Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm having a hard time following your twisted fantasy--are you saying the civilians who died at Hiroshima deserved their fate the way ISIS deserves theirs?
I think he means that we strike ISIL leaders and soldiers, no matter where they are. Hiroshima was not an act where we were trying to take out the Japanese leadership or soldiers.
Have you noticed how over the past few years more of our allies are looking to Putin and Russia as a partner? 0bama is slowly weakening our influence and establishing the US as someone you cannot depend upon, and Putin is stepping in replace us in the vacuum obama is creating.
Sure, and if a US jet full of 200 Americans had been brought down due to the Obama policies, as the Russian plane was, we would be hearing all of the haters blaming Obama for that, and finding some other reason to praise their hero Putin.
Having said that, if we hadn't had bombed Dresden, Frankfurt, etc. and Japan in the same way - we would not have won the war..
Actually, that's not true, and acknowledged by war historians. The Dresden bombing, for instance, occurred after the Battle of the Bulge--historians agree by then the war was effectively already over. The Dresden bombing was actually put to good propaganda use by the Nazis to enable them to resist longer.
The dilemma of Japan is that they had transformed their war manufacturing into a massive "cottage industry" in which much war production was literally taking place in the private homes of the workers. That's not at all the same thing as deliberately targeting civilians for the sake of killing civilians.
"U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State."
Folks do realize that dropping bombs was not very accurate endeavor in WWII, dont they? Hitting the ground was the first objective, second was to be within 300 feet of the target.
Have you noticed how over the past few years more of our allies are looking to Putin and Russia as a partner? 0bama is slowly weakening our influence and establishing the US as someone you cannot depend upon, and Putin is stepping in replace us in the vacuum obama is creating.
Assad? We have to have Assad on our side? Assad was declared an evil dictator by BushII and plans to invade Syria and remove him came very close to fruition. The agenda of the US has included the remval of Assad since 2003.
Right wingers want to win a war, not a PC war, but the war. Whatever its end goal is, we want to win it. Whoever thinks we are wishy washy are just ignorant. When I was in the service, for 20 plus years, people were getting killed due to stupid ROE of war. The enemy has no ROE, but we do, to appease the flower children of old..
Wars can be won quickly, even without Nuclear bombs. Just let us do what we were trained to do, and we will have battles/wars quickly taken care of, so some can get back to their Saturday morning cartoons.
No war has ever been won by bombing--not even the Pacific war against Japan. If the atomic bomb had not been followed up by occupation by infantry, the Japanese would have recouped and continued to fight.
A war is won when you can stand a 19-year-old with a rifle anywhere in that country without opposition.
But it's also true, "Operations wins battles, logistics wins wars." It's also true that occupation is impossible without secure surface logistics routes. The US had to achieve secure surface logistics routes across both the Atlantic and the Pacific in order even to contemplate invasions of continental Europe or the island of Honshu.
That's just as true today, and the US military does not have a secure surface logistics route into western Syria/northern Iraq. Nor will we under any reasonable scenario that does not involve invading and occupying the entire Middle East from Turkey to Pakistan simultaneously.
And I did targeting during the Gulf War. Our ROE then, as well, restricted us against unnecessary civilian casualties. That requirement becomes more stringent as strike capabilities improve in accuracy. Today, the US military can accurately place 500 pounds of HE on any square meter of the earth's surface within eight hours of an execution order. While mechanical problems may cause errors a very tiny percentage of the time, the real problem now is accurate and timely intelligence to make sure we strike the correct square meter at the correct moment.
That was, in fact, the ROE even during WWII. Whether we particularly cared about civilians or not (and there was a concern, at least for European civilians) bombing missions were far too costly in lives and materiel to be expended on missions that would not materially decrease the ability of the enemy to wage war. That's one of the things that made the Dresden bombing controversial even in military circles of the time.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 11-21-2015 at 10:39 AM..
This is an excuse to bomb a region to smithereens? If we're gonna kill a few, might as well kill a million?
In a region we helped destabilize?
No thanks, I'm not interested in becoming that which I despise. I'll leave that for the psychos on the right.
Who is talking about killing a million people, besides you in your imagination?
As if killing one person means we may as well kill a million??? Come on already, you are going to discuss this in a rational manner.
When we know the exact location of multiple ISIL headquarters buildings in Iraq and Syria are, we take them out, and we try to do so when we believe the ISIL commanders are inside. We understand some civilians working with ISIL might be inside, but that was their choice to make. We do not allow the HQ to remain, so that ISIL can coordinate their attacks to murder thousands of innocent people.
We need to eliminate ISIS. Where they happen to be. No matter what it takes. If we do not, all in their region will die anyway. Plus as we saw in Paris, immense quantities in other regions, too. I don't know how many will die, but we must focus on eliminating our human cancers.
Eventually it will happen. Just a question of when.
Your right but eliminating Cancer can be achieved by just killing off everyone that has it, but that's not the way to do it, as some folks here seem to think as acceptable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
