NationStates Jolt Archive

For all of those who say that we're bombing indiscriminately, I give you the latest incarnation of what close air support in an urban environment means today.

Putting the missile right on top of you.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/iraqbomb.html

How, pray tell, do we not know that the target was not a refugee camp or a concentration camp?

For some reason the video's not working for me.

Bad Joke:
yeah you're not bombing indiscriminately you're only bombing Muslims

For all of those who say that we're bombing indiscriminately, I give you the latest incarnation of what close air support in an urban environment means today.

Yeah, tell that to those maimed children.

Bad Joke:
yeah you're not bombing indiscriminately you're only bombing Muslims

There are guys behind a vehicle shooting, and the missile lands right on them.

If you watch in slow motion, the missile can be seen coming in, and with the explosion, there's a body being hurled through the air.

nice shot ;)

There are guys behind a vehicle shooting, and the missile lands right on them.

If you watch in slow motion, the missile can be seen coming in, and with the explosion, there's a body being hurled through the air.

Reading this creates the impression that you like watching human beings die. Is that so?

Reading this creates the impression that you like watching human beings die. Is that so?

nah, I would say he isn't at all bothered watching the enemy die. That shot killed the enemy, human beings, yes, but human beings who were trying to kill the people making the film. tit for tat.

damn I use too many commas.

talk about accurate.
Only the US could put that much effort into creating a weapon that is so advanced we can target that precisely, effectively eliminate an enemy, and limit civilian casualties and property damage.
And still be criticized by people who are still debating wether or not something should have been done.

talk about accurate.
Only the US could put that much effort into creating a weapon that is so advanced we can target that precisely, effectively eliminate an enemy, and limit civilian casualties and property damage.
And still be criticized by people who are still debating wether or not something should have been done.

Only the US would think it should be lauded for inventing new ways of killing people. As I said earlier, tell it to those children you maimed.

Well, war as entertainment is old news, so I won't bother commenting on that. But in general I find the weapons we use in war far less exciting than the way we use them. As Fass correctly points out; children are still being maimed.

Though my views are obviously different from anti-war protestors, I believe the military's technology is not yet sufficient to think we've achieved our goals. It is our highest goal for our wars to have no impact on civilians, to destory or supress our foes without harming innocents.

We must strive for better ways and methods of employing these weapons, to further cut down on civilian casualties. My hope is that one day we we treat civilian casualties in the same way we treat our own troop casualties in the special forces; if even one innocent dies, something went wrong.

We must applaud out armed forces for continuing to strive in this direction, to balance force with restraint. It is a pity more people cannot learn these lessons; namely those who send our armed forces into bad situations, where they are forced to chose between their own life and the lives of civilians.

Only the US could get an ecstatic orgasm from making new ways of killing people. At least in this day and age.

Only the US would think it should be lauded for inventing new ways of killing people. As I said earlier, tell it to those children you maimed.


I'm pretty sure those limbless kids don't speak English, so alas, I would never get them to understand me. :(

Ein Deutscher']Only the US could get an ecstatic orgasm from making new ways of killing people. At least in this day and age.

Considering that 60 years isn't all that long in the scheme of things, you really shouldn't talk.

Considering that 60 years isn't all that long in the scheme of things, you really shouldn't talk.

You beat me to it!

Yeah, tell that to those maimed children.

Right. And these people "deserved" what they got?

http://www.mnforsustain.org/images/WTC%202nd%20Plane.jpg

Sorry, but if you really think that the US, UK, Poles, et al are in Iraq to deliberately shoot women, kids and non-combatants, then I think you're playing with a short deck.

That video clip shows a precision strike weapon. Something much cruder, with far less accuracy (and thus causing MORE loss of innocent life) would be much cheaper and easier for the US to use. But we don't.

Well, first off interesting video. Couple things I'd like to point out though;

1)Though it looks like Iraq, there is no way to tell that it actually takes place in Iraq.

2) I personally can't see the vehicle they are shooting at.

3) How do I know that they are shooting at an enemy target?

4) The supposed "body" doesn't look much like a body at all. Also, why was it not destroyed in the blast?


