A real big danger of this war on terror is that has made the US military look like a paper tiger. When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan it gave the Islamists a huge boost in morale. They said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by them slowly bleeding the Soviet economy to death. Bin Laden has said that is what he's going to do to beat the US and I'm afraid he may be pulling it off.
Why are we in Iraq?
- Thread starter MacGille
- Start date
Re:b22
What did it take to defeat the Germans? We bombed and leveled Berlin. We killed women and children. Apparently we could not tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. But we won the war.
How did we defeat the Japanese? We destroyed and fire bombed Tokyo and then we lit off two really big bombs. Women and children were incinerated. We killed combatants and noncombatants. But again, we won the war.
There are ways to win wars. History will show you how its done.
What did it take to defeat the Germans? We bombed and leveled Berlin. We killed women and children. Apparently we could not tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. But we won the war.
How did we defeat the Japanese? We destroyed and fire bombed Tokyo and then we lit off two really big bombs. Women and children were incinerated. We killed combatants and noncombatants. But again, we won the war.
There are ways to win wars. History will show you how its done.
Re:b22
I am sure the Japanese were not to thrilled with Tokyo going up in flames. But we didn't care. Innocent people died, but we did not care. We did not enjoy killing everyone, but the war had to be won.
If we are worried about who will be mad at us then we should pull out.
Apprently America has lost its stomach to properly conduct a war.
I am sure the Japanese were not to thrilled with Tokyo going up in flames. But we didn't care. Innocent people died, but we did not care. We did not enjoy killing everyone, but the war had to be won.
If we are worried about who will be mad at us then we should pull out.
Apprently America has lost its stomach to properly conduct a war.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Well, who do we have to firebomb in this conflict to "properly conduct" the war?
Re:markokloos
Any town or village that we suspect as having anyone that wants to harm us. We bombed Berlin into rubble because we knew there were enemy combatants in there. The bombs killed some of the bad guys and a lot of good guys. But it was war and as they say, War Is Hell. We make it hell for them or they will make it hell for us.
Our leaders have to decide which.
Any town or village that we suspect as having anyone that wants to harm us. We bombed Berlin into rubble because we knew there were enemy combatants in there. The bombs killed some of the bad guys and a lot of good guys. But it was war and as they say, War Is Hell. We make it hell for them or they will make it hell for us.
Our leaders have to decide which.
Again; Who exactly is going to be the terrorist that will convene a cease fire, call for peace talks, and make an unconditional surrender? I forgot that the terrorists we are fighting have their own, defined by borders, country and army that we can pinpoint for attack and can call an old fashioned surrender; or I didn't get the memo.
Also we bombed the crap out of Vietnam, with everything we had except nukes... and we all know Ho Chi Minh just gave up and ended the war immediately...
M I RITE?!
Also we bombed the crap out of Vietnam, with everything we had except nukes... and we all know Ho Chi Minh just gave up and ended the war immediately...
M I RITE?!
BerettaCougar
New member
Roy, you are embarrassing.
Ignorance...as they say, is bliss.
Ignorance...as they say, is bliss.
lizziedog1
New member
When one is outwitted I guess they must resort to personal attacks.
mordechaianiliewicz
Inactive
The only way to "win" Iraq is to firebomb all of their cities, and raze them to the ground. Kill massive numbers of their citizens, and then lay waste to just about every Iraqi institution (social) still in existence, including, especially Islam.
Problem with that (besides morally of course), is that it isn't possible, and in the nuclear age, one man with one bomb can blow up a whole American city.
Imagine if say, the Chinese did that, but left one of us alive, and we found a way to get into Beijing, after the Chinese tore our natural resources away, decimated our way of life (including our religions, our individual cultures, our government). Imagine that it specifically killed your whole family, and all you had left was cold burning rage inside.
If an enemy did this to me, in the U.S., let's just say my life mission would become introducing Beijing to nuclear power up close and personal.
It's bad enough already. We've already killed alot of Iraqis, and made a bunch of enemies. For us to do what is necessary would require us to create hundreds of enemies who would want to do the same to Washington, D.C.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you is also a principle of foreign policy in addition to being the golden rule.
Problem with that (besides morally of course), is that it isn't possible, and in the nuclear age, one man with one bomb can blow up a whole American city.
Imagine if say, the Chinese did that, but left one of us alive, and we found a way to get into Beijing, after the Chinese tore our natural resources away, decimated our way of life (including our religions, our individual cultures, our government). Imagine that it specifically killed your whole family, and all you had left was cold burning rage inside.
If an enemy did this to me, in the U.S., let's just say my life mission would become introducing Beijing to nuclear power up close and personal.
It's bad enough already. We've already killed alot of Iraqis, and made a bunch of enemies. For us to do what is necessary would require us to create hundreds of enemies who would want to do the same to Washington, D.C.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you is also a principle of foreign policy in addition to being the golden rule.
