Iraq: The mistake and the true solution that has no chance

[JohnRM]

I trust you understand the concept of total war ?
In which entire nations turned over entirely to war in an effect to win. ironicly The Germans which initiated the bombing of civilians and city centers on a large scale and they reaped what they sowed.

Of course you understand there are reprecusions of doing this during the modern era.

For example Saddam gassing the Kurds in effect to eradicate them and control a rebellion. What do you think most Iraqs will be able to draw from this ?

In return, didn't the bombing of major German cities end up winning the war for the Allies? Are you trying to prove my point?

Saddam's goal was to commit genocide against a race for nothing more than control. Our goal should be the elimination of terrorists who threaten the peaceful and democratic society in Iraq.

 

[JohnRM]

For the record, I do not support your views and am happy that you represent the minority. Sadly, VD like yours perfectly legitimises any attacks against America and any Western Nations. So please, don't get on the news. We don't need more ammunition for people interested in "the Final Confrontation"

If you think that I am the minority, you are in another dimension. Most Americans are perfectly willing to kill terrorists wherever they are. In fact, they demand it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Romans decimated the warriors of North Gaul as well, one of the few times this overly harsh punishment was used on a defeated army(Knowing the Romans they probably saw it as a mark of respect) And took many of the the remaining people as slaves.

One word: Dacia.

 

[Steph]

In return, didn't the bombing of major German cities end up winning the war for the Allies? Are you trying to prove my point?

Not really, because it didn't stop the German for producing, and it didn't prevent the German from figthing to the end.
The Allied won the war because they fought on land against the German military, and took back all the territory lost square miles by square miles until there was no where the German could withdraw. Not because they killed civilians.

 

[C~G]

Whoever said it would solve EVERYTHING? As far as spawning more terrorists, keep killing them. Who cares if we create more terrorists. There are only so many Muslims on this Earth and if it takes killing every last one of them to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism, then lets have at it.

I see.
I did get your point already from your first post though.

Even though now you're one step closer to actual violent hate speech. Close to the edge.
But that's probably how you want it.

 

[bathsheba666]

You answered your own question.

It wasn't a question, it was phrased in the imperative.

No such relationship exists.

Hint: See Iraq, Lebanon

Wishful thinking will get you nowhere.

 

[JohnRM]

Not really, because it didn't stop the German for producing, and it didn't prevent the German from figthing to the end.
The Allied won the war because they fought on land against the German military, and took back all the territory lost square miles by square miles until there was no where the German could withdraw. Not because they killed civilians.

So, you are going to sit here and tell me that the strategic bombing did nothing to win the war? It didn't run the Germans out of gas? It didn't drastically cut production of aircraft, armor, and ordinance? It didn't wipe out the Luftwaffe?

Whatever...that'll be your little secret.

 

[JohnRM]

I see.
I did get your point already from your first post though.

Even though now you're one step closer to actual violent hate speech. Close to the edge.
But that's probably how you want it.

Nice how you highlighted only what you wanted to read. Nice move leaving out "to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism", in an attempt to disguise what this is about. Typical liberal behavior.

 

[JohnRM]

It wasn't a question, it was phrased in the imperative.

No, there was a question hidden in there. No question mark, but it was there.

 

[nc-1701]

So, you are going to sit here and tell me that the strategic bombing did nothing to win the war? It didn't run the Germans out of gas? It didn't drastically cut production of aircraft, armor, and ordinance? It didn't wipe out the Luftwaffe?

Whatever...that'll be your little secret.

You're right bombing both Germany and Japan did atleast speed up if not allow our victory. This situation on the other hand is very differant and althhough in one case it was the right thing to do this is not that case. Here it would be stupid and barbaric. To bomb the same civillians you want to save. Theres no such thing as a city with only terrorists tht would be like randomly bombing DC back when the saniper was shooting people a few years ago. Sure we might him but we'ed be doing WAY more harm than good.

 

[C~G]

Typical liberal behavior.

Indeed.

But I wouldn't have used bolding in that case but cut and run.

 

[Steph]

So, you are going to sit here and tell me that the strategic bombing did nothing to win the war? It didn't run the Germans out of gas? .

I doubt bombing the civilian parts of the German cities did a lot to destroy the many oilfields located in Germany. Oh, can you explain where they were?

It didn't drastically cut production of aircraft, armor, and ordinance?

Bombing the factories probably paid a role. I'm not sure the aircraft and armor factories were located in houses.
[/QUOTE]

It didn't wipe out the Luftwaffe?