Now, secondly, the US is far from achieving accuracy with it's weapons/"defenses". As it stands now the Star Wars missile shield that is being pushed forcefully by your administration serves only to pacify the minds of the people; it doesn't actually work.

Instead of worrying about accuracy, how about butting out of international affairs that have nothing to do with you? It's a really good way not to make enemies.

If you ask me, though I do not support violence in any way, the US was almost asking for 9/11. After having interfered negatively in the Arab world for so long it was inevitable that something would happen. Much like before though, instead of butting out in order to soothe the anger at America, you sent more troops and interfered more drastically. How's that for logic?

There were several stupid arguments made here.

For example, if someone burned your house down, killing your whole family but not you, would you then go and burn down the home of a completely innocent family because "they didnt care that they were killing innocents, why should I?" Thats really what the "well september the 11th, they killed innocents" argument is.

Then theres the argument that "it was probably a refugee camp" or "children were maimed". Why would U.S. soldiers be firing into a refugee camp? Please explain this to me.

Sometimes bombs such as this one go wrong and miss the target and innocents are killed. But before you bash it, think of this - where would you be right now without a military. And where would the military be without a supporting airforce. Not very far, so grab the lesser of two evils and figure it out that smart weapons are a very, very good thing.

This is the alternative.

http://liberatingkorea.com/three%20bombers%20dropping%20bombs.jpg

Only the US would think it should be lauded for inventing new ways of killing people. As I said earlier, tell it to those children you maimed.


sorry to say that you, and some other peace-loving liberals really have no sense at all... where does it show a school, or nething remotely resembliong children being bombed... it was a very controlled attack that destroyed the enemy who happened to be shooting at OUR soldiers (i want to assume @ US soldiers). IT was a defensive manuever to save American Soldiers lives....

see the liberals disagree if we dropped a controlled weapon on a specifically targeted area...
if americans died in a melee, without using the bomb.. the liberals would then blame the government fro sending troops to die.... its a fucking lose-lose situation with these ignorant people who think that everyone else wants peace and that we are the enemy for defending ourselves!!!

Perhaps with the massive Fu*k up that the americans caused in Iraq, perhaps they deserve to die...

Then theres the argument that "it was probably a refugee camp" or "children were maimed". Why would U.S. soldiers be firing into a refugee camp? Please explain this to me.

You're missing the point though. Logically, the US shouldn't be firing into a refugee camp, but it does happen. It takes very little to search around and see what has happened when the US has "accidentaly" shot at innocents. It's not a pretty picture (and as of last count, more innocent Iraqis have been killed than innocent Americans were on 9/11). There was no way to tell from the video was the US, if it even was the US, was shooting at.


its a fucking lose-lose situation with these ignorant people who think that everyone else wants peace and that we are the enemy for defending ourselves!!!

I fail to see why you wouldn't want peace. You seem to be one of those people that are completely desensitized to violence. Quite frankly, it makes me sick. There are better ways to go about things than to simply kill whoever disagrees with your perspectives on life. It wouldn't be lose-lose if our governments would wise up, disarm, and start talking instead of bombing.

Perhaps with the massive Fu*k up that the americans caused in Iraq, perhaps they deserve to die...

So by that logic most of Europe deserves to die because of the screw-ups they created when evacuating their colonial outposts in Africa.

Why so full of hate South Islands? It ain't never gonna make ya feel good and it ain't never, never gonna change anything.

Ein Deutscher']Only the US could get an ecstatic orgasm from making new ways of killing people. At least in this day and age.

Amen to that, brother!

Considering that 60 years isn't all that long in the scheme of things, you really shouldn't talk.

Well, bad enough we made such terrible mistakes - how about you guys learn your lesson sometime soon? :upyours:

Well, bad enough we made such terrible mistakes - how about you guys learn your lesson sometime soon? :upyours:

Another happy European. Is it really always so angry and depressing over there?
Yeah, yeah, I know the whole WWII reference thing is old and annoying, I agree with you on that. That is why I never use it in an arguement.

You beat me to it!

We have learned that lesson that war leads to nothing but destruction. When will you learn yours?

Another happy European. Is it really always so angry and depressing over there?
Yeah, yeah, I know the whole WWII reference thing is old and annoying, I agree with you on that. That is why I never use it in an arguement.

At least you show some understanding there!

BAck to the topic...

In all likelyhood, it was some children or a refugee camp.

NO gunshots.

NO Gunflashes.

No more problems with feeding them for the Americans anymore!

At least you show some understanding there!

Anytime somebody mentions WWII from either the Allied or Axis perspective in an arguement about modern problems I cringe.
I mean, what the hell does, We saved you from the Germans or You Nazis started everything have to do with the differences between the US and the EU. Annoying.

Anytime somebody mentions WWII from either the Allied or Axis perspective in an arguement about modern problems I cringe.
I mean, what the hell does, We saved you from the Germans or You Nazis started everything have to do with the differences between the US and the EU. Annoying.

You wouldn't believe how sick & tired I am of all that bull I have to face...

Yet, on the other hand, I don't understand why someone would not want to listen to somebody from a country that has so much blood on their hands as the predecessors of the Federal Republic have. After all, it seems that we did learn a lesson from it!

You wouldn't believe how sick & tired I am of all that bull I have to face...

Yet, on the other hand, I don't understand why someone would not want to listen to somebody from a country that has so much blood on their hands as the predecessors of the Federal Republic have. After all, it seems that we did learn a lesson from it!

Well, it assumes that everyone in that country learned the proper lessons from the experience. We have only opinion to convince ourselves that the lessons we think we learned are correct.
What lessons would you say you have learned?

hi people im new can you send me a telegram so we can talk

You know, I think things would get better if we just solved wars with machines. For instance, I'm writing the settings for two cultures who are always fighting, but only use machines to fight. Specifically, you load eggs on the machines (which are basically big moving mechanical catipults), launch the machines, which launch the eggs, which, (hopefully) hits the other machine. If the machine gets hit with enough eggs, it collapses, it's mechanism jammed. Whichever side's machine dies first loses. By the way, these two cultures have recently had an chicken population explotion and realized it could solve all their moral war/killing problems. :)

I think it's great the United States has developed weapons that so accurately pinpoint targets. Though personally, if you're going to wage war, go all out and do it. I don't think that isolating the populace from warface is a good idea just because you'll kill innocent civilians. No problem is truly solved when you have stupid 'moderation' or 'barrier' between the populace and the actual fighting. Why do you think the UN's constant intervention into the Serbian Conflict never works out? Because it constantly isolates the problem with these 'quick' fixes instead of letting the fight just go the end. War cannot sustain itself because as we all know that war only leads to destruction.

If you isolate the warfare from the populace, like prisons do for people who commit crimes or gated communities of the rich from the outside world, you only isolate the problem and don't solve it. You hide the problem, and the problem is never ever solved because the problem never surfaces. Because of that... sometimes I think these smart weapons aren't the greatest way to win a war because, as someone pointed out, they just keep the war between the militaries without hurting the economy or the civilians of an enemy.

Is the civilian who buys bomb materials for the enemy still innocent?

Is the civilian who works in a factory that makes guns for the enemy still innocent?

Is the civilian who stirs up the population against someone still innocent?

Is the civilian who harbors the enemy still innocent?

No, No, No and another emphatic NO.

Now, unlike some others in this thread, I do believe that WWII in general bares some significance to this. Does anyone wonder why there was no guerilla campaigns against the United States after we defeated both Japan and Germany? Because we smothered them. They knew they were beaten. Their cities were whiped out, industries shattered, and their governments bankrupt. Every aspect of their lives told them they were defeated. Every day they walked out of the rubble of their homes, only to not go to work because their work place was bombed out, only to not have any money to buy bread because their money was worthless! Their entire ideology was completely tossed aside as we showed them who was truly 'better'.

For these Iraqi insurgents, they don't know they've been defeated because they truly haven't yet. Their cause hasn't been defeated yet. Why did the North Vietnamese, who we all know so 'soundly' defeated us, keep coming back to the Peace Talks table everytime we offered one. Because we bombed the shit out of Hanoi and every other major city they had when they tried to leave the Peace Talks. They knew they could never defeat us, and if we went on a war of offensive, not of a war of defensive (which EVERYONE knows is an impossible war to win since you've lost the initiative), we would've smothered them too, and Vietnam would've turned out a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT.


We have learned that lesson that war leads to nothing but destruction. When will you learn yours?

I will make this argument now. My argument is that not WAR IS GOOD, though if I were cynical enough I could make that argument. My argument is that the reason America has never learned the lesson that 'war leads to nothing but destruction' is because it has never had a first-hand chance to.

Think about it. WWII and WWI annihilated the major powers of Europe. Britain, Germany, Russia, Poland, France: Each of their populations was subjected to extrodinary amounts of terror and hardship that only those who were their could truly understand. America in it's entire existence has never had a major war fought on its soil besides the Civil War. Only the Southerners experienced Total War at the hands of Tecumseh Sherman during his March To The Sea, and even then was minute in comparison to the horrors and death of the First and Second World Wars.

I truly hope that America learns the lesson that war truly does suck, before it has to learn that lesson first hand. Americans aren't desensitized to violence Sokalista, they don't even know what violence really is.

That's why they go and do it to others. To figure out what it is.

Well, it assumes that everyone in that country learned the proper lessons from the experience. We have only opinion to convince ourselves that the lessons we think we learned are correct.
What lessons would you say you have learned?

Of course no everybody here learned s.th. from the two big wars Germany participated in (or even started).

I like to think that the lessons I learned from my country's history are the following (at least these are the ones I can think of).

1. In wars, those who start it are not those who suffer.

2. Many wars are fought for numerous reasons, be it economic, religious, or political like a certain weltanschauung. Which leads to

3. There are, on the other hand, justifiable wars. The international intervention in Afghanistan is one such occasion. A military U.N. mission into Dafur would be another one.

4. Wars that create more suffering amongst the people involved than that which they aimed to stop - nomatter how well-intented - are those which I have the most trouble with.

This list is by no means complete - but I have to grab s.th. to eat now before the breaks over...

...Does anyone wonder why there was no guerilla campaigns against the United States after we defeated both Japan and Germany?
There were - but what you seem to miss is that the populace did not support them after 6 years of war (and the last of total war).

For these Iraqi insurgents, they don't know they've been defeated because they truly haven't yet. Their cause hasn't been defeated yet.
Did the thought ever occur to you that those who still attack the U.S. and foreign military are not necessariliy your average Joe Iraqi?
They are extremists from all over the Middle East who flocked to Iraq to fight and kill Americans. The terrorists who did not live in Iraq under Saddam could cross the borders undetectedly because the regime was done (and probably the border patrols killed by precision airstrikes) - My best bet is that before the war there were no terrorists in that number and of that kind in the country as Saddam wouldn't have tolerated it.

My argument is that the reason America has never learned the lesson that 'war leads to nothing but destruction' is because it has never had a first-hand chance to.

Think about it. WWII and WWI annihilated the major powers of Europe. Britain, Germany, Russia, Poland, France: Each of their populations was subjected to extrodinary amounts of terror and hardship that only those who were their could truly understand. America in it's entire existence has never had a major war fought on its soil besides the Civil War. Only the Southerners experienced Total War at the hands of Tecumseh Sherman during his March To The Sea, and even then was minute in comparison to the horrors and death of the First and Second World Wars.

I truly hope that America learns the lesson that war truly does suck, before it has to learn that lesson first hand. Americans aren't desensitized to violence Sokalista, they don't even know what violence really is.

That's why they go and do it to others. To figure out what it is.
My point exactly! The Civil War does not really count (although the emphasis placed on it truely shows its impact on U.S. society).

Thanks for that post - s.t. it's hard for me to phrase all of my thoughts in English and then not end up with an essay...

This is the alternative.

http://liberatingkorea.com/three%20bombers%20dropping%20bombs.jpg
or.

http://www.digischool.nl/po/community12/Valentijn/cupido.gif

Only the US would think it should be lauded for inventing new ways of killing people. As I said earlier, tell it to those children you maimed.
Yeah, because Saddam and his cronies NEVER EVAH harmed an innocent child....

Only the US would think it should be lauded for inventing new ways of killing people. As I said earlier, tell it to those children you maimed.


I know-you prefer your socialally elite way of killing people-sitting back and watching them die while you discuss it.

Yeah, because Saddam and his cronies NEVER EVAH harmed an innocent child....

Does that make it ok for the US to do it too?

Does that make it ok for the US to do it too?

There's a difference. Saddam did it on purpose - fully condoning it and even ordering it at times. The US, on the other hand, attempts to limit civilian casualties as much as possible - hence 'smart' bombs and surgical air-strikes.

Civilians will always be injured / killed in areas of combat. This is a given. The question is: are more being killed / injured now than before taking action against Saddam. It'd be hard to argue that the US is causing more injuries to the civilian populace than a man that began genocide. It's just that the media covers our injuries to the public more than they could or have reported what Saddam did to the civilian populace.

talk about overkill

It'd be hard to argue that the US is causing more injuries to the civilian populace than a man that began genocide.

I'd like to argue that. The rate at which civillians die under American rule is faster than under Saddam Hussein. I figured this out at one point...don't have the numbers with me, but if anyone is curious I will find them again. As of August 2003, 7000 civillians had died. Good Job:)

I think it's great the United States has developed weapons that so accurately pinpoint targets. Though personally, if you're going to wage war, go all out and do it. I don't think that isolating the populace from warface is a good idea just because you'll kill innocent civilians. No problem is truly solved when you have stupid 'moderation' or 'barrier' between the populace and the actual fighting. Why do you think the UN's constant intervention into the Serbian Conflict never works out? Because it constantly isolates the problem with these 'quick' fixes instead of letting the fight just go the end. War cannot sustain itself because as we all know that war only leads to destruction.

If you isolate the warfare from the populace, like prisons do for people who commit crimes or gated communities of the rich from the outside world, you only isolate the problem and don't solve it. You hide the problem, and the problem is never ever solved because the problem never surfaces. Because of that... sometimes I think these smart weapons aren't the greatest way to win a war because, as someone pointed out, they just keep the war between the militaries without hurting the economy or the civilians of an enemy.

Is the civilian who buys bomb materials for the enemy still innocent?

Is the civilian who works in a factory that makes guns for the enemy still innocent?

Is the civilian who stirs up the population against someone still innocent?

Is the civilian who harbors the enemy still innocent?

No, No, No and another emphatic NO.

Now, unlike some others in this thread, I do believe that WWII in general bares some significance to this. Does anyone wonder why there was no guerilla campaigns against the United States after we defeated both Japan and Germany? Because we smothered them. They knew they were beaten. Their cities were whiped out, industries shattered, and their governments bankrupt. Every aspect of their lives told them they were defeated. Every day they walked out of the rubble of their homes, only to not go to work because their work place was bombed out, only to not have any money to buy bread because their money was worthless! Their entire ideology was completely tossed aside as we showed them who was truly 'better'.

For these Iraqi insurgents, they don't know they've been defeated because they truly haven't yet. Their cause hasn't been defeated yet. Why did the North Vietnamese, who we all know so 'soundly' defeated us, keep coming back to the Peace Talks table everytime we offered one. Because we bombed the shit out of Hanoi and every other major city they had when they tried to leave the Peace Talks. They knew they could never defeat us, and if we went on a war of offensive, not of a war of defensive (which EVERYONE knows is an impossible war to win since you've lost the initiative), we would've smothered them too, and Vietnam would've turned out a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT.



I will make this argument now. My argument is that not WAR IS GOOD, though if I were cynical enough I could make that argument. My argument is that the reason America has never learned the lesson that 'war leads to nothing but destruction' is because it has never had a first-hand chance to.

Think about it. WWII and WWI annihilated the major powers of Europe. Britain, Germany, Russia, Poland, France: Each of their populations was subjected to extrodinary amounts of terror and hardship that only those who were their could truly understand. America in it's entire existence has never had a major war fought on its soil besides the Civil War. Only the Southerners experienced Total War at the hands of Tecumseh Sherman during his March To The Sea, and even then was minute in comparison to the horrors and death of the First and Second World Wars.

I truly hope that America learns the lesson that war truly does suck, before it has to learn that lesson first hand. Americans aren't desensitized to violence Sokalista, they don't even know what violence really is.

