exorcised by exclamation as easily as you can summon those "facts" into existence in like fashion! Such touching, childlike naivete...

So sorry, neither of those is as damning as you've convinced yourself they are. But don't be crestfallen, you've plenty of company in your faulty analysis.

Ah, the penny drops. The CIA is the authoritative source showing the uranium report was fake. The decisionmaker chose to ignore the official responsible agency.

Sorry again, not "the CIA", just some analysts in the CIA. Or did you think the CIA was a person or something?

Some elements in the CIA had doubts. No one has said that was the mainstream line...in fact, no one seems to have said so at all for the record. Although there appear to have been unnamed "intelligence officials" telling certain reporters as much. I don't think I am as inclined to take such press reports citing anonymous sources as seriously as you are.

You posit that there were conflicting reports - show us some evidence that any existed once the story was busted, and if they existed, that they were not the outliers.

Nope. Still not going to let you get away with shifting the burden of proof. Especially one as loaded down with "even if you do I'm gonna say 'outlier!" ( Or, adhering to tradition, perhaps 'outliar!')

If you really think the story proves something, it's up to you to show that. It's not up to me to prove it doesn't; that's the default position.

US arms inspectors. The IAEA.

What about them?

Other people have put a long list of citations on this thread (and other threads previously).

I'm not arguing with them. I'm arguing with you. Had this escaped your notice? Did you believe you were part of a think tank or consortium?

You profess yourself as uncomfortable about making a conclusion on things you don't know, but it seems you've already done so.

More shoot-from-the-hip assumptions. Do you never run out of them?

I grant that you don't know:

So, you actually voted for not knowing, before you voted against it?

This is a volte-face worthy of Senator Kerry. Alas, it's no more believable than most of his...and since you feel comfortable assuming that I have made a conclusion when I've said I haven't, I might as well assume that your "I don't know" is just as disingenuous...

a) Once a report has been busted and its provenance shown to be false (a conclusion that has not been refuted by the official sources), it stays busted. This was known at the time the reports were used.

Or not. The British still say the report was accurate. Guess it just won't stay dead after all. Another of Jeff's Dictums stillborn. So sad.

busted in the UK. I get UK mags like The Economist (as you know!) and the Spectator, and Blair has been subject to much sharper criticism and refutation than Bush has - including the subject of deliberately cooking the evidence to prop up reasons for the war.

Hmmm...and wsn't the BBC forced to apologize for charging exactly that? Funny, apologies don't usually accompany rectitude, do they?

Meanwhile British intelligence continues to stand by the Niger uranium connection, claiming, BTW, it has other sources for its assessment than the notorious report you think is some sort of forensic proof that "Bush lied". But I'm sure that British journalists are more believable on the subject of specific classified intelligence than British intelligence itself...perhaps in the vein of CBS News.

THE CIA SAID IT WAS BOGUS. Clear enough for you?

Ah, it's Mr. CIA again. Send him down to the Senate Intelligence Committee for testimony, please, if he can take time off from his many duties.

What's that? There are thousands of persons working in the CIA? It isn't an entity en bloc? You don't say...

Seriously, please point me to where some attributable spokesman for the CIA has "said" in an official capacity that this is its organizational position. I'll wait.

Show us the sea of affirmation that you claim exists, and that doubts were such a minority.

Hmm, I could have sworn that I said---yes, yes I did:

"I am not saying I know there were 98 positive reports, or even 2. I don't know, and I'm not comfortable making a conclusion on the basis of things I don't know."

How many times would you like me to say "I don't know"?

You are assuming that Bush et. al. heard that one claim that the report was false, believed it, and used it anyway, intentionally. I am assuming it is certainly just as possible that they got a lot of opinions, that one among them, and had to decide which was the more credible---and the others won out. Or in other words---I don't know which is the actual case ( or another entirely ). I don't know...but until there is real proof presented, I opt for the more generous of the two assumptions. You have made it abundantly clear that you suffer from no such impulse toward fairness. I understand that. I just think it's unjustified to claim to know what was in a man's head and heart absent any proof of foreknowledge and guilty intent.

Read some of the several dozen references posted hear in the last few days.

No, you must have misunderstood; I meant something that's actually probative, rather than masses of innuendo, fast and loose inference and causal leaps of faith...

I swoon in the face of such impeccable (and non ad hominem) logic...

Must be the iocane.

I already explained this in a prior post. One can deny anything, provided you're willing to ignore obvious reality.

"Well...there you go again!"

Show how I contradicted myself.

Who? I? I of the obviously nonfuntioning vision, logic and general wit? I leave it to you, I'm sure you'll see it if you choose to do so.

You never admit to error.

Bothering to argue with you on this subject, where you have the blinders on so tight, begins to strike me as an error. Yes, indeed I aver that it has been a most egregious error...

Yet I persist in it. D'oh.

Proof?

Hot potato, hot potato...heh. ( Trying to be frugal with the smilies, the reply utility is such a scold. )

No - just show how the resolution is relevent to how the war was marketed to the US. That's the essential part you left out.

Not so essential, really, inasmuch as I don't buy the "marketed to the public" angle in the first place. There seems to have been an effort to convince the UN and its member nations severally; there was certainly an effort to convince the Congress. But as I recall, in the aftermath of 9-11 there was, if not general agreement, at least a majority consensus among the people that Saddam needed to go.

There was a lot of speechmaking and a lot of verbiage flying around. The press certainly focused almost single-mindedly on the talk of WMDs---after all, that was the most piquant argument for the six o'clock news. Does this prove a "marketing" campaign, though? I'm not convinced...

Back to the same foolish insults as you started the post with. At least you're consistent .

"That is never too often repeated which is never sufficiently learned". -Seneca

Actually, I have acknowledged being wrong or being mistaken on this board. Have you?

Oh, that wasn't the ironic part...

Simple English: To say "I know" for a statement that is false it to falsely claim knowledge. A deliberate statement of falsehood. A lie. Simple enough for you? No, probably not

I'm familiar with your tortuous logic in this regard. I still reject it, as does anyone fluent in English, Mr. Dumpty.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

Whether he lied or not is secondary for me. He took us to war under false pretenses,

"False pretenses" is the same thing as lying. A distinction without a difference.

now he won't own up to it that he ****ed up.

Can you name me one instance of a President in the modern era ever admitting to a big mistake? I don't mean hedged Clintonesque admissions of minor errors in judgement, I mean saying that they screwed up a majot policy decision?

Politicians just don't do it. It's political suicide. To hold Bush responsible for hewing to his decision despite hell or high water knowing what a savaging he'd get from the left, the press and, well, everyone, is just a bit naive. You don't expect a chess player to follow the rules of backgammon, and you can't expect politicians to follow the rules of your circle of acquaintances.

It might be nice for that to be possible. But given the way the game is played these days, it's tantamount to stepping in front of a train.

That'd make a GREAT letter home. But then again, what else is new? A trademark of the Bush administration has been taking responsibility for absolutely nothing if you can avoid it. Nobody ever does anything wrong in that cabinet. It's amazing how it's never anybody's fault but the next guy.

A trademark of politics in general. Again, can you think of an admission of error of any onsequence by Clinton? Bush the Elder? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? I sure can't...