Iraq war, your opinions?

[l0l0lpur32]

^^ I always thought the cities were the target? Anyways dropping the bomb ended the war early and saved a million American lives.

 

Remember that more people died in the firebombings of German and Japanese cities than in the 2 atomic bombings of Japanese cities. Also I don't know why people are talking about ww2.

[jackattack]

^^ Because on this forum everything has to be an attack on the United States.

[Kriegsmier]

^^ I always thought the cities were the target? Anyways dropping the bomb ended the war early and saved a million American lives.

 

 

 

But it killed probably hundreds of thousands of Japanese innocent people lives.

 

 

 

Anyways, I believe war is pointless. Sure, we blew Hiroshima right out of the ground with an atomic bomb, and this day we're good friends with Japan? Wtf?

 

 

 

I hate the word innocent here. Who makes the weapons the military uses during its war campaigns? Surely not the soldiers themselves. That leaves those oh so innocent civilians...

[Agunimon979]

Oh yeah, because I'm sure the little schoolgirls and the little boys riding their bike and the babies in the day care center REALLY deserved to be blown out of the ground by an atomic bomb/

[Ginger_Warrior]

I always thought the cities were the target?

 

Shows what you know about military history. Original bombers were so weak they couldn't even be used to bomb cities. They were designed to act as support for ground troops.

 

 

 

^^ Because on this forum everything has to be an attack on the United States.

 

No, personally I think that's your ultra-nationalist paranoia setting in.

[Lenticular_J]

Ginger, that's complete and utter denial. You know damn near every topic ends up US versus the world.

[jackattack]

^^ ya like when you say that the U.S. Is worse than hitler. And how could b-26's not bomb cities?

[Turtlefemm]

Sneaking in a reminder about not flaming each other...Calm debate...not hate... ~Turtlefemm

[llamster]

I always thought the cities were the target?

 

Shows what you know about military history. Original bombers were so weak they couldn't even be used to bomb cities. They were designed to act as support for ground troops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure jack was talking about WWII. The plane that dropped the atomic bomb was a B-29, which could fly 3000 miles and deliver a payload of 20,000 pounds.

 

 

 

And I always thought that Hiroshima was the intended target. Either way the atomic bombings ended the war, which is a VERY good thing. You have to understand that if the Allies were forced to invaded Japan that would have resulted in the deaths of millions of Japanese troops, millions of Allied troops, and millions of Japanese civilians. The atomic bombs killed, what, a quarter million or so?

[Ginger_Warrior]

^^ ya like when you say that the U.S. Is worse than hitler. And how could b-26's not bomb cities?

 

Yes... because the US dropping the atomic bomb was really worse than millions dying after the Final Solution was drawn up, or even more dying at the hands of forced collectivisation in the USSR. -.-

 

 

 

There you go, Hitler and Stalin were worse. I never said otherwise. I've also expressed in other threads that had the US not got involved, Britain would probably have lost WWII.

 

 

 

This 'US vs. the world' notion of yours doesn't exist. You're just blowing any criticism of the US out of proportion.

 

 

 

And for the matter, this what you said:

 

I always thought the cities were the target?

 

I'm well aware the B-29 could target a city. Your belief that bombers have always been used for this purpose is wrong, however. Not to mention, you still haven't answered my question, you just shrugged it off with a lame 'everybody does it anyway' sort of response:

 

Would you care to explain how that's avoiding civilian casualties?

 

Please, just answer the point.

[dragoonson]

I did some thinking in school today...I'm going to return to the source of the argument:bombing Iran.

 

 

 

The reason U.S. soldiers were in Iraq,according to Wikipedia was there were supposed to be WMDs there.Understandable up to the point where they accused them of harboring Saddam,and began "bombing".No doubt am I in of Operation Shock and Awe,but would people working unwillingly (just to put food on the table) in the buildings die?Wouldn't buildings next door be even slightly affected?

 

 

 

Now I've not exactly been following modern wars carefully,but I seriously doubt that there is a solid reason for U.S. guys to be in Iran.And I doubt even more Iranians would kill your guys without reason,its just against the Qaran.The most likely reason I would kill troops?You're killing mine.Therefore if you can bomb Iran for a few of their guys killing yours Iran can sure as hell bomb you back.

 

 

 

And llamster,people in Hiroshima are still affected by the bombs to this day.More babies are born with disablities and other stuff wrong/missing in Hiroshima after the bomb.I always pictured being physically unable worse than being dead.

[magekillr]

Ginger, I do believe that there would have been a chance at Britain losing the war, but man this overinflated idea that we were the saviors of the world is preposterous. Isn't it ironic that Russia teaches their students that THEY won the war for the world? This doesn't even have anything to do with Cold War jargon...Russia played just as big a role in the defeat of the Axis as the US did. They even lost more men. In short, I agree with you overall.

[RichieMcD]

I did some thinking in school today...I'm going to return to the source of the argument:bombing Iran.

 

 

 

The reason U.S. soldiers were in Iraq,according to Wikipedia was there were supposed to be WMDs there.Understandable up to the point where they accused them of harboring Saddam,and began "bombing".No doubt am I in of Operation Shock and Awe,but would people working unwillingly (just to put food on the table) in the buildings die?Wouldn't buildings next door be even slightly affected?

 

 

 

 

The most commonly used bomb in modern warfare is of a cluster bomb type. Basically it detonates about 200-400 feet over the ground, throwing smaller pieces of explosives into buildings / the ground while showering the area in molten metal. These bombs can cover the distance of 3 football fields in one explosion. Not only will next door be harmed in the bombing, but most likely the majority of the block. Cluster bombs also leave a huge amount of undetonated explosives left over, these explosives often look like tinned food so the hunger ridden Iraqi citizens are attracted to them, when they try to open them they explode, often resulting in serious injury (limbs being blown off) or death.