IZHUMINTER
New member
Roy,
That flies in the face of all the history I've read about the war. Strategic bombing forces were built up before the war based on the theories of a pair of Italian general officers named Douhet and Caproni, and technology certainly had not caught up with doctrine by the time the war started; it is a matter of debate that such technology even exists today (ie, the poor showing of NATO's air forces during the Balkan campaigns). Since most of my reference books are in a crate on the way to Germany, I'll toss a quick snippet from Wikipedia about why the Brits bombed cities:
"Bomber" Harris, who ran the bombing campaign, said "for want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used". He felt that as much as it would be far more desirable to deliver effective pin-point attacks, as the capacity to do so simply did not exist, and since it was war, it was necessary to attack with whatever was at hand. He accepted area bombing, knowing it would kill civilians, because it was a choice of area bombing or no bombing at all, and area bombing would mean dropping large quantities of bombs into an area full of activities and industries being harnessed for the German war effort.
Every major post-war study (and even the USAAF's own bombing studies during the war) showed that strategic bombing 1) did not lower enemy morale 2) did not achieve the aims of eliminating production of war materials 3) produced an unacceptable level of civilian casualties. Not coincidentally, studies during the Vietnam War on the effectiveness of strategic bombing campaigns on the Ho Chi Minh trail produced the same conclusion: Indiscriminate bombing of area targets is not a supportable course of action, either morally or as measured by cost-benefit analysis.
Don't take my word for it, of course. An excellent starting point would be the Air Force Historical Studies Office, but there's oodles of references either online or at your local library on the motivations behind and shortcomings of WWII bombing campaigns. It only stands to reason that attempting to use the same discredited tactics in Iraq would lead to the same lack of positive results.
That flies in the face of all the history I've read about the war. Strategic bombing forces were built up before the war based on the theories of a pair of Italian general officers named Douhet and Caproni, and technology certainly had not caught up with doctrine by the time the war started; it is a matter of debate that such technology even exists today (ie, the poor showing of NATO's air forces during the Balkan campaigns). Since most of my reference books are in a crate on the way to Germany, I'll toss a quick snippet from Wikipedia about why the Brits bombed cities:
"Bomber" Harris, who ran the bombing campaign, said "for want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used". He felt that as much as it would be far more desirable to deliver effective pin-point attacks, as the capacity to do so simply did not exist, and since it was war, it was necessary to attack with whatever was at hand. He accepted area bombing, knowing it would kill civilians, because it was a choice of area bombing or no bombing at all, and area bombing would mean dropping large quantities of bombs into an area full of activities and industries being harnessed for the German war effort.
Every major post-war study (and even the USAAF's own bombing studies during the war) showed that strategic bombing 1) did not lower enemy morale 2) did not achieve the aims of eliminating production of war materials 3) produced an unacceptable level of civilian casualties. Not coincidentally, studies during the Vietnam War on the effectiveness of strategic bombing campaigns on the Ho Chi Minh trail produced the same conclusion: Indiscriminate bombing of area targets is not a supportable course of action, either morally or as measured by cost-benefit analysis.
Don't take my word for it, of course. An excellent starting point would be the Air Force Historical Studies Office, but there's oodles of references either online or at your local library on the motivations behind and shortcomings of WWII bombing campaigns. It only stands to reason that attempting to use the same discredited tactics in Iraq would lead to the same lack of positive results.
Last edited:
Let's review for a second:
1) Which of these was a declared "war"?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
2) Which of these pitted us against the armed might of hostile nation-states?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
3) Which of these involved conventional warfare conducted between military units?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
3) Which of these enemies wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from us and civillians?
a) The Nazis
b) The Viet Cong
c) Al Qaeda
4) In which of these conflicts were our generals allowed to compose force structures and timetables without micromanagement from the White House?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
5) Which of these conflicts had a clearly defined and irrefutable justification for our participation
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
5) In which of these conflicts did our rationale for participation never change over the duration?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
6) Which of these conflicts had a clearly defined victory condition?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
7) In which of these conflicts did we actually achieve our victory condition?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
For all the reasons listed above and a great deal more, Iraq is much closer to Vietnam than it will ever be to WWII. Would that we remembered the lessons of Vietnam, we could have fought this one more effectively.
Of course, had we remembered the lessons of Vietnam...we wouldn't have started this one in the first place.
1) Which of these was a declared "war"?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
2) Which of these pitted us against the armed might of hostile nation-states?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
3) Which of these involved conventional warfare conducted between military units?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
3) Which of these enemies wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from us and civillians?
a) The Nazis
b) The Viet Cong
c) Al Qaeda
4) In which of these conflicts were our generals allowed to compose force structures and timetables without micromanagement from the White House?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
5) Which of these conflicts had a clearly defined and irrefutable justification for our participation
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
5) In which of these conflicts did our rationale for participation never change over the duration?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
6) Which of these conflicts had a clearly defined victory condition?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
c) Iraq
7) In which of these conflicts did we actually achieve our victory condition?
a) WWII
b) Vietnam
For all the reasons listed above and a great deal more, Iraq is much closer to Vietnam than it will ever be to WWII. Would that we remembered the lessons of Vietnam, we could have fought this one more effectively.
Of course, had we remembered the lessons of Vietnam...we wouldn't have started this one in the first place.
Last edited: