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

originally posted by: scattergun
a reply to: Xcathdra

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

I would argue that we do. the difference is the information age where news is being reported 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. A perfect example would be the TET offensive during the Vietnam war. The media reported it as major wins for the North when in reality the North got their asses handed to them and lost all of their gains. It reinforced the idea that N. Vietnam could not come out in the open and engage the South in a standard engagement, forcing them back into the hit and run / guerilla style warfare, which worked for them.

However because Americans saw the war every night on the news the effect it had was detrimental in terms of support for the war.

Fast forward to now, with constant news, social media and enemies that are just as savvy at using media to wage an information war. Hell even ISIS and Al Qaeda have warned their members to tone down the graphic videos. Why? Because they were losing the info war in that area and were portraying themselves as absolute barbarians. It hurt recruiting and solidified the position of the governments who oppose them.

originally posted by: alsace
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.

Except when the topic is being used in an agenda and the information and comments being provided are based on false information and interpretations of that information. In this case this thread is an attack on the west while trying to drum up support for Russian actions.


The argument will be Russia will be successful while the coalition will not be. Since both sides are using air assets, and thus far the Syrian air force has sucked, the attempt is to shift focus. Once again trying to create a boogeymen (as some have argued in other threads) to blame while spinning the Kremlin propaganda.

This is supported by the attempt to invoke NATO into the argument when its not involved.

The problem with ISIS is that they are using the wrong munitions.

What they need to do is to hit Mosul in northern Iraq with a 10 Megaton Nuke.

It can't do any harm.

All the good people are dead or soon will be in circumstances way worse than a sudden flash and anything of cutural or architectual value has already or soon will be destroyed anyway.

So, nuke the #ers til they glow and then gun them down in the dark.

originally posted by: alsace
The problem with ISIS is that they are using the wrong munitions.

What they need to do is to hit Mosul in northern Iraq with a 10 Megaton Nuke.

It can't do any harm.

All the good people are dead or soon will be in circumstances way worse than a sudden flash and anything of cutural or architectual value has already or soon will be destroyed anyway.

So, nuke the #ers til they glow and then gun them down in the dark.

I don't think that would be a real great idea either...lol. Just for the fact that if we (USA) drop one we have to let everyone else do it too.. (Only Fair). Well The North Koreans have a few plans for our west coast, and I'm sure you know where Israel will drop theirs.. well you get the idea here. Need to just pack up on this one all the way. The Soviets with win and get what they want in the region and there ain't a thing we can do about it right now..

We need to RESET our economy and rebuild our military.

ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.

The Muslims are the ones who have stated all along that they are at war with "us". That means all people who are not Muslim.


n 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November. They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths. Our list has only 284 attacks and 2,515 deaths for that month, meaning that we undercounted the true extent of Islamic terror by a significant margin.

That's one month! Here is a link to more numbers.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

So they claim they are at war with "us", they bomb "us", but we shouldn't bomb them. F- off.

a reply to: KEACHI

Because this thread is about attacking the us and the west and is not based on facts. The op bears that out.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist It is my understanding that the Japanese sued for peace not once but twice, at least a month before the "necessity" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We could add Dresden and Hamburg to their list.

Nobody is talking about Yemen. Aden and Sana'a are bombed by the Saudi Arabian coalition on a dayly base. How many refugees will this produce? Yemen has nearly no own production of food. They are starving. But Saudi Arabia is good after all. Friends of the USA. So it must be okay.

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.

Only if you ignore facts in favor of ideology....

originally posted by: scattergun

originally posted by: alsace
The problem with ISIS is that they are using the wrong munitions.

What they need to do is to hit Mosul in northern Iraq with a 10 Megaton Nuke.

It can't do any harm.

All the good people are dead or soon will be in circumstances way worse than a sudden flash and anything of cutural or architectual value has already or soon will be destroyed anyway.

So, nuke the #ers til they glow and then gun them down in the dark.

I don't think that would be a real great idea either...lol. Just for the fact that if we (USA) drop one we have to let everyone else do it too.. (Only Fair). Well The North Koreans have a few plans for our west coast, and I'm sure you know where Israel will drop theirs.. well you get the idea here. Need to just pack up on this one all the way. The Soviets with win and get what they want in the region and there ain't a thing we can do about it right now..

We need to RESET our economy and rebuild our military.

Stop electing democrats that openly state they are going to degrade our military....

One problem solved right there.

Stop electing democrats that force unaffordable, " affordable " healthcare at the tip of a spear on folks, and their disposable income would help in rebuilding our economy.

Next stop electing democrats that don't prosecute a single one of the wallstreet theives that stole trillions from average Americans.

And elect people that will prosecute them every single time.... Our economy wouldn't be in the toilet in the first place
Just stating the obvious

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KEACHI

Because this thread is about attacking the us and the west and is not based on facts. The op bears that out.

Gotta agree, I recognized it immediately when I read it, I wasnt gonna even respond, until I saw intelligent responses

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist It is my understanding that the Japanese sued for peace not once but twice, at least a month before the "necessity" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We could add Dresden and Hamburg to their list.

