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.
Full disclosure. I'm from a country that was indiscriminately carpet bombed to hell by American bombers. My father was fighting the communists along side the Americans. In the end, carpet bombing didn't help and the war was lost.
Since the most popular conservative candidates are the ones that have been advocating carpet bombing the middle east and make the sand glow, would conservatives like to explain to me how things will be different this time? I'm open-minded about this. Convince me.
I don't think any of the candidates mean to literally carpet bomb the middle east, but rather have a strong military policy regarding the ME.
Would you like me to post videos of the candidates advocating carpet bombing the middle east and make the sand glow?
Added by edit.
Again, I'm from a country that was literally carpet bombed to hell. So, to me carpet bombing isn't some romanticized vision of war. I suppose it's more real to me than it is to most people living in America. Which is why I'm so disturbed that the candidates who are advocating carpet bombing the middle east are doing so well in the polls lately.
I don't think carpet bombing will help at all. Too much potential for collateral damage. Precision munitions used to attack ISIS or other enemies would be far more effective if those fighters didn't make it a habit to hide among civilians.
Unfortunately, this is a fight I don't think we can win in the air. Damage could be done, but not enough to achieve a real victory.
I think politicians saying that stuff is more for shock value than what they really believe. I may be wrong, but I can't remember the last time a politician has actually spoken for me.
I don't think carpet bombing will help at all. Too much potential for collateral damage. Precision munitions used to attack ISIS or other enemies would be far more effective if those fighters didn't make it a habit to hide among civilians.
Unfortunately, this is a fight I don't think we can win in the air. Damage could be done, but not enough to achieve a real victory.
I think politicians saying that stuff is more for shock value than what they really believe. I may be wrong, but I can't remember the last time a politician has actually spoken for me.
Again, I came from a country that was carpet bombed to hell.
I know it's hard for American born citizens to understand what kind of serious such a proposal is. But try to understand. Proposing such ideas and then get overwhelming cheers from half the populous is a serious issue.
Since conservatives are overwhelmingly supporting the candidates that support carpet bombing the middle east, why not try to convince me that it's a good idea?
Honestly, Carpet bombing is pretty useless unless you are going for a major industrial complex or facility, an airplane factory for instance where the facility is spread over a wide area.
For the ME, I don't advocate carpet bombing, I think it's a waste on scattered targets, but I also think the reason the idea is popular comes from the frustration of seeing the inept way the white house is running operations in the ME.
Carpet bombing is kind of like using a scattergun, throw a lot of pellets downrange and hope one of them hits something of importance. It's a holdover from WWII where there weren't precision guided munitions and so you had to throw a lot of ordinance to maybe hit your target.
In the jungles of Viet Nam, carpet bombing was an option simply because of the jungle canopy making it nearly impossible to identify specific targets, so you bomb an entire area and hope you hit something.
Today, carpet bombing is of limited use, especially in the desert where you can see everything from satellites, and put your munitions on target so you only use one bomb instead of 100.
If we weren't dropping fliers to the terrorists warning them we're coming before we drop bombs, the bombs would have more effect too, but that is how this inept white house is doing things.
WWII, Viet Nam, Bosnia and Kosovo proved that an air war alone doesn't win, so at least as long as we have the current regime in power, we'll just waste time and money while the terrorists laugh at us, and because they are laughing, the citizens of this country in frustration will call for extreme measures like carpet bombing in the hope it will at least do SOMETHING positive.
Would you like me to post videos of the candidates advocating carpet bombing the middle east and make the sand glow?
Added by edit.
Again, I'm from a country that was literally carpet bombed to hell. So, to me carpet bombing isn't some romanticized vision of war. I suppose it's more real to me than it is to most people living in America. Which is why I'm so disturbed that the candidates who are advocating carpet bombing the middle east are doing so well in the polls lately.
The US has not used carpet bombing in over 40 years, and it won't be carpet bombing anytime soon, if ever again.
You are taking quotes from candidates that are just trying to create sound bites to get attention. Again, the US is not going to carpet bomb the middle east.
What country are you from that the US has carpet bombed?
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.