That's why they go and do it to others. To figure out what it is.

i agree with you on all of your major points,howerver,i have always read..that more people died in the civil war then in both of the "great wars"combined..i may be wrong..but that is what i have always been taught. :sniper:

i agree with you on all of your major points,howerver,i have always read..that more people died in the civil war then in both of the "great wars"combined..i may be wrong..but that is what i have always been taught. :sniper:

Hmm...That sounds very wrong indeed. Unless you're just talking about purely US fatalities (in which case it STILL sounds wrong, but perhaps its the case), the World Wars claimed many millions of lives.

I still remember the anecdote about the British military academy, listing those who died in battle from each of their graduating classes. It simply reads "The class of 191X" (I forget what year)...every single cadet who graduated that year died in WW1 on the Western front.

i agree with you on all of your major points,howerver,i have always read..that more people died in the civil war then in both of the "great wars"combined..i may be wrong..but that is what i have always been taught. :sniper:
I think (and I could be more wrong than you, I'm no military fetishist) that it is that we lost more in the Civil War than in both wars combined, largely because losses are counted from both sides as one.
RIF error. Already addressed...

On the subject of military fetishism, I gotta say I'm a little creeped out. Even if you subscribe to the 'noble defender' line of thinking in that fetish it seems still to put to much emphasis on the 'neccisary' part of the 'neccisary evil' while forgeting the more important 'evil.' Cheering at new ways to kill people, getting excited at watching videos of a human being who-to his mind-is defending his home, something presumably you would do in an instant...kinda creepy. I have to hold in question those who would take delight in it. To actually enjoy and romantisize it, killing. Even if it is to defend yourself or 'your country,' the joy...'rightness' is the argument of history, of perspective. What is monsterous is that there are people who find joy in the practice.

On the subject of military fetishism, I gotta say I'm a little creeped out. Even if you subscribe to the 'noble defender' line of thinking in that fetish it seems still to put to much emphasis on the 'neccisary' part of the 'neccisary evil' while forgeting the more important 'evil.' Cheering at new ways to kill people, getting excited at watching videos of a human being who-to his mind-is defending his home, something presumably you would do in an instant...kinda creepy. I have to hold in question those who would take delight in it. To actually enjoy and romantisize it, killing. Even if it is to defend yourself or 'your country,' the joy...'rightness' is the argument of history, of perspective. What is monsterous is that there are people who find joy in the practice.

Well said. I am certainly military-minded, even obsessed. But I have noticed there are different flavors of military minded people. Perhaps that's why you've noticed this disparity between the "noble warrior" and the "righteous killer"

From what I've seen, we can break military buffs into several groups:

There are the Pyros, "Blowing stuff up is cool, ooh! Look at that one go up in flames!"

The Dictators, "I want an army so they can obey me and my whims"

The Grunts, "Give me a fox hole, a six pack, and 15 cigs. I'll hold a conversation about my time in the military for 4 hours without stopping."

The Psy Ops guys, "Look at all the nifty ways of breaking the human soul!"

The Strategists, "Maps, books, history, theories, I'll bore you to tears with my weapons of choice."

That seems to sum up the general catagories of military mindsets I see on NS...and elsewhere, for that matter.

Because of these different mindsets, discussing military "stuff" in general is a little sketchy. Many military mind-sets baiscally ignore the morality of the situation entirely; there are many anecdotes about demolitions specialists befriending each other across language barriers. Politics are secondary to shared culture.

I'm definately a Strategist at heart, I'm possibly the most dull out of all the military buffs (you can at least get drunk and have a good time with the Grunts ;) ). All I care about is theory and its proper application, politics are a tool to implement theory and test its validity. Boo-ring, but for me, fun!

Psy Ops people scare me. Both the pros and those who idealize them. They seem to have no morality whatsoever, those that are expereinced have their souls burned right out of them, left as empty husks. Political agendas are usually limited to gaining enough power to do what they want.

As for the rest, we've all seen 'em around. Eutrusca is my best example of a "Grunt"; he's been in the service, his politics are formed from personal experience as much as any idealogy, he's knowledgable and experienced in the world. A great guy to sit down and have a conversation with...Dictators on the other hand, exist in most of us, but a few just let those controlling desires take over entirely.