Yes, on their terms, one being they get to keep all the territory they stole....

We offered nothing but unconditional surrender.

So they didn't set for peace, they sought to keep what they stole.

There is a huge difference.

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist It is my understanding that the Japanese sued for peace not once but twice, at least a month before the "necessity" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We could add Dresden and Hamburg to their list.

And those overture were for a conditional end to hostilities that favored the Japanese. As I stated they were wanting to end hostilities but be allowed to keep all they had conquered. As with Hitler and Nazi Germany the allies had already decided there would be no conditional surrender. The only acceptable action was an unconditional surrender, and that only became an option after the second nuclear bomb was used.

Japan started the war and the allies finished it. We know what Japan wanted because they approached the Soviets thinking they could help end the war. What japan did not know was the USSR was going to break their treaty with Japan and enter the war against Japan on the side of the allies.

originally posted by: hutch622
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.

Firstly to add to the quality of the debate, can you please provide the source for your quote.

Based on the reasonable assumption that the numbers you quote are true, then it does change the strike rate, but also admits that civilian deaths are occurring. I also believe that number to be highly under reported for the sake of looking good to our western media.

the 20,000 bombs figure is still an awful lot. Imagine that many being dropped on any other country. Every single one of them targeted infrastructure or an enemy held position. That is a huge amount of destruction being caused. And 6,200 strikes - no wonder the people of Syria are fleeing. That number is almost incomprehensible for a single country. And remember that is only the air strikes, it does not take into account the surface to surface missiles, the barrel bombs, the tank missiles, the machine gun fire etc etc.

Syria has become the most toxic place on earth for civilians to live.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
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.

You are talking weapons of mass destruction here. A single bomb levelled an entire city killing at least 90,000 people, including civilians in a single hit. And it took a second hit at Nagasaki that cost a further minimum 39,000 lives to convince the Japanese to stop fighting and finally surrender.

If you tried the same thing in 2015, for every nuke you drop you can expect at least one in return. The Japan example worked because it was a new weapon that only the Americans had i.e. the Japanese could not respond with like for like.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
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.

Yes, the bombings alone have done absolutely nothing to stop ISIS. THey have gained up to 80% control of Syria at times. The only people who have been gaining ground back are the Syrian army who have been left to fight this alone, being considered part of the problem by the coalition and therefore not worthy of support and have probably been targeted themselves from time to time.

Bombing is a useful part of a military campaign.

You can take the tactic that war in and of itself is immoral and stupid, but that won't change the fact that there are plenty of immoral and stupid humans running around, including in positions of power.

You can refuse to fight, but they won't refuse to conquer just because you decide to take the moral high ground. And sometimes when you refuse to fight, they will conquer and behead, rape, gas, throw people off of building, crucify or otherwise do things that even when you consider bombing to be immoral ... it's still cleaner than what they're doing to their own and wouldn't hesitate to do to you if given half a chance.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KEACHI

Because this thread is about attacking the us and the west and is not based on facts. The op bears that out.

This is not about attacking the west, it is about exposing the truth.

Too many people are ignoring the truth about coalition activity in Syria. Everyone worries about the refugees the war is causing and many countries simply do not want to let them in.

Maybe if people know the truth about how ineffective the coalition efforts are without boots on the ground support attitudes will change, troops will go in to help with the now Russian lead force and the war can be won, then the people can return home.

This is not a Russia good, America bad debate. My agenda is plain and simple; raise awareness of the plight of Syria, so that people start to see for themselves how ineffective coalition activities are. I am from a coalition country and I want my leaders to send in troops because I want to see ISIS stopped and the refugees be able to return home.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Bombing is a useful part of a military campaign.

You can take the tactic that war in and of itself is immoral and stupid, but that won't change the fact that there are plenty of immoral and stupid humans running around, including in positions of power.

You can refuse to fight, but they won't refuse to conquer just because you decide to take the moral high ground. And sometimes when you refuse to fight, they will conquer and behead, rape, gas, throw people off of building, crucify or otherwise do things that even when you consider bombing to be immoral ... it's still cleaner than what they're doing to their own and wouldn't hesitate to do to you if given half a chance.

This is not about tree hugging hippie war is bad ideology either. The war has started, and it needs to be stopped. The simple fact is that the coalition strategy of only using airstrikes has allowed ISIS to take advantage of the chaos and gain more ground. I would not be saying any of what I have if ISIS had been neutralised. But it has not.

Quite simply; like it or not, Russia is leading the way by putting boots in the ground. It is something we could have and should have done ourselves but did not. I am not condemning airstrikes as part of a co-ordinated plan, that involves ground forces, but as a singular mode of war it has failed spectacularly in Syria. If you read the OP article I quote from there are many other examples the author cites that shows how the single mode approach of aerial bombing has failed too.

a reply to: markosity1973

Well, I've been quite plain in the past that if we are going to war, we need to go to war. What we are doing in the ME is not war.