The Official War Room

That's what they've been doing, and rather successfully too. One of the problems is the underground bunkers that seem to be unpenetrable except for nuclear bombs. Also, the Iraqi forces haven't been very good about staying where it would be most convenient to bomb them.

It definitely looks as though it is going to be a long and deadly fight for Bagdad. The Iraqi forces have certainly been getting a great deal of moral support from the rest of the world and the general attitude in Iraq seems to so far be "better the devil you know rather than the angel you don't"
 
Why the hell doesn't the military bomb Saddam's palaces from the sky?
Click to expand...

1) Saddam isn't there.
2) Some of the palaces are a UNESCO world heritage.
3) Some palaces are in dense populated area's, with elevated risc of 'collateral damage'.
 
Originally posted by Cat
It's a bit late to post this, maybe it even has been remarked elsewhere... but: have you noticed how the position of the US on the war has changed dramatically before and after the beginning of the war?
While trying to convince everybody before it all started the continued to state that the war would be easy, short, clean etc. ONE DAY after the war started they were already saying that the war would be long and difficult. Now they are even rethinking their whole strategy it seems. If Basra is indeed a prelude to Baghdad the war is going to last months, not weeks. Fighting from street to street. Civilians messing about to defend their homes. Soldiers disguised as civilians. Suicide bombers. ... and still no weapons of mass distruction ... exept the US ones, and thirst, hunger, lack of medicines ... war is no worse than hell: war is hell.
Click to expand...

And this surprises anybody? Let's talk common sense here, it's all in the marketing right? How on earth are you going to build support for the war if you come out and say that "it'll be a bloody months/years long conflict that will result in a great lost of innocent lives". And then once the shooting begins, once again, you prep people for something closer to reality.

This isn't some trick devised by the military to fool people. It's called politics. It's called marketing. It's called the same thing everyone does everyday, war or not.

If you want your kid to take their medicine, you don't say that it will taste terrible, leave a horrendous aftertaste in their mouth for hours, possibly upset their tummies and make it so they won't feel like playing. And when you're in that interview you don't tell them that you're a hard worker, but tend to want to spend hours on MacOSX.com replying to war posts ;)

One last point, shouldn't we all be _sad_ that the "hawks" were wrong? I know it feels good to be right (or at least your "opponent" to be wrong), but I think in this case proving the other guy wrong ends up being the worse case.
 
One last point, shouldn't we all be _sad_ that the "hawks" were wrong? I know it feels good to be right (or at least your "opponent" to be wrong), but I think in this case proving the other guy wrong ends up being the worse case.
Click to expand...

you're right BD, there's nothing to gloat about here. i would have loved to have been wrong on this one. i would still like to be wrong as i see things getting worse instead of better the more i learn about it. being right about the war not being over in a week is nothing to celebrate.
 
Why the hell doesn't the military bomb Saddam's palaces from the sky?
Click to expand...

Because surgical strikes are an illusion of the mind. The missile may be surgical when tested in Nevada deserts, it is not in Iraq, where sandstorms + hi temperature + no precise knowledge of geography = completely random strike.
 
Originally posted by toast
Because surgical strikes are an illusion of the mind. The missile may be surgical when tested in Nevada deserts, it is not in Iraq, where sandstorms + hi temperature + no precise knowledge of geography = completely random strike.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly is much more "surgical" than carpet bombing and not nearly as "random" as you state. Is it perfect, no, but to deny that there is some success in limiting collateral damage due to their use is to misrepresent reality.
 
Originally posted by Cat
2) Some of the palaces are a UNESCO world heritage.
Click to expand...
Not the ones he makes his people die to build just because he has money to burn...
 
Originally posted by toast
Bombing a Syrian bus is not limiting collateral damage in my humble opinion.

About collateral damage in general

If you cannot remember why the expression 'collateral damage' was created, look here.

If you want to read about what collateral damage is exhorting some people to do, come here.
Click to expand...

Toast, did you read my post. I said that it wasn't perfect, perhaps far from it. HOWEVER, there are other approaches that don't even make an _attempt_ to limit the collateral damage. The US has dropped how many thousands of bombs/missles? Even if only 1 percent miss their targets (and the reports are of percentages higher) then we're looking at a lot of "unintentional" things being destroyed. If the US had wanted to simply just "bomb the hell" out of Baghdad, they certainly could, but they choose not to, and instead they are _trying_ to be more strategic (and some would say humanitarian, and I know, many would not) in their choices.

Plus your comment about friendly fire. I guess anything short of perfection in destruction will illicit flippant comments about how life (and in this case, death) isn't happening perfectly and neatly. And we as adults KNOW that this is not the case, right?

So to recap, you can bring up as many examples of screwups as you want. It will surprise no one, and no one is really impressed by the articles and pictures because everyone knows that it occurs. Why bother bringing these issues up. Unless you are making a claim that the US is intentionally striking (or wantonly ignoring the safety of) civilian targets. If that is the case, then the examples you give lend nothing to that argument.
 
- binary, I have read your post.

- I often post links, less occasionnally images, because they are talkative media and may be of some use to people who want to know more.

- Accidents and friendly fires since the beginning of the conflict have been unually numerous, which leads me to focus on this. Many Pentagone advisors think Rumsfeld has rushed into the war without sufficient preparation.

- And I am not saying friendly fires or bobing of civilian targets is intentional.
 
"Accidents and friendly fires since the beginning of the conflict have been unually numerous"

You can say that again! The first british military killed in battle was the seventeenth ... the other 16 were killed by friendly fire ...

To bring war upon a 5 million city is a form of wantonly ignoring the safety of civilian targets. People in Basra are already dying due to lack of water and food, and partial lack of electricity. The army claims it's not their priority to help them and seems unable or unwilling to assist the few NGO's who are trying to help.
We're not talking just of clean instant bullet kills, but about horrendously slow uncertain desperate deaths, due to famine and illness.

Moreover the US has repeatedly bombarded civilian facilities like broadcasting stations, telephone infrastructure and the ministry of information, were international news agencys had their headquarters.
 
I have just read in a Swiss newspaper that the accuracy of the so called smart bombs/missiles (since when do weapons bear attributes of intelligence anyway :rolleyes: ) is about 90%. That means 10% hit a random target. I leave it up to you to calculate how many out of the total bombs/missiles used so far have not reached their intended target.
I don't dispute the advantage of "smart" bombs over carpet bombing, I dispute the use of any bombs.
 
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2468581

Is this the American government's answer to criticism? On what ground exactly are thousands of peaceful demonstrators arrested? I know elsewhere they just run over protesters with tanks (remember Tinaniman square, Bejing, 1989?), but does it have to even get anywhere close to that? Freedom of speech my ass! On the other hand, in the very country I'm talking about you can find KKK and tons of other narrow minded racist scum websites without any obvious censorship (BTW, there's a good many European countries with affective laws preveinting that kind of propaganda from being published).
Just another double standard?
 
Demonstrators are usually arrested for blocking access to buildings streets, etc. In a weird sort of way it is a time-honored tradition in the USA to tie yourself to a gate or lay down en masse in the street to block traffic or live in a redwood tree. By doing this you will get arrested and the protesters now that. It is a sure way to get your cause into the news.

The unfortunate aspect about our free speech laws is that they apply to everyone and virtually every form of expression. Remember, europeans emigrated here to escape the oppression in their home countries. Please do not think that I am defending the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups, far from it. However, the US has not found a way to evolve in regards to the free speech laws in the law books. I find this highly reprehensible.

In the southern states, the Confederate flag is still flown proudly and is an integral part of a couple of state flags. Most white southerners don't find this to be a problem, however, if the germans were to raise the Nazi swastika over the Reichstag, they would be the first to denounce the Germans for their insensitivity.

Free speech and civil liberties have been dealt a severe blow with the Patriot Act. Yet the KKK and the neo-Nazis and the confederate flag are all still found to be valid forms of expression. There is no doubt in my mind that we are entering a period of McCarthyism. It is a sad day for America.
 
The first period of McCarthyism in America was the Salem witch trials. The second was the Red Scare. The third is the war on terrorism.

Protesters think that by blocking traffic, yelling at people minding their own business, getting in people's way and causing mayhem, they will change our leaders' minds. However, many people don't want a part in their protests, and dragging our workers, civil servants, and everyone else who drives anywhere during the day into the ruckus is only causing chaos, not reform.

The right way to protest was demonstrated a while back in Sacramento. A number of people stood on a corner holding signs saying (ironically) "Honk for peace." They did not block the streets or get in anyone's face, and they got their message across peacefully and without causing a ruckus.
 
I don't think blocking a street qualifies as ruckus. You've obviously never seen a real riot. At the end of the war will probably do more damage to the American economy than a bunch of protesters keeping other people from going about their own business. Bet your government is not going to admit that.
 
well, the best way for non-americans to start protesting the war is to stop buying american products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top