Dogfight with hurricanes and spitfire + British AA over London started the job, and then aerial combat between military allied fighters and german fighters probably did more than killing citizens.

 

[nc-1701]

I doubt bombing the civilian parts of the German cities did a lot to destroy the many oilfields located in Germany. Oh, can you explain where they were?


Bombing the factories probably paid a role. I'm not sure the aircraft and armor factories were located in houses.

Dogfight with hurricanes and spitfire + British AA over London started the job, and then aerial combat between military allied fighters and german fighters probably did more than killing citizens.[/QUOTE]



The oilfields were actualy in the German controlled Balkans I believe.

No but bombs during WW2 had a CP of like 1,000+ Meters so unless all houses are atleast 1 km away from targets then they'll get hit.

Of the 1200~ Me 262 produced only 300 saw action the rest were destroyd on the ground by bombs. How is that not crippling their airforce?

Just straightening out a few facts.

 

[JohnRM]

You're right bombing both Germany and Japan did atleast speed up if not allow our victory. This situation on the other hand is very differant and althhough in one case it was the right thing to do this is not that case. Here it would be stupid and barbaric. To bomb the same civillians you want to save.

No, no! They are not the civilians I want to save. LISTEN.

I want to bomb cities like Fallujah, when we find out that they are full of terrorists and terrorist supporters. When we discover that entire towns are full of these people, like I said, give them 72 hours to leave the city, where they will be detained, and then bomb the crap out of the city. This is to protect the other Iraqis who actually want democracy and peace. What part of that do none of you understand?

Theres no such thing as a city with only terrorists tht would be like randomly bombing DC back when the saniper was shooting people a few years ago. Sure we might him but we'ed be doing WAY more harm than good.

Yes there is! At one point, there were various towns and cities in Iraq that were 100% in support of killing Americans. All of the people fled these cities and towns and the only people left were terrorists and their supporters. This is a FACT. We lost nearly 100 Marines and Army soldiers marching through Fallujah to eliminate these terrorists when we could have just leveled the area. There wasn't just one or two terrorists, it was thirty or fourty thousand of them. In fact, the US Military gave them several days to turn themselves in, and for civilians to leave the area.

 

[MobBoss]

I doubt bombing the civilian parts of the German cities did a lot to destroy the many oilfields located in Germany. Oh, can you explain where they were?

Actually, a lot of their industry, ball bearing plants for example, were in German cities. It wasnt just about oil.

Bombing the factories probably paid a role. I'm not sure the aircraft and armor factories were located in houses.

No...but two things: Bombing back then was not accurate and also, the people who worked those factories were in houses.

 

[JohnRM]

I doubt bombing the civilian parts of the German cities did a lot to destroy the many oilfields located in Germany. Oh, can you explain where they were?

Germany didn't have any significant oil fields. They had synthetic oil production plants, which were located in populated areas. Yes, there is your explanation.

Bombing the factories probably paid a role. I'm not sure the aircraft and armor factories were located in houses.

Do you know the accuracy of strategic bombing during WWII? Factories were in cities. The best you could do was bomb this part of the city or that part of it, maybe miles in diameter. Even so, the German civilians were taxpayers. They were factory workers. They, in many cases, manned AAA guns inside residential areas. Civilians and cities power war machines. They are as much a valid target as anything else.

Dogfight with hurricanes and spitfire + British AA over London started the job, and then aerial combat between military allied fighters and german fighters probably did more than killing citizens.

I will agree with you on this one, cause I would say the doom of the Luftwaffe was the killing of all of their experience pilots, but bombing the cities and production facilities cemented the Luftwaffe's destruction. It raised the cost of producing aircraft by such an extreme amount that they just could not afford to produce aircraft en masse anymore. Of course, one could argue that they didn't have the pilots for them anyway, but...meh!

 

[Steph]

No but bombs during WW2 had a CP of like 1,000+ Meters so unless all houses are atleast 1 km away from targets then they'll get hit.

Of the 1200~ Me 262 produced only 300 saw action the rest were destroyd on the ground by bombs. How is that not crippling their airforce?

Just straightening out a few facts.

I'm not against this. But then it's the bombing of the airfields and factories that destroyed the Me 262, not the bombing of civilian areas.
If some civilians are killed because they live to close of military targets, I can live with that.
But not with the deliberate bombing of civilian areas.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you think that I am the minority, you are in another dimension. Most Americans are perfectly willing to kill terrorists wherever they are. In fact, they demand it.

Do you have mood swings? Sometimes you seem so reasonable.

You're oversimplifying your position; no one minds killing terrorists.
You advocate mass bombings to destroy terrorists, and are willing to wipe out vast tracts of infrastructure and civilians in order to do so. You're also sweeping broad catagories of people (civilians, nationalists, the uninformed, etc.) into your target group (terrorists and their sympathisers).

This is sick, evil, and short-sighted. As well, it makes you a perfectly legitimate target for everyone who actually wants there to be peace or to protect their family. You want to 'get the terrorists before they get you'? Fine, but since you're willing to kill almost anyone in your quest, people are perfectly justified in trying to kill you before you include them in the 'collateral damage'.

Thankfully, your position is a minority, and I hope that you're never given the power to realise your dream. Mainly because I don't want to be 'swept in' as collateral damage for people defending themselves from you.

 

[nc-1701]

No, no! They are not the civilians I want to save. LISTEN.

I want to bomb cities like Fallujah, when we find out that they are full of terrorists and terrorist supporters. When we discover that entire towns are full of these people, like I said, give them 72 hours to leave the city, where they will be detained, and then bomb the crap out of the city. This is to protect the other Iraqis who actually want democracy and peace. What part of that do none of you understand?




Yes there is! At one point, there were various towns and cities in Iraq that were 100% in support of killing Americans. All of the people fled these cities and towns and the only people left were terrorists and their supporters. This is a FACT. We lost nearly 100 Marines and Army soldiers marching through Fallujah to eliminate these terrorists when we could have just leveled the area. There wasn't just one or two terrorists, it was thirty or fourty thousand of them. In fact, the US Military gave them several days to turn themselves in, and for civilians to leave the area.

Ok there are still a few problems they are

1. Fallujah had atleast 600,000 Pop of which only a few thousend were terrorists we gave them 72 hours and about 400,000 people including most of the terrorists were able to get out leaving 200,000 civilians who either were not allowed to leave by the terrorists or couldn't afford to drive etc or were to proud to leave their homes.

2. If we give them a warning then the terrorists themselves will just leave.

3. Why do you think these people hate America? Because of the last city we bombed. Its a case of kill one then three more pop up. Although we could kill every muslim in the world possibley I donb't believe that would be worth it. Besides at that point its genocide.

4. Unlike Germany terrorists don't have factorys to bomb they are extremely decentralized and theres no garntee that we could even kill them all this way.

5. Isreal tried bombing the **** out of Hezbollah but it really didn't help they just dug in.

6. Try thinking of the civilians as hostages. When someone takes hostages we doin't just blow up the building we try to save the hostages. This is the same thing on a larger scale.

7. If there ever was a city with only armed terrorists in it I'de have no problem with bombing it into the stone age. However there is no such thing.

I think in principle we agree you just have the facts wrong and this is confusing the rest of us. To no end.

 

[JohnRM]

Do you have mood swings? Sometimes you seem so reasonable.

You're oversimplifying your position; no one minds killing terrorists.
You advocate mass bombings to destroy terrorists, and are willing to wipe out vast tracts of infrastructure and civilians in order to do so. You're also sweeping broad catagories of people (civilians, nationalists, the uninformed, etc.) into your target group (terrorists and their sympathisers).

No, not their sympathizers, the people who actually support (not just sympathize) the terrorist activity. These people are no longer civilians. I am not saying, "Baghdad is in chaos. Let's bomb it." I know that there are good people in Baghdad. For example, the Al-Sadr Army was at one time holed up in one particular city south of Baghdad, whose name I can't remember. He was there cause that entire city supported him, fed him, supplied him, and covered for him. I am sure there were at least SOME people who were neutral or against it, but the vast majority actively supported that terrorist group. Surround the city, give them 72 hours to surrender and civilians to turn themselves in, and bomb the crap out of the city.

This is sick, evil, and short-sighted. As well, it makes you a perfectly legitimate target for everyone who actually wants there to be peace or to protect their family. You want to 'get the terrorists before they get you'? Fine, but since you're willing to kill almost anyone in your quest, people are perfectly justified in trying to kill you before you include them in the 'collateral damage'.

No, no I'm not. I just want to kill terrorist and terrorist supporters to protect those in Iraq who want peace and democracy. But you're right about one thing. I am already a target. September 11th, 2001 proved that.

Thankfully, your position is a minority, and I hope that you're never given the power to realise your dream. Mainly because I don't want to be 'swept in' as collateral damage for people defending themselves from you.

I garauntee you that it isn't. I bet that the majority of Americans would have no problem with bombing an entire city or town known to be almost entirely full of terrorists and terrorist supporters.