Bombing is immoral, stupid and never wins wars. Syria is the latest victim

So is this the beginning of the tide turning?

Simon Jenkins from the Guardian at least has come to the same conclusion as me; the coalition bombings are a farce and Russia is the only real hope of stopping the genocide in Syria

For the past year, the skies over Syria and Iraq have seen the most devastating deployments of air power in recent times. There have been a reported 6,000 coalition air strikes, manned and unmanned. Some 20,000 bombs have been dropped. Coalition spokesmen maintain this has “turned the tide on Isis”. Britain’s defence secretary, Michael Fallon, said this week that British bombs have killed 330 Isis fighters and incidentally no civilians, an implausible claim. He nowhere indicated what tactical or strategic goal was won thereby.

let's do the math; 20,000 bombs to kill 330 fighters? What an absolute joke. That's about 61 bombs for each death. They claim no civilian casualties from coalition bombs? Yeah right. And they call Assad a monster...

All they have done is destroy the place and make it unlivable for civilians

Effective opposition has come not from western bombers or recent, farcical attempts to “train” insurgents, Bay-of-Pigs style. It has come from motivated Hezbollah and Peshmerga troops, reportedly being reinforced by Russian units. The only intervention likely to work in Syria just now is from Moscow.

Guardian source

As I have been saying all week long, Putin is leading the way. Yep, the psychological 'bad guys' AKA Russia are doing something we could not or simply would not and actually helping to stop a bloody conflict.

I watch this with great interest. This could just be Putins moment to shine and show the world he is not a just nationalist and egotistic trouble maker, but a world class leader capable of rising to the occasion and doing some good for once.

That's right because you never bomb the people who are actually fighting the war.

As much as IS disgusts me, I too doubt whether is the solution to the problem. The way it is going now, I can see how this will become one of those very expensive, long winded wars that'll eventually (through sheer amounts and brute force) lead to huge destruction, probably without even beating IS. And even if it would, then what? The people would be stuck in rubble and chaos, which'd probably mean, especially in that region, that yet another (cruel) conflict lies in waiting.

On the other hand, I don't know what would work. Not saying that that's a reason to bomb anything, just saying that I don't know it either.

a reply to: markosity1973

You are correct the whole campaign against ISIS is probably a farce, most likely Americas real plan is to let ISIS take out assad then America swoops in destroys ISIS and acts like the hero.

No america just no

Failing to get a UN mandate , "The Coalition" (read that NATO) has sought to Libya-ize Syria by other means. Namely inventing boogymen, once more wreaking havoc in the name of Humanity… bombs for peace, lol.

The goal is still "Assad must go", one of Hillary's favorite Mantras…

a reply to: markosity1973

British bombs have killed 330 Isis fighters and incidentally no civilians,

OK lets do the maths , did the British air-force drop 20,000 bombs , if yes your maths is correct , if they did not drop that many , well you have an agenda . England dropped 20, 000 bombs , get a grip on reality .

Airwars, a British-based monitoring group, estimates that the U.S. coalition has conducted nearly 6,200 airstrikes targeting the Islamic State since August of last year. The group estimates that at least 15,000 ISIS fighters and 489 civilians have been killed in the bombings.

"We're blowing the s*** out of something, alright." Whackamole Middle East Policy…

A little Fox news, Pentagon, military miasma… (by the way, buy Israel Bonds(?))

Fox news segment

a reply to: markosity1973

Bombing is immoral, stupid and never wins wars

your right, bombing is immoral, stupid and never wins wars, without troops on the ground to secure the areas in which the bombing has taken place.

every war fought since WWI, has had aircraft and bombing which had turned the tide and was won with air superiority. there were two wars where it was used and and brought the enemy to a crippling standstill, but was lost due to political reasons and not the firepower brought by air superiority.

a reply to: markosity1973

Bombing is immoral? Curtis Le Mey would spin in his grave if he heard you say that.

You'd think the lesson was learned after Laos; a place that is still pock marked with craters, and weren't some bombs meant to be smart now? I guess they are only as smart as those who launched them.

Air strikes will never hold vital ground from your enemy, however it is highly effective as it keeps your enemy from moving into it. In most recent conflicts it has been a forceful deterrent. Remember that Nato has been hitting ground targets only... That can change as soon as Soviet Migs start floating around. Then we are into Established No Fly zones with them and that could get very ugly in a minute...

I've been saying the same thing in other threads.

All of the country's we have bombed, just look at them now. They were once thriving and for most people good places to live.

The trouble whenwe bomb country's is we take out valuable infrastructure like bridges, once we have finished there is no one left to build them again.

Russia and Iran are the only solution to the mess in Syria. Our air strikes are pointless and cause many many civilian deaths no matter what the msm tells you.

I remember aljazira was considered propaganda during the Iraq war purely because they were reporting civilian deaths. It wasn't propaganda, it was telling the truth.

How do you think the US convinced the Japanese to give up their bloodthirsty campaign of global conquest?
Two nuclear bombs preceeded by weeks of firebombing, that's how.

War is hell. If a weapon is effective and not cost-prohibitive, it will be used.

Bombing a civilian target is never a good thing, but it gets results very quickly. The Strategic Air Command pulled it off in WW2 very well, not so much in Vietnam though.. Nothing say's surrender better than Two Atomic bombs, if you don't believe that has impact I suggest you travel to Japan... I don't condone striking civilians. However understanding Asymmetrical warfare will give your military responses very little options when the people you need to drop a large bomb on are sitting in a schoolhouse....

a reply to: markosity1973

But it is so much fun and generates so much money....win/win....depopulation with fringe benefits, Hip Hip Hooray

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist
I have heard that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the atomic bombing, but the US insisted on the removal of the emperor, so the Japanese fought on. Giving credit to the US bombing in this situation is a stretch.

a reply to: markosity1973

Agenda much?

Your math is not even close to being accurate and the number of ISIS killed from airstrikes is in the double thousand digits. Secondly what do you think Russia is going to be doing? they are going to be Syrias air force because the Syrian air force sucks at air to ground combat.

If anything Russia will prevent the death of innocent civilians considering the barrel bombs the Syrian government was using indiscriminately.

Has coalition airstrikes actually targeted Syrian government forces? Nope.
I see people continue to try and invoke NATO when NATO is not even involved.

I am curious if its possible for you guys to actually make a factual argument instead of lying / misleading / omitting / outright ignoring facts.

originally posted by: StanFL
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist
I have heard that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the atomic bombing, but the US insisted on the removal of the emperor, so the Japanese fought on. Giving credit to the US bombing in this situation is a stretch.

Absolutely wrong.

The Japanese were expecting the Soviets to act as a go between with the US to end the war with terms. Namely they wanted to keep all the territory they conquered, which was a non starter as total surrender was the only choice given. Its why the USSR broke its treaty with Japan after the Nazis were defeated and attacked Japan.

The Emperor was never removed nor was he ever charged with war crimes although he should have been.

We dropped one nuke and the Japanese still refused to surrender so a few days later we dropped a second. Using the rules of war at the time both bombing were valid and were used on military targets.

a reply to: scattergun

Don't start a war you aren't ready to see to the end. The Japanese attacked the US and were fair game.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Very true, and the outcome was favorable. However we just don't fight wars the same way anymore.

Absolute SUPREME BUNK!!!!

Bombing DOES win wars.

It won the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein.

It did in the Argies in the Falklands.

It DOES WIN WARS.