Originally posted by Dr. Brainnot really. its spin
Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
bombing>>>less enemy troops>>>easier time for our boys>>>smoother caimpain>>>victory>>>peace
the bombing leads to peace, but bombing isnt for peace.
bombing = more dead enemy = less people shooting back = less dead US soldiers = less bad press = more support for the war.
Bombing also = wedding parties cluster bombed, families hit by accident (althugh it is fully known that there will be X% of misshits) and death of innocents. But as long as the boys get back from the war OK then that's OK.
Bombing in civilian areas substitutes civilian deaths for soldier deaths.
They dont use cluster bombs in civilian areas due to that they are un-guided, I could be wrong but I dont think they have used cluster bombs yet in this war.
if Iraq didnt put there military in civilian areas we wouldnt have to bomb in civilian areas, Iraq is trying to make as much civilian deaths as possible to make the US and UK look bad.
we only bomb with Smart Bombs and GPS guided Cruise Missles, they have less than a 1% fail rate, thats pretty darn good if you ask me.
-Adam
Do I have to explain everythng to you? It was meant to be the same, but showing why the need to kill enemy troups without loss of US troups - because if US troups die then people in the US suddenly aren't so keen on the war. So the tactic is bomb intensivly until there is no resistance and then the boys can just walk in with little resistance and not get themselves killed (unless they decide to shoot each other again).
But, and read this part several times because you missed it first time, when you bomb civilian areas you don't just get the soldiers - YOU KILL CIVILIANS. Therefore the tactic in bombing civilian areas prevent the death of US soldiers by killing civilians. How can you justify that?
Originally posted by UncleAdamAdam, I wish that were true. The US have admitted using cluster bombs now, but only after a market was hit with one. The people described exploding rain falling around them, blowing up in the air or whenit hit something (including people) or even worse, sitting on th eground until someone steps on it.
They dont use cluster bombs in civilian areas due to that they are un-guided, I could be wrong but I dont think they have used cluster bombs yet in this war.
if Iraq didnt put there military in civilian areas we wouldnt have to bomb in civilian areas, Iraq is trying to make as much civilian deaths as possible to make the US and UK look bad.
we only ...[text shortened]... uise Missles, they have less than a 1% fail rate, thats pretty darn good if you ask me.
-Adam
GPS guided bombs aren't perfect. They're better than laser guided, which could be put off by smoke or sandstorms. But they can be sent off course by a simple $50 radio jammer. Also, bear in mind that the bomb may hit its target but that doesn't mean that just it's target is hit. The typical GPS guided bomb will kill everything in clear sight for 50 meter radius. To avoid any chance of being hit you must be over 400 meters away. Are you going to beleave that the US are only bombing targets that are over 400 meters away from civilians? Inside a densly populated city?
Ever country I've been to has military sites near or in civilian areas - the soldiers have to live somewhere too. And the US weren't just bombing military sites - they were bombing comunications systems, water systems etc - you can't expect them to not be in civilian areas.
Originally posted by UncleAdamAdam, they were defending the cities - where do you expect them to do that from? The desert?
its sad when civilians die but can you NAME 1 WAR WITH NO CIVILIAN DEATHS? Can you justify that that putting the Iraqi army in citys just to increase civilian deaths?
There has never been a war without civilian deaths. There have been unnecessary wars, and this is one of them.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
But, and read this part several times because you missed it first time, when you bomb civilian areas you don't just get the soldiers - YOU KILL CIVILIANS. Therefore the tactic in bombing civilian areas prevent the death of US soldiers by killing civilians. How can you justify that?
1)i missed nothing
2)i dont bomb in civilian areas
3)i dont kill civilians (yet)
4)i cant justify tactical bombing of civilian areas
5)Saddam cant justify the killing and tourture of those same people
6)a smother campain, means that there is less friction in said campain, this includes PR. nothing in life has just one effect
Originally posted by belgianfreakThey could have defended around the city, not inside it
Adam, they were defending the cities - where do you expect them to do that from? The desert?
There has never been a war without civilian deaths. There have been unnecessary wars, and this is one of them.
Originally posted by belgianfreaksex=babies=virgins!...
bombing = more dead enemy = less people shooting back = less dead US soldiers = less bad press = more support for the war.
Bombing also = wedding parties cluster bombed, families hit by accident (althugh it is fully known that there will be X% of misshits) and death of innocents. But as long as the boys get back from the war OK then that's OK.
Bombing in civilian areas substitutes civilian deaths for soldier deaths.
Originally posted by UncleAdamNice thought, but no they couldn't. You can't fight out in the open against a superior force with total air control in a position where they know exactly where you are and that you can't move from because forwards is into the enemy and backwards would be into the city that you've just banned them from going into. They tried defending the outside of the city, but they couldn't hold it so they fell back.
They could have defended around the city, not inside it
Sorry belgianfreak i did miss something....
Originally posted by belgianfreak
There have been unnecessary wars, and this is one of them.
it became necessary when "peaceful" methods failed
btw the "peaceful" methods included UN sanctions that hurt and even killed the civilians! remember that when you denounce this war, it is leading to the end of those sanctions.