# What is bombing good for?



## Everness

Mod note:  The following posts were removed from a thread on an unrelated topic.  Please disagree with civility, and stick to the thread topic, so we don't have to split more threads.  Thanks. 


Maybe this is a bit off-topic but this bumper sticker came to mind when you talked about hippy T-shirts.

*"Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity"​*


----------



## Tsoman

Everness said:


> Maybe this is a bit off-topic but this bumper sticker came to mind when you talked about hippy T-shirts.
> 
> *"Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity"​*




I don't know about the virginity thing, but aerial bombing campaigns do hasten peace. During the first gulf war, if the coalition forces didn't bomb the Iraqi forces, the war would have lasted longer. There are other examples.


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> I don't know about the virginity thing, but aerial bombing campaigns do hasten peace. During the first gulf war, if the coalition forces didn't bomb the Iraqi forces, the war would have lasted longer. There are other examples.


Give me a break! *Bombing campaigns don't create peace, they create death, hatred and despair!*


----------



## Tsoman

Victoria32 said:


> Give me a break! *Bombing campaigns don't create peace, they create death, hatred and despair!*




They do all those things, AND create peace (unless of course you are the aggressor who starts a war with a bombing campaing)

Wars end when the enemy is too weak to fight anymore. Sure lots of them died, sure they are in despair, sure they hate you. But that's because they lost. And all that stuff really isn't the winner's problem


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> They do all those things, AND create peace (unless of course you are the aggressor who starts a war with a bombing campaing)
> 
> Wars end when the enemy is too weak to fight anymore. Sure lots of them died, sure they are in despair, sure they hate you. But that's because they lost. And all that stuff really isn't the winner's problem


_Of course it's the winner's problem!_ Where do you think the next generation of "terrorists" come from?
911 was a shock to the USA because you'd never been attacked before - well, not since 1941... but you had (and I mean the foreign policy not the people of course) been doing a helluva lot of "attacking"... starting with Iran in 1953, and the over-throwing of the leader...  There's an American saying I hear a lot "what goes around comes around"... Bombing men, women and children into the next world for 12 years as you did in Iraq, is bound to have consequences, looky there - it is! 
Compassion is a _clever_ idea not just a moral one.


----------



## Tsoman

I didn't mean to say that bombing campaigns are good. What I meant was that if one side in a war is much more powerful and can afford bombers, then that side will win faster (if that's what they are committed to doing) and then there will be peace. Probably a bad peace, but peace nonetheless.

And once the strong side won the war, I don't think they would care about how many people they bombed now that they won.


----------



## cirrus

I am not sure bombs have brought about peace in Vietnam or since.  How many millions of bombs fell on Laos. Cambodia and Vietnam.  How much regime change did they bring about?  Similarly look at Iraq - any amount of hardware was dropped on it but has it secured peace?  I can't imagine Lebanese looking at the bomb wreckage or for that matter Israelis in the North of Israel will be feeling any closer to peace after August's madness.


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> I didn't mean to say that bombing campaigns are good. What I meant was that if one side in a war is much more powerful and can afford bombers, then that side will win faster (if that's what they are committed to doing) and then there will be peace. Probably a bad peace, but peace nonetheless.
> 
> And once the strong side won the war, I don't think they would care about how many people they bombed now that they won.


What I think, is that they should care, for their own sake. A war 'won' that way, isn't really won at all, bombing campaigns create hatred and despair - death in the short term, and loathing in the long term.


cirrus said:


> I am not sure bombs have brought about peace in Vietnam or since. How many millions of bombs fell on Laos. Cambodia and Vietnam. How much regime change did they bring about? Similarly look at Iraq - any amount of hardware was dropped on it but has it secured peace? I can't imagine Lebanese looking at the bomb wreckage or for that matter Israelis in the North of Israel will be feeling any closer to peace after August's madness.


Absolutely I agree, Cirrus!


----------



## Tsoman

cirrus said:


> I am not sure bombs have brought about peace in Vietnam or since.  How many millions of bombs fell on Laos. Cambodia and Vietnam.  How much regime change did they bring about?  Similarly look at Iraq - any amount of hardware was dropped on it but has it secured peace?  I can't imagine Lebanese looking at the bomb wreckage or for that matter Israelis in the North of Israel will be feeling any closer to peace after August's madness.



It all depends on the objectives. What are you trying to accomplish with your military campaign?

If your cause is the liberation of a people (Iraq War, for example) bombs aren't going to help you. In this situation, bombs create more violence.

But if your objective is the complete annihilation of a people down to the last man woman and child, then yes, bombs will bring peace. I'm not saying that it's good or moral, but that it's true. If you are strong and your enemies weak, if you kill every single one of your enemies, then you can't be at war with them anymore. There will be none left to kill, so you are at peace by default. 

Take the US history for example. There were sporadic conflicts between the whites and the american Indians. Eventually, the whites killed most of the indians. Now there are no more wars there. only peace.

So my conclusion is this:

organized, ruthless, and overwhelming violence will cause peace -- No enemy, no war.


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> It all depends on the objectives. What are you trying to accomplish with your military campaign?
> 
> If your cause is the liberation of a people (Iraq War, for example) bombs aren't going to help you. In this situation, bombs create more violence.
> 
> But if your objective is the complete annihilation of a people down to the last man woman and child, then yes, bombs will bring peace. I'm not saying that it's good or moral, but that it's true. If you are strong and your enemies weak, if you kill every single one of your enemies, then you can't be at war with them anymore. There will be none left to kill, so you are at peace by default.
> 
> Take the US history for example. There were sporadic conflicts between the whites and the american Indians. Eventually, the whites killed most of the indians. Now there are no more wars there. only peace.
> 
> So my conclusion is this:
> 
> organized, ruthless, and overwhelming violence will cause peace -- No enemy, no war.


I am afraid I have a tendency to think of it in moral terms, Tsoman... Look at what the Indians have become - hopeless, disposessed and oppressed - remember "what goes around comes around" - that could still end up biting the USA on the *rse...
As for Iraq - the story *now* is that the aim was to "liberate the people", but at the time, the story was the now known-to-be fictional WMD... Get your stories straight! Iraqis, especially women are less free than they ever were under Sadaam Hussein!  Have a look at this article about the consequences...
http://http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090106R.shtml


----------



## cuchuflete

Careful please...this thread is supposed to be about bombing, and not about the freedom of Iraqi women under different regimes...

Back to the thread topic, if that's ok, bombing is one way to kill people in a war or other conflict.  It's horrible.
Planting land mines kills and maims.  It too is horrible.
Shooting people with handguns, rifles, machine guys _et alia_
is horrible too.
An artillery shell explodes just as a bomb does, and horribly kills people.
Poison gas kills horribly.

Do bombs sit higher or lower on the moral scale than other forms of killing in war?

Farther back to the topic...bombs are typically not used to achieve peace, so the initial question, if there was one, is as flawed as war itself.


----------



## loladamore

I can only think of one answer to the question:

*What is bombing good for?  *

*THE ARMS INDUSTRY*.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Careful please...this thread is supposed to be about bombing, and not about the freedom of Iraqi women under different regimes...
> 
> Back to the thread topic, if that's ok, bombing is one way to kill people in a war or other conflict. It's horrible.
> Planting land mines kills and maims. It too is horrible.
> Shooting people with handguns, rifles, machine guys _et alia_
> is horrible too.
> An artillery shell explodes just as a bomb does, and horribly kills people.
> Poison gas kills horribly.
> 
> Do bombs sit higher or lower on the moral scale than other forms of killing in war?
> 
> Farther back to the topic...bombs are typically not used to achieve peace, so the initial question, if there was one, is as flawed as war itself.


They are all equally awful, Cuchuflete. Saturation bombing campaigns kill more people, and quicker than other means, and are as flawed a method of achieving peace as can be imagined. I apply that to Dresden in WW2, Hiroshima, and the present. 
Unless what you're after is the peace of the grave?


----------



## danielfranco

From the "functionality" perspective, the only thing bombs are good for is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible in the shortest interval possible, with as little troop involvement as possible.
The killing of people, as awful and regretable as it actually is, happens to be just a side-effect in respect to what a bomb has as its reason for existing.
Just another cheerful and sunny fact of mechanized warfare.


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> I don't know about the virginity thing, but aerial bombing campaigns do hasten peace. During the first gulf war, if the coalition forces didn't bomb the Iraqi forces, the war would have lasted longer. There are other examples.


 
hmmm... It is very easy to make such heartless statements (if not stupid ones) sitting in your comfortable armchair and seeing how other cities burn, and other people suffer.
I would really like to see you experiencing only one day of bombing. Only one day, not more. And it does not have to be in the heart of clashes, like Iraq or Kosovo. Just one day in Belgrade in 1999. Only one day of air alarms, spending time in shelters, hearing the sound of bombing in your neighbourhood. And asking yourself - why? Why me? I have done nothing wrong. I didn't kill anyone, nor wished death to anyone. As a matter of fact, I hate this mother fu**er, and now I am bombed together with him... Why?

Bombing of the USA et al. of Serbia in the summer of 1999 was supposed to stop the extermination of Albanians by Serbian police troops, and to make Serbs to throw Miloshevic down from the power. 
The result of the bombing was:
Every day's "so-called" collateral dameges made all over Serbia - hitting civil trains, or hospitals with mothers giving birth to their babies (I personally have three friends who gave birth to their children under NATO bombs, in the heart f Belgrade), complete villages destroyed in which there was nothing that could be clasiffied as a military objective, and of course, many colons of Albanian refugees, so at the end, Albanians were begging NATO to stop defending them... NATO bombs as a matter of fact, were allies to the Serbian monster: they unified Serbs around Miloshevic for a whole year more. It wasn't the bombing that made Serbs to throw him down, but his repeated cheating on elections. If there weren't bombing, maybe this would have happened earlier.


I simply cannot see any good that bombing brought to Iraq, or to Lebanon, or whatever country that has been bombed in the history. My hometown was bombed twice in the WWII - once by Germans, the second time by Allies. Germans were punishing us. Allies were "liberating" us. What a nice way of helping someone...


----------



## Sallyb36

Bombing is good for killing people, nothing else!


----------



## natasha2000

OH, yes... I would also like to add the indirect consequences of bombings, like radiation. Well, Bombing to Nagasaki and Hiroshima did make the end of the WWII come faster, but when you see those pictures of INNOCENT people and their descendants with so tremendous deformations, you ask yourself. Was it worth it?

And not mentioning the Gulf war and the radiation consequences on not only to Iraquies, but also to the very same American soldiers... Both Iraqui and American children were born without arms and legs. Children who never were exposed to any kind of radiation, but their parend were.

And Kosovo is also a place that was sowed by bombs of poor uranium... The consequences are yet to be seen...


----------



## don maico

Carpet bombing certainly didnt work in Vietnam . It jusst slaughtered thousands of innocent people without producing the desired result.Odd thing is the Vietnamse people dont bear any resentment probably because they in effect won.


----------



## Fernando

Just to say that US did not use carpet bombing in Vietnam War. As far as I know, they did not carpet bombed Hanoi.

Bombings are useful for winning wars. If the war is fair (inevitable, for a good reason, etc.) you will have to bomb the other. If you ask me about targeting civilians I would say it is not justified.


----------



## moura

It is highly subjective. If we think about the "good" bombing the "bad" it is seen as useful. If we think about the "bad" bombing the "goods" it is seen as catastrophic. The main issue is to found out who the "good" are and who the “bad” are. And as we see from the past and present experiences this is also highly, highly subjective. 

Conclusion? It is never good for anything, when all the diplomatic and conversational resources were not used before, till the last minimal percentage. And thinking about "intelligent" bombing without collateral damages in civilians is a complete utopia.

P.S.: Most of the times, bombing attacks seem to come from children playing with forbidden toys. The difference is that usually children only get some scratches.


----------



## Fernando

Moura, war (violence) is bad. OK. But, what are you supposed to do when the bad guys do bad things? As a Christian I am suppossed to offer the other cheek, but that is more than most people are ready to bear and what conventional morals impose.

Of course bombing will result in civilian casualties. "Intelligent" bombing avoid many many civilian casualties but does not prevent every casualty.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

As has been pointed out, the "peace" that follows after a nation has been bombed into submission is not peace at all.  

Peace is justice (and not retributive justice).  Peace is free access to health care, food, education.  Peace is having shelter at night and sleeping without fear of the militias or armies or armed thugs or whatever dragging you off.  Bombing a population or infrastructure contributes to none of the foundations for creating true peace.

The arms industries of the world love to sell us on the idea of weapons equalling peace.  When we in the West pay our neighbours a living wage for their labour; help them to achieve their goals in health care, food and education; and work with them as partners instead of using them as producers of cheap goods and potential buyers of arms; and stop "munitioning" them or supplying their governments with the means to do it on our behalf ....... 

THEN we are planting seeds of peace, instead of creating a new generation of people who've known nothing but violence and can therefore see only violence as the vehicle to better conditions.


----------



## moura

Hola Fernando,

As I said, bombing (and of course we are talking about belic armament in general) must be used only as a last of the last resources. No way by giving the other cheek. I don't believe in that. But only after all the pacific resources have been completely (me falta la palabra esgotar) spent till the last word.
And I keep thinking that is hardly difficult to establish which  are the good ones and the bad ones. Almost every nation (probably the exception is Bhutan, hidden in the Himalayas,which I read a time ago may be the most pacific country in the world) has glass roofs but keep throwing moral lessons to others, and if the moral lessons don't result, there goes more bombing. And as a result the world is in a complet mess.


----------



## Outsider

Is the title of this thread some kind of joke?


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:


> "Intelligent" bombing avoid many many civilian casualties but does not prevent every casualty.


 
Intelligent bombing showed in an example of my country as a very stupid one. There were more "collateral damages" than military targets reached.

You cannot invent a bomb that would be able to distinguish bad from good, army from civilians.


----------



## Alxmrphi

natasha2000 said:


> Intelligent bombing showed in an example of my country as a very stupid one. There were more "collateral damages" than military targets reached.
> 
> You cannot invent a bomb that would be able to distinguish bad from good, army from civilians.



I think this is the perfect lesson here, it's about the people behind the bombing that need to be questioned about what the hell they are doing.


----------



## natasha2000

Alex_Murphy said:


> I think this is the perfect lesson here, it's about the people behind the bombing that need to be questioned about what the hell they are doing.


 
Unfortunately, NATO did not learn anything from it. First Afganistan, and then Iraq followed, with far more desastrous consequences than in Serbia. When will they learn? I think, never. Especially today, with all tnat technology, where a pilot does not even see the place which he isa about to destroy and where he is about to bring death to. He just pushes the button... For him, it's just a video game. No real people down there, so no need to have concience...


----------



## Alxmrphi

It's that ***%*%&^&$ American military, they don't care, like when they used that weapon, banned from use in civillian areas in the Geneva convention, then they lied about it, and said they never used it, and then the time we were all waiting for.. the guy with the video waited for the white house to release that statement saying they didn't, and then released his video and they had to admit they did it.

That was one glorious day for me.

Why do you think NATO deserves more blame?

All in all, bombing civillian areas is NEVER right, maybe if there was a horrible war and it was necessary, I might be inclined to hold it as a last hope.

But in this day and age, it should be feasable that this never happens and bombing can be concluded as (to the title of this thread) *GOOD FOR NOTHING!*


----------



## natasha2000

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's that ***%*%&^&$ American military, they don't care, like when they used that weapon, banned from use in civillian areas in the Geneva convention, then they lied about it, and said they never used it, and then the time we were all waiting for.. the guy with the video waited for the white house to release that statement saying they didn't, and then released his video and they had to admit they did it.
> That was one glorious day for me.


Do you mean cluster bombs? Yes, they were used very generously, and Kosovo is still full of un exploded ones.



> All in all, bombing civillian areas is NEVER right, maybe if there was a horrible war and it was necessary, I might be inclined to hold it as a last hope.


There  WAS a horrible war, and there WERE people suffering in Kosovo. So, NATO rushed to help to Albanian civilians, and the result was 850 000 Serb and non Albanian civilian refugees during and especially after bombing. Today, in Kosovo is VERY DANGEROUS thing to be Serb. So, bombing is not of any help, not even as a last hope. Never. It only brings more death and despare....


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:


> "Intelligent" bombing avoid many many civilian casualties but does not prevent every casualty.



Intelligent weapons (I never heard the expression intelligent bombing) is one of the most disgusting, repulsive, and immoral notions that has been created. If weapons were really intelligent they would be able to kill the bad guys and spare innocent civilians. They don't. And if they were really, really intelligent, they wouldn't kill anyone at all. 

There is no such thing as intelligent weapons. There are just smart human beings who design these murderous weapons and who are good with words in order to justify the unjustifiable.


----------



## natasha2000

For those who think that bombing can be justified.
These are the results of "intelligent bombing" as some here said.
Enjoy.
click

Maybe the images are not the most pleasant ones. Those who are very sensible better not to look.


----------



## claudine2006

I know the answer: it's good for US economy!!!!!


----------



## moura

Everness said:


> Intelligent weapons (I never heard the expression intelligent bombing) is one of the most disgusting, repulsive, and immoral notions that has been created. If weapons were really intelligent they would be able to kill the bad guys and spare innocent civilians. They don't. And if they were really, really intelligent, they wouldn't kill anyone at all. quote]
> 
> Everness
> As the first person who used here the term "intelligent" regarding bombing, just a precision:besides my words after using that term, the use of " " meant that they are just the opposite of any form of intelligence. If a term should be use, then perverse bombing (or weapons), between other terms should apply. As in fact, all bombing may be perverse.
> 
> Edit: juts a lateral comment à posteriori, no need for a post: Natasha, yes, I didn't read Everness as addressing me, but as bombing and not weapons with that adjectiv was mine, so blame on me for that (they aren't available, so pretend here is as smile as yours).


----------



## Alxmrphi

claudine2006 said:


> I know the answer: it's good for US economy!!!!!



The nail has been hit on the head.


----------



## natasha2000

moura said:


> Everness said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent weapons (I never heard the expression intelligent bombing) is one of the most disgusting, repulsive, and immoral notions that has been created. If weapons were really intelligent they would be able to kill the bad guys and spare innocent civilians. They don't. And if they were really, really intelligent, they wouldn't kill anyone at all. quote]
> 
> Everness
> As the first person who used here the term "intelligent" regarding bombing, just a precision:besides my words after using that term, the use of " " meant that they are just the opposite of any form of intelligence. If a term should be use, then perverse bombing (or weapons), between other terms should apply. As in fact, all bombing may be perverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't think Everness's remark was directed to you...
> You stated clearly what you think of so-called "intelligent bombing"...
Click to expand...


----------



## Fernando

"Intelligent" bombs kill civilians.

"Non-intelligent" kill even more civilians.

I vote for "intelligent" bombs (in the event that bombs had to be used, of course).


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:


> "Intelligent" bombs kill civilians.
> 
> "Non-intelligent" kill even more civilians.
> 
> I vote for "intelligent" bombs (in the event that bombs had to be used, of course).


 
Why they should be used at all?


----------



## loladamore

diseña said:


> Was the Oklahoma City Bombing or 9/11 good for the US economy?


 
No, but it might well have helped the British economy. Britain makes a tidy profit out of the arms trade and I gather that Russia and France make a fair bit, too. According to *these (not very up-to-date) figures*, the US makes the most out of the arms industry, but there are other countries that do quite well, thank you very much.

As I said in my previous post, bombing is good for the *arms industry*. I don't think it is just the US economy that benefits. Several countries benefit - or rather, _some people_ in several countries benefit.


----------



## claudine2006

diseña said:


> I wouldn't say so. Just seems like a crass generalization to me.


As you prefer, if you want I can say that by chance every time US economy is going down, we have a new war and US bombs are in the name of democracy.


----------



## diseña

loladamore said:


> No, but it might well have helped the British economy. Britain makes an tidy profit out of the arms trade and I gather that Russia and France make a fair bit, too. According to these (not very up-to-date) figures, the US makes the most out of the arms industry, but other countries do quite well, thank you.
> 
> As I said in my previous post, bombing is good for the arms industry. I don't think it is just the US economy that benefits. Several countries benefit - or rather, _some people_ in several countries benefit.


Lola, I agree with everything you've said, especially the last sentence.


----------



## diseña

claudine2006 said:


> As you prefer, if you want I can say that by chance every time US economy is going down, we have a new war and US bombs are in the name of democracy.


If you think that the United States of America is the only country or entity that ever profits from bombing then maybe you should take off those blinkered anti-US glasses just for a couple of seconds.

If the thread was entitled "What is torture good for?", maybe you'd just want to talk about Guantanamo Bay and casually ignore any other kind of torture that goes on in the world.


----------



## claudine2006

diseña said:


> If you think that the United States of America is the only country or entity that ever profits from bombing then maybe you should take off those blinkered anti-US glasses just for a couple of seconds.
> 
> If the thread was entitled "What is torture good for?", maybe you'd just want to talk about Guantanamo Bay and casually ignore any other kind of torture that goes on in the world.


Not the only one, of course, but surely the one who gets more benefits. 
I don't wear any anti-US glasses, I don't need special glasses to see what's happening. 
There are other countries that use torture, of course (and unluckily), but I've never hear another country using torture saying it's "civilized".


----------



## Maja

Victoria32 said:


> *Bombing campaigns don't create peace, they create death, hatred and despair!*


Here, here!!!


----------



## Maja

I am also a "survivor" of NATO bombing and I must say that in that respect,  Nataša and I are the most competent to talk about the aftermath of  bombing and it is DISASTROUS!!!

I absolutely agree with everything  Nataša said (obviously )!

As to the part that "they" are "helping" overturning the  power or "saving" someone, I may be naive but my policy is: Mind your own  freakin' business!!! We have a saying in Serbia that goes smt like: "Clean your  own yard first!!!"
If we are talking about US, and they are, after all, the  ones that started it all (every single time!!!), I think that they should  resolve their own problems first. Just see "Crash" (I lived for a year in the  states so I know what I am talking about!!!).
  They dared to trow a NUCLEAR BOMB at other people!!! UNFORGIVABLE!!! 
  Then Korea, Viet Nam, Golf War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.... (see  also "Wag the dog").
  If anyone REALLY thinks that they are doing it all for the peace and  harmony, they are more naive then I am!

  I rest my case!


----------



## Fernando

So, I assume you endorse the behaviour of Dutch UN forces in Sbrenica. They stayed aside while some Serbians "cleaned their own yard".

Belgians and French did not bomb while hutus and tutsis "cleaned their own yard". 

Somalians are "cleaning their own yard". 

Iraqis were "cleaning their own yard" in Kuwait, Kurdistan, etc.

North Koreans and North Vietnamese were also "cleaning their own yard".

Japaneses were "cleaning their own yard" in Philippines, Korea and SE Asia.

Afghanis were "cleaning their own yard" (apparently, they had bought the Twin Towers).

And then came the evil Americans and began bombing, what the hell were they doing there?


----------



## Maja

Fernando said:


> So, I assume you endorse the behaviour of Dutch UN forces in Sbrenica. They stayed aside while some Serbians "cleaned their own yard".


Just a little correction: Serbians are people who live in Serbia (citizens of  Serbia); Serbs are nationality!


----------



## Fernando

Maja said:


> Just a little correction: Serbians are people who live in Serbia (citizens of  Serbia); Serbs are nationality!



Agreed.


----------



## Maja

Fernando said:


> So, I assume you endorse the behaviour of Dutch UN forces in Sbrenica. They stayed aside while some Serbians "cleaned their own yard".
> Belgians and French did not bomb while hutus and tutsis "cleaned their own yard".
> Somalians are "cleaning their own yard".
> Iraqis were "cleaning their own yard" in Kuwait, Kurdistan, etc.
> North Koreans and North Vietnamese were also "cleaning their own yard".
> Japaneses were "cleaning their own yard" in Philippines, Korea and SE Asia.
> Afghanis were "cleaning their own yard" (apparently, they had bought the Twin Towers).
> And then came the evil Americans and began bombing, what the hell were they doing there?


  I think that you are missing  a point here!!! 
First of all, you can't believe EVERYTHING you hear on the telly (the reason for bombing Iraq was that they apparently "HAD" nuclear weapon, and than it turned out they hadn't!!!).
Second of all, you are NAMING entire countries and nations behind attacks that were committed by certain military or terrorist groups like "Afghanistan attacked America", which is not only politically incorrect, but also illogical!
And even if we presume that the situation IS as you claim, the US, in that case, would have had a justifiable reason ONLY to attack Afghanistan (if Bin Laden was an Afghani President and if he openly declared war to US). 
Terrorist groups "claim" the  attacks they commit in their own name!!!
Your line of reasoning is that UK  should have attacked Ireland because of IRA or even the US (as they are  getting some financial support from their sympathizers  overseas)???
And the third, I really fail to see how the UN mission in BiH has to do with anything??? Presence of UN forces, as far as I know, in any war-affected area has to be consented by all sides. When they come, their job IS to protect civilians and prevent warfare if possible. So Dutch UN forces fail in their duty in Srebrenica, but that is not the issue here!!!


----------



## GenJen54

Any further post that contains:

ALL CAPS;
language that sounds like "screaming;"
name calling of any kind (stupid, etc.)

will be deleted immediately. 

Please remember that while I don't know we can remain "helpful and collaborative" in this thread, with more effort, we can achieve a *respectful and cordial tone*.

Also, please remember the topic of this thread is not about "who" is doing said bombing - it is whether *bombing in general* is an effective means of achieving peace. In other words, it's not a free ride to finger-point at other countries and governments we happen not to like and/or agree with.


----------



## Fernando

Maja said:


> First of all, you can't believe EVERYTHING you hear on the telly (the reason for bombing Iraq was that they apparently "HAD" nuclear weapon, and than it turned out they hadn't!!!).




In my telly, US did never claim that Iraq had nukes, but WMD. I do not endorse US SECOND invasion of Iraq even if I thought they had WMD (along with everybody).



Maja said:


> And even if we presume that the situation IS as you claim, the US, in that case, would have had a justifiable reason ONLY to attack Afghanistan (if Bin Laden was an Afghani President and if he openly declared war to US).



Bin Laden was second-in-command after Omar.



Maja said:


> Your line of reasoning is that UK  should have attacked Ireland because of IRA or even the US ([/COLOR][/SIZE]





Maja said:


> as they are  getting some financial support from their sympathizers  overseas)???




I do not remember the Irish Prime Minister praising IRA actions or Clinton naming IRA leader as vice-president, but certainly, UK had good reasons to ask for more help in its fight against IRA.



Maja said:


> And the third, I really fail to see how the UN mission in BiH has to do with anything??? Presence of UN forces, as far as I know, in any war-affected area has to be consented by all sides. When they come, their job IS to protect civilians and prevent warfare if possible. So Dutch UN forces fail in their duty in Srebrenica, but that is not the issue here!!!



It has to do because UN mission failed. NATO decided to bomb (rightly or not) after huge failure of diplomacy and UN to reach an agreement. If presence of UN forces has to be consented by all sides, which is the use of UN? Sit and watch while the slaughter goes on?

Want the Lord I will be wrong, but I foresee UN retiring for Lebanon after the first big attack. I foresee Hezbollah sending rockets again on Israel cities. What is Israel suppossed to do?


----------



## Kelly B

What is bombing good for? Destroying things, of course - buildings, relationships, and lives. 

I do think there are instances when it is justifiable. I also think, however, that most Americans are too isolated from the results of war to make that judgement with any accuracy. We haven't been through it on any grand scale, lately, and we have an all-volunteer military, so most of us don't suffer the consequences of our actions.


----------



## ElaineG

Bombing is horrible for the bombed. My city was bombed 5 years ago yesterday, and few of us are completely "over" that one day -- so I can only imagine the effect of living with days, months or years of bombing. Horrendous.

I know too, that bombing doesn't bring peace. After my city was bombed, and my friends killed, etc. etc., I wanted revenge. I am a veteran of many peace marches, going back to being a babe-in-arms against the Viet Nam War. No one in my family has ever supported any act of American military interventionism, from mining the harbors in Nicaragua to taking out pharmaceutical plants in the Sudan. But we all supported the war in Afghanistan, because that is what bombing people does, it creates hatred and a desire for action among the bombed.

That said, there is another side to the story. Not bombing can be bad too. There is the famous heartbreaking historical conundrum (or not-so conundrum as the case may be) of why the Allies didn't bomb the rail routes that they knew the Nazis were using to transport millions of Jews and others to death camps during WWII. They didn't bomb the death camps themselves, when any hiccup in the German death machine could have saved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives.

I worked for a period in post-genocide Rwanda. The consequences of inaction there were devastating. The world let the Rwandans clean their own yard, and pussyfooted about using the word genocide to describe the wholesale slaughter of (at least) hundreds of thousands Tutsis, because to use the word genocide would have mandated action. 

Could bombs have helped there? I'm not sure, because the killing was so localized, and low-tech -- there were no train lines to destroy. But bombing the radio stations that incited the Hutu youth to mayhem would have been a start.

All I know for sure is that letting the Rwandans "clean their own yard" is one of the most shameful episodes in recent history and makes a mockery of every international norm against genocide that all of our countries supposedly subscribe to. However, as a citizen of a superpower, that shame falls more on my head than on that of say, a Serbian.

So, bombing is evil, but not bombing can be evil too. And a bomb flown into a skyscraper or driven into an embassy or a hotel or set off in a subway or a commuter train by a terrorist is just as evil as a bomb dropped by a plane piloted by a soldier in a superpower's army.


----------



## Victoria32

Fernando said:


> Just to say that US did not use carpet bombing in Vietnam War. As far as I know, they did not carpet bombed Hanoi.


But they did use 'Agent Orange'... (yes, I know that's "off-topic" but not very, so Mods please let me make that point! Destruction is still destruction...)




Fernando said:


> Afghanis were "cleaning their own yard" (apparently, they had bought the Twin Towers).


Do you know that to be true, Fernando? I have read so much over the last 5 years about it, yet I've never heard _that_ story! 



ElaineG said:


> ....
> 
> So, bombing is evil, but not bombing can be evil too. And a bomb flown into a skyscraper or driven into an embassy or a hotel or set off in a subway or a commuter train by a terrorist is just as evil as a bomb dropped by a plane piloted by a soldier in a superpower's army.


Whatever the truth about the events of 911, and I don't expect to live long enough to have it all come out (I recently read an article in which the FBI *admitted* that there is no more evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the event than there is of Britney Spears' guilt!) bombing Afghanistan was clearly the wrong thing to do.
Pretzeldent W., claimed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were linked to 911. I think all but the most die-hard Neocon is now willing to admit that was a *lie.*
So, no, admitted vengefulness aside, there is no good reason to bomb anyone. But if you do, it's a good idea to make sure you have the right target first!


----------



## Maja

Great post Elaine!!!



ElaineG said:


> Bombing is horrible for the bombed. My city was bombed 5 years ago yesterday, and few of us are completely "over" that one day -- so I can only imagine the effect of living with days, months or years of bombing. Horrendous.


 For us, 78 days!!!!!!!



ElaineG said:


> That said, there is another side to the story. Not bombing can be bad too. There is the famous heartbreaking historical conundrum (or not-so conundrum as the case may be) of why the Allies didn't bomb the rail routes that they knew the Nazis were using to transport millions of Jews and others to death camps during WWII. They didn't bomb the death camps themselves, when any hiccup in the German death machine could have saved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives.


I totally agree that their "contribution" to justice is selective!!! In some situations they (by they I mean superpowers) do interfere, in others they do nothing!!! In some situations they are all for punishing crimes, in others they turn a blind eye! 
Why? Because their  agenda is other then contributing to peace!!! At least, that is my  opinion!



ElaineG said:


> Could bombs have helped there? I'm not sure, because the killing was so localized, and low-tech -- there were no train lines to destroy. But bombing the radio stations that incited the Hutu youth to mayhem would have been a start.


  I agree that UN had to  do something regarding Rwanda, but not necessarily bomb them.  


ElaineG said:


> All I know for sure is that letting the Rwandans "clean their own yard" is one of the most shameful episodes in recent history and makes a mockery of every international norm against genocide that all of our countries supposedly subscribe to. However, as a citizen of a superpower, that shame falls more on my head than on that of say, a Serbian.


 As to "clean your own  yard", I see that I am quoted a lot . I only meant that US (and others) should take care of their own business first rather then interfere in the interior policy of another country!!! 
*
Of  course, I am against all war, and I am for UN mediatory role in every  conflict rather then the use of force!!!*

 I may be a bit touchy on the subject as my country was bombed, but I hope that it is understandable!!! Just like every American is when you mention 9/11, although the situation wasn't similar.


----------



## Maja

Fernando said:


> I do not remember the Irish Prime Minister praising IRA actions or Clinton naming IRA leader as vice-president, but certainly, UK had good reasons to ask for more  help in its fight against IRA.


Key word: asking for  help!!!


Fernando said:


> It has to do because UN mission failed. NATO decided to bomb (rightly or not) after huge failure of diplomacy and UN to reach an agreement. If presence of UN forces has to be consented by all sides, which is the use of UN? Sit and watch while the slaughter goes on?


I think that you might have confused things. We are talking about NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999 which had nothing to do with Srebrenica and it happened 4 years later!


----------



## cuchuflete

Despite GenJen's request to stay on topic, that seems beyond the willingness or ability of most people.  The thread will either return to the topic, or be closed.  You are welcome to open threads on other topics appropriate to this forum.  Please just read the sticky thread at the top of the CD forum menu, and start new conversations.

Thanks,
cuchuflete


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Tsoman said:


> I don't know about the virginity thing, but aerial bombing campaigns do hasten peace. During the first gulf war, if the coalition forces didn't bomb the Iraqi forces, the war would have lasted longer. There are other examples.



The only thing the bombing during both Iraqi wars proved was that the US had the far superior technology, not they were right.

TWhich reminds me of a Chinesse  saying: War does not prove who is right, only who is left.

Noel Acevedo


----------



## Tsoman

I didn't say anyone was right. I'm just talking about the uses of bombs.

This forum is obsessed with moralizing


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> I didn't say anyone was right. I'm just talking about the uses of bombs.
> 
> This forum is obsessed with moralizing


In my opinion bombing is a moral issue and that answers the question "what is bombing good for"?

Absolutely damn nothing that justifies the* evil* of it!


----------



## Tsoman

Victoria32 said:


> In my opinion bombing is a moral issue and that answers the question "what is bombing good for"?
> 
> Absolutely damn nothing that justifies the* evil* of it!



I thought it was a tactical question.


----------



## danielfranco

I always get confused with those military terms... I thought carpet bombing was a strategic decision rather than a tactical one...


----------



## Tsoman

Yea, I guess carpet bombing would be more strategic than tactical.

I think that strategic bombing would be targeting industry, infrastructure, resources, civilians, etc  or any type of terror bombing

tactical bombing (as far as I know) would be the bombing of enemy military units on the battlefield


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> In my opinion bombing is a moral issue and that answers the question "what is bombing good for"?
> 
> Absolutely damn nothing that justifies the* evil* of it!



You may be right, but I will need some help to be sure I understand.  Let's leave aside current affairs and "news", as these deserve threads of their own, or not, and look at an historical case:  The bombing of English cities during WWII, early in that war.

I don't think there will be too much controversy about these statements, but one never knows...

Germany bombed English cities, causing damage to both military and civilian targets.

England, while attempting to intercept and shoot down the bombers and their fighter escorts (self-defense anybody?), also retaliated by bombing German cities.

Are there moral questions about retaliating in wartime?  
Should the English have done something else, say, writing polite letters asking that their opponent cease and desist? (It's not likely that would have worked.)
Should they have used slingshots and peashooters instead of bombs? (We have already agreed that all wartime weapons do horrible things, like maim and kill and destroy, so I don't think the weapon of choice matters, other than for efficiency to accomplish a task.  Killing is generally not good, so we don't have to debate that for a week, other than to note that self-defense may lead us to it.)

Let's see if we can keep the emotions and political tirades out for a while, and just wrestle with these questions.


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> You may be right, but I will need some help to be sure I understand. Let's leave aside current affairs and "news", as these deserve threads of their own, or not, and look at an historical case: The bombing of English cities during WWII, early in that war.
> 
> I don't think there will be too much controversy about these statements, but one never knows...
> 
> Germany bombed English cities, causing damage to both military and civilian targets.
> 
> England, while attempting to intercept and shoot down the bombers and their fighter escorts (self-defense anybody?), also retaliated by bombing German cities.
> 
> Are there moral questions about retaliating in wartime?
> Should the English have done something else, say, writing polite letters asking that their opponent cease and desist? (It's not likely that would have worked.)
> Should they have used slingshots and peashooters instead of bombs? (We have already agreed that all wartime weapons do horrible things, like maim and kill and destroy, so I don't think the weapon of choice matters, other than for efficiency to accomplish a task. Killing is generally not good, so we don't have to debate that for a week, other than to note that self-defense may lead us to it.)
> 
> Let's see if we can keep the emotions and political tirades out for a while, and just wrestle with these questions.


 
Chuchu , how can you expect from anyone to talk calmly and without emotions about one so provocative and emotional topic? Besides, all of here, we are only humans, and many of us or were bombed or were the bombers, some of us even both. If we try not to put any emotions in a descussion, then all you can get is a long list of post saying one or two sentences, like: Bombing is terrible. Bombing is not good. Bombing is good, sometimes. etc. This wouldn't have any sense at all. If you mods don't want people to get emotional, then don't let such provocative questions to be put.

As far as England is concerned, yes. They should have done what they did, and what everyone who is attacked does - defend. My country defended with a 100 years older weapons, yet we got down two of your "invisible planes" (so much of invisibility). I wouldn't know what to say about bombing civilian targets, since there were cities completely erased by allies bombing in WWII (one of them my hometown, just for the record). Was it necessary? No. But nontheless it was done. 
But WWII does not surprise me so much. What surprises me and makes me sick is that in almost 70 years, humanity did not learn anything. They only found new ways of destroying each other. Let's see how longer we, as a humans would last. If we continue with this rithym, I don't think we'll inhabit this planet for a long time.


----------



## ireney

Bombing is good for having to rebuild half of Piraeus and all of its harbour (since it was bombed by the Italians [not the most accurate bombing], the Germans and then the Allies when we were occupied). People were killed, houses were levelled, lamenting songs were written.

If you think it logically, well, yes, it makes sense. Big important harbours like Piraeus get bombed. 
If you think of the citizens of Piraeus, many of who had either fought on the side of the Allies or had family members who had fought on the side of the Allies, you can bet they felt... bitter.

However let us use cold logic. No one actually levelled Piraeus right? In fact people from both sides actually aimed at the harbour (which was finally blown away from the Germans when they were retreating so at long last it was destroyed for good!).

Using this cold logic, some bombings aimed where they should be aimed are.. useful. During a war though. When killing some innocents on the side cannot be helped. In other cases one should at least have the guts to say that I want certain things to occur and I value the life of my soldiers more than the life of the innocents that are going to die if bombing is my first option in an assault (it's not, for instance, as if there _was_ any viable alternative to bombing Piraeus)

Saying that you want to liberate someone by bombing him and his family and the infrastructure of his country is hypocritical. You don't really care for his life really, especially if you call him a "collateral damage". Doctors, policemen and maybe even officers in time of war, have the right to use terms that help them detach their selves from the people they see dying, dead or they send to their deaths. Soldiers have the need to dehumanise the enemy in order to be able to kill him. No other one has the right to call dead humans anything other than what they are.


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:


> *Saying that you want to liberate someone by bombing him and his family and the infrastructure of his country is hypocritical. You don't really care for his life really, especially if you call him a "collateral damage".* Doctors, policemen and maybe even officers in time of war, have the right need to use terms that help them detach their selves from the people they see dying, dead or they send to their deaths. Soldiers *have the need* to dehumanise the enemy in order to be able to kill him. No other one has the right to call dead humans anything other than what they are.


 
I agree a 100 percent with what I bolded. Well, with the rest, too, taking into accout little change I made.


----------



## don maico

Perhaps we should read this link,its very sobering:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm


----------



## natasha2000

don maico said:


> Perhaps we should read this link,its very sobering:
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm


 
After seeing this, is there anybody left who might still claim that bombing sometimes is ok?

Very cute invention, firestorms...
This one especially makes your hair go up and feel chills down yur back:



> Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and *people were sucked into the fire*.


 
 
and there's more:



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dresden was a center of cultural and architectural wonders, including the famous Zwinger Museum and Palace and the cathedral, the Frauenkirche. *There were no military objectives* of any consequence in the city - *its destruction could do nothing to weaken the Nazi war machine.*


 
And this one is particulary cruel:



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Churchill's goal in Europe was not only to destroy the military machine of Britain's imperialist rival - Germany - but to stop the advance of the Soviet Union. *With the latter in mind, he decided to bomb Dresden...*


 
So much about the noble aims of bombing...[/FONT]
[/FONT]


----------



## Maja

ireney said:


> Saying that you want to liberate someone by bombing him and his family and the infrastructure of his country is hypocritical. You don't really care for his life, especially if you call him a "collateral damage".


I second that!


----------