[dragoonson]

I did some thinking in school today...I'm going to return to the source of the argument:bombing Iran.

 

 

 

The reason U.S. soldiers were in Iraq,according to Wikipedia was there were supposed to be WMDs there.Understandable up to the point where they accused them of harboring Saddam,and began "bombing".No doubt am I in of Operation Shock and Awe,but would people working unwillingly (just to put food on the table) in the buildings die?Wouldn't buildings next door be even slightly affected?

 

 

 

 

The most commonly used bomb in modern warfare is of a cluster bomb type. Basically it detonates about 200-400 feet over the ground, throwing smaller pieces of explosives into buildings / the ground while showering the area in molten metal. These bombs can cover the distance of 3 football fields in one explosion. Not only will next door be harmed in the bombing, but most likely the majority of the block. Cluster bombs also leave a huge amount of undetonated explosives left over, these explosives often look like tinned food so the hunger ridden Iraqi citizens are attracted to them, when they try to open them they explode, often resulting in serious injury (limbs being blown off) or death.

 

 

 

But in that particular bombing they used "surgical" meaning they only took out certain bombings.

 

 

 

To me America's being a bit of a bully,like what happened with North Korea.Something like "either shut down your plants or be bombed",right?If thats not the case I'm sure I could find another example,yeah.

[RichieMcD]

Surgical might have happened, but they also used cluster bombs. There is plenty of people in Iraq missing limbs now from unexploded sub-cluster bombs which can testify to this.

 

 

 

And yes the American government is a bully, "quit your nuclear program or be bombed". How can they call North Korea and Iran to end their nuclear program when America still has thousands of nuclear warhead based weapons stockpiled waiting for the ultimate war.

[l0l0lpur32]

Ginger, I do believe that there would have been a chance at Britain losing the war, but man this overinflated idea that we were the saviors of the world is preposterous. Isn't it ironic that Russia teaches their students that THEY won the war for the world? This doesn't even have anything to do with Cold War jargon...Russia played just as big a role in the defeat of the Axis as the US did. They even lost more men. In short, I agree with you overall.

 

The only reason the USSR was on the same side as the British commonwealth + the USA + France etc was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ginger, I do believe that there would have been a chance at Britain losing the war, but man this overinflated idea that we were the saviors of the world is preposterous. Isn't it ironic that Russia teaches their students that THEY won the war for the world? This doesn't even have anything to do with Cold War jargon...Russia played just as big a role in the defeat of the Axis as the US did. They even lost more men. In short, I agree with you overall.

 

The only reason the USSR was on the same side as the British commonwealth + the USA + France etc was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

How is that pertinent?

[jackattack]

Ginger it avoided civilian casualties in that the U.S. and ussr didn't have to invade. Who knows what the ussr would have done to China, Korea and Japan. I don't think we should have though but there were reasons to. I guess that's what happens when you elect a democrat. Maybe if Eisenhower was calling the shots.

 

 

 

And dragonsoon I'm no koranic expert so I'm not sure who they are allowed to kill but the passages that are towards the end or the koran overule the ones before. I think it's called aborgation. The second one to last is the violent one and therefore overules the others. And your right U.S. Troops shouldn't invade iran we should bomb military targets.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Don't attempt to deflect this to the USSR, or the Democrats. This is about the US. Eisenhower didn't exactly complain did he?

 

 

 

Let me rephrase it.

 

 

 

The first bomb may have saved lives, technically, if you squint your eyes, maybe, perhaps. We'll never know.

 

 

 

However, Japan was considering surrender after that first bomb. They knew they had no chance if the US actually launched a ground assault, given the fact they were deprived of raw materials.

 

 

 

How was the second bomb preventing civilian casualties?

[jackattack]

Well it was the democrats. Eisenhower did complain a lot. I've heard one reason for the second bomb was that the Japs thought that the we only had one bomb. Not sure if that's valid though.

[Lenticular_J]

Surgical might have happened, but they also used cluster bombs. There is plenty of people in Iraq missing limbs now from unexploded sub-cluster bombs which can testify to this.

 

There are plenty more with most of their family killed due to Saddam's genocide.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Surgical might have happened, but they also used cluster bombs. There is plenty of people in Iraq missing limbs now from unexploded sub-cluster bombs which can testify to this.

 

There are plenty more with most of their family killed due to Saddam's genocide.

 

Silly argument really, if you're claiming to be better than Saddam.

[RichieMcD]

Surgical might have happened, but they also used cluster bombs. There is plenty of people in Iraq missing limbs now from unexploded sub-cluster bombs which can testify to this.

 

There are plenty more with most of their family killed due to Saddam's genocide.

 

 

 

He was a tyrant, quite expected that something like that would eventually happen, what shouldn't be expected is the force "freeing" you bombed your house, killing your family, friends and blowing your limbs off in the process while leaving unexploded bombs basically on-par to grenades lying all over the local area.

[jackattack]

^^ Your really overstating that. One thousand people died from the bombing. It's not like the whole country was flattened and millions were killed.

[dragoonson]

 

And dragonsoon I'm no koranic expert so I'm not sure who they are allowed to kill but the passages that are towards the end or the koran overule the ones before. I think it's called aborgation. The second one to last is the violent one and therefore overules the others. And your right U.S. Troops shouldn't invade iran we should bomb military targets.

 

 

 

No,no no.Thats missing the point entirely.Even military targets without solid evidence is wrong.Some countries have forced enlistment.So does that automatically make them enemies?You could kill a lot of people who did nothing wrong except be born at the wrong time,just to kill 4-5 people who kill your guys.

 

 

 

Deaths are deaths mate.Its not like NYC was flattened by 911 :roll: