• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Shock and Awe.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: polm
look I am NOT arguing our reasons for going to war.

I am simply stating that DROPPING 400 Bombs in Bagdad on day 1 ALONE, is a slaughter!! I am not going to support a war that happens like this.

At some point we have to draw the line as to how we conduct our military operations.
Click to expand...

If there were 400 legit military targets there (which there probably are), would you still be against it? And, tomahawks don't "drop." You're thinking B-52 carpet-bombing, reality is precision.
 
Originally posted by: polm
look I am NOT arguing our reasons for going to war.

I am simply stating that DROPPING 400 Bombs in Bagdad on day 1 ALONE, is a slaughter!! I am not going to support a war that happens like this.

At some point we have to draw the line as to how we conduct our military operations.
Click to expand...

what do you suggest? that we drop 400 bombs over the course of 400 days? How about just one 'big-ass' bomb?
 
Originally posted by: p0ntif
Originally posted by: polm
look I am NOT arguing our reasons for going to war.

I am simply stating that DROPPING 400 Bombs in Bagdad on day 1 ALONE, is a slaughter!! I am not going to support a war that happens like this.

At some point we have to draw the line as to how we conduct our military operations.
Click to expand...

what do you suggest? that we drop 400 bombs over the course of 400 days? How about just one 'big-ass' bomb?
Click to expand...

They discontinued the big-ass bomb in '98 for the recent gigantic implonitron bomb.
 
Originally posted by: polm
look I am NOT arguing our reasons for going to war.

I am simply stating that DROPPING 400 Bombs in Bagdad on day 1 ALONE, is a slaughter!! I am not going to support a war that happens like this.

At some point we have to draw the line as to how we conduct our military operations.
Click to expand...

Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.

Hitting with overwhelming force is a very good strategy. This doesn't mean they will be randomly bombing houses. It's just a threat/plan to take out as much of Iraq's command structure as quickly as possible.

You'd rather have us use harsh language?
 
Is this any different that our standard military doctrine for the last few years? The Powell Doctrine states that we go in with overwhelming force. You also know Saddam has the ability to end this without a single shot.....let's not forget that.....😉
 
The only true innocents in Iraq are the children. Every adult man and woman in Iraq is guilty for not doing everything humanly possible to take down Saddam's regime. There are some who fight against the regime but most of those are already dead, or in prison. If your country is ruled by a warlord who is invading and threatening it's neighbors and persecuting it's own people, you are guilty if you take no action against that regime.

I don't feel any shame about whatever tactics we use over there. I hope we do whatever will hit them the hardest and will be safest for our troops. The Iraqi population supports Saddam Hussein, so they should not be excluded from our wrath when we go in.
 
Originally posted by: polm
look I am NOT arguing our reasons for going to war.

I am simply stating that DROPPING 400 Bombs in Bagdad on day 1 ALONE, is a slaughter!! I am not going to support a war that happens like this.

At some point we have to draw the line as to how we conduct our military operations.
Click to expand...

So, exactly how would you suggest that we do conduct those military operations? Send a soldier up to each target, knock on the door and say "excuse me, Iraqi soldiers, but there's a JDAM on the way, so please kindly vacate the building"? Or how about this: Instead of supporting a military operation that's designed to destroy the enemy's will to fight, why don't you support an operation that's designed to increase their will to fight? That way, we can have even more slaughter, and this time on both sides?

polm, I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have anything close to an informed opinion on military tactics/strategy.
 
Originally posted by: Aceshigh
The only true innocents in Iraq are the children. Every adult man and woman in Iraq is guilty for not doing everything humanly possible to take down Saddam's regime. There are some who fight against the regime but most of those are already dead, or in prison. If your country is ruled by a warlord who is invading and threatening it's neighbors and persecuting it's own people, you are guilty if you take no action against that regime.

I don't feel any shame about whatever tactics we use over there. I hope we do whatever will hit them the hardest and will be safest for our troops. The Iraqi population supports Saddam Hussein, so they should not be excluded from our wrath when we go in.
Click to expand...

I suppose I understand your position, but I believe it's a bit harsh. The bold, however, I completely agree with.
 
Originally posted by: Aceshigh
The only true innocents in Iraq are the children. Every adult man and woman in Iraq is guilty for not doing everything humanly possible to take down Saddam's regime. There are some who fight against the regime but most of those are already dead, or in prison. If your country is ruled by a warlord who is invading and threatening it's neighbors and persecuting it's own people, you are guilty if you take no action against that regime.

I don't feel any shame about whatever tactics we use over there. I hope we do whatever will hit them the hardest and will be safest for our troops. The Iraqi population supports Saddam Hussein, so they should not be excluded from our wrath when we go in.
Click to expand...

I think you're being too harsh on the civilian population. Every man and woman there have children and loved ones to think about. It's easy to say that the civilian population should rise up and overthrow Saddam, but in reality, there are many more concerns to think about.
 
I think you're right, I was being a bit harsh. It just ticks me off when I see how glowingly Iraqi civilians talk about Saddam and how supportive they are of him overall.

This whole mess wouldn't even be happening if they didn't allow him to be in power. Revolutions happen all the time. If a populace wants to be rid of a leader, no amount of military can really stop a rebellion.
 
Originally posted by: Aceshigh
I think you're right, I was being a bit harsh. It just ticks me off when I see how glowingly Iraqi civilians talk about Saddam and how supportive they are of him overall.

This whole mess wouldn't even be happening if they didn't allow him to be in power. Revolutions happen all the time. If a populace wants to be rid of a leader, no amount of military can really stop a rebellion.
Click to expand...

Well, i think that Saddam has done a good enough job of weeding out dissent that the people are completely brainwashed - either you support the regime or die.
 
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.
Click to expand...

This is the one of the big problems I have with this war. If the U.S. has classified intel regarding locations of WMD factories and other no-no's, fine, blow those facilities away with overwhelming force. What I don't agree with is taking out other government and military buildings, "just because". I was reading in Newsweek last week that one of the objectives is basically to kill Saddam. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to decide which foreign leaders get to stay and which get to go.
 
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.
Click to expand...

This is the one of the big problems I have with this war. If the U.S. has classified intel regarding locations of WMD factories and other no-no's, fine, blow those facilities away with overwhelming force. What I don't agree with is taking out other government and military buildings, "just because". I was reading in Newsweek last week that one of the objectives is basically to kill Saddam. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to decide which foreign leaders get to stay and which get to go.
Click to expand...

I think that the fact that Saddam controls the country coupled with the fact that they have justified action by violating UN treaties directly links Saddam to the WMD and therefore qualifies him and his regime as a target.
 
Send some Special Ops down there take out the leader then be done with it that man is nothing but a deranged idiot any ways...
 
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.
Click to expand...

This is the one of the big problems I have with this war. If the U.S. has classified intel regarding locations of WMD factories and other no-no's, fine, blow those facilities away with overwhelming force. What I don't agree with is taking out other government and military buildings, "just because". I was reading in Newsweek last week that one of the objectives is basically to kill Saddam. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to decide which foreign leaders get to stay and which get to go.
Click to expand...

Um, stop and think for a moment about the part in bold that you have posted. Now picture that you're the US, going to war to remove a threat to national security, and that you do blow away the appropriate WMD facilities, yet leave everything else in Iraq intact. At the end of the day, smug in your overwhelming superiority, you go home, secure in the knowledge that the threat has been removed. Yet.. the government of Iraq is still there, with the same people and motivations in place. Where will you be in a couple of years?
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.
Click to expand...

This is the one of the big problems I have with this war. If the U.S. has classified intel regarding locations of WMD factories and other no-no's, fine, blow those facilities away with overwhelming force. What I don't agree with is taking out other government and military buildings, "just because". I was reading in Newsweek last week that one of the objectives is basically to kill Saddam. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to decide which foreign leaders get to stay and which get to go.
Click to expand...

Um, stop and think for a moment about the part in bold that you have posted. Now picture that you're the US, going to war to remove a threat to national security, and that you do blow away the appropriate WMD facilities, yet leave everything else in Iraq intact. At the end of the day, smug in your overwhelming superiority, you go home, secure in the knowledge that the threat has been removed. Yet.. the government of Iraq is still there, with the same people and motivations in place. Where will you be in a couple of years?
Click to expand...

Hey that sounds familiar.....🙂
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Using 400 precision munitions to target government and military buildings in the first day isn't a slaughter. And I hope they do conduct the war in this way, a shorter war means less civillian casualties and less american casualties.
Click to expand...

This is the one of the big problems I have with this war. If the U.S. has classified intel regarding locations of WMD factories and other no-no's, fine, blow those facilities away with overwhelming force. What I don't agree with is taking out other government and military buildings, "just because". I was reading in Newsweek last week that one of the objectives is basically to kill Saddam. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to decide which foreign leaders get to stay and which get to go.
Click to expand...

Um, stop and think for a moment about the part in bold that you have posted. Now picture that you're the US, going to war to remove a threat to national security, and that you do blow away the appropriate WMD facilities, yet leave everything else in Iraq intact. At the end of the day, smug in your overwhelming superiority, you go home, secure in the knowledge that the threat has been removed. Yet.. the government of Iraq is still there, with the same people and motivations in place. Where will you be in a couple of years?
Click to expand...

Exactly what my response would have been. Plus "just because"? When you declare war on a nation their government and military are who you should be targeting!
 
On the first day alone, 300 to 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles would be launched, more than were launched during the entire 40 days of the Gulf War.
Click to expand...

i like this blatantly misused fact. according to the Christian Science Monitor, which i found by you google search, just had to go a couple pages to get past the retarded newspapers. 325 cruise missiles were launched on the first day of the Gulf War, the only ones that were fired in the conflict

you should not be concentrating on the method of operation of the war, but what causes the war and it's aftermath. Leave the military planning to the experts.
 
umm if and when we go to war I surely hope that we hold nothing back. It is mot fair to our troops to not do EVERYTHING in our power to prepare the way for them. I can guarantee you thatIraq wont be holding back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top