The US Military only has a 7% chance of defeating ISIS!

We no longer use Dresden style firebombing.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they commit acts of barbarism?

 

That is why we have so much trouble winning wars after WW2.

 

My response was to what you actually posted.

- - - Updated - - -

So descending into barbarism is the only "solution"?

 

No...using appropriate tactics and strategy no matter the blood spilled is the only solution to win wars. handicapping your military with these idiotic rules prevents them from doing their jobs effectively, and efficiently.

 

That only holds true as long as Obama and Hil LIAR y are in command .

 

Dresden had to be bombed, it was a critical military target at the time. Allowing the Nazis to resupply and reinforce through Dresden and sacrificing allied troops to save architectural landmarks and enemy civilians would have been immoral.

 

Dehumanizing our own troops is another form of handicapping since they will have a problem re-assimilating back into civilian life afterwards.

 

Winning does not dehumanize anyone.

 

The industrial areas of Dresden were not targeted by the bombing thereby nullifying the allegation that it was "critical military target".

- - - Updated - - -

Descending to the same level of barbarism as ISIS is dehumanizing.

 

The "Greeks, Persians, Romans, Christians and Muslims" generally used whatever tactics and strategies they thought would achieve victory and avoid defeat. A battle by battle review would undoubtedly reveal examples a return to the far more traditional tribal approach to war. Civilization and civilized warfare are recent developments.

Humans have been at war with each other from the beginning.

 

So you answered your own question as far as barbarism is concerned.

Why do you want to lower our nation to the same level of barbarism? What do we gain by becoming barbarians? How does that equate with "our values"?

 

I do see how repeating something makes it more true.... you are simply repeating the typical peacenick drivel.

 

Resorting to derogatory remarks is a de facto concession of your position.

Have a nice day!

 

Attacking military targets is not barbarism. Nations at war may and should always follow the doctrine of military necessity.

For instance, the Dresden bombing and the destruction of Hiroshima were not acts of barbarism. Surely you know that?

- - - Updated - - -

Being called a "peacenik" is not derogatory. I prefer peace - I am a proud peacenik too. Be proud! Comrade!

 

Whether that is true or not depends a lot on your perspective

Imo, it is extremely difficult to draw bright lines on this issue
Hiroshima and dresden did have military rationales
But were also conceived and executed to inflict terror and vindictive retribution
As a part of that military strategy
Imo the same was true of the 9-11 attacks
Which is why many people in the middle east look at 9-11
As a chickens coming home to roost event

The fact is that even barbarism can have a perverse strategic logic

 

I agree and what is worse is that it is an easy path to take if you believe that you have been "wronged".

But the lessons of history and Sun Tzu tell us that reacting from emotion is rarely a successful strategy.

Never fight the battle your enemy wants on the field of his choosing.

 

Sadly, the people at large are enthusiastic about fighting THAT battle
And so advocating an emotional response easily becomes grist for the demagogic mill

 

Unfortunately you are correct.

The sane and prudent course of action is rarely adopted and as a result many lives are lost.

 

The Trade Center was of no significant military importance. Dresden was a critical military target at the time.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly military targets, probably not as significant for the specific military assets that were destroyed.

Given that Japanese strategic thinking at the time was that an invasion might well fail if American troops were met with great masses of armed civilians including women and children it was critical to convince them to surrender.

The 2 nuclear attacks were barely enough to allow the emperor to issue the command to surrender. The imperial palace was attacked and occupied by the military faction that opposed surrender in an attempt to prevent surrender.

The emperor of Japan was less suicidal than Hitler - a very lucky break for Japan.

 

Enthusiasm for another ME war is, for the most part, limited to some detached bipartisan leaders in Washington.

The peace movement that will follow anther war will make the 60s peaceniks look like war hawks. Public support will shrink to zero very quickly.

 

I was just pointing out that when we went in to Iraq in 2003 G.W. Bush (43) went to war with Clinton's military, only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground were as during the first Gulf war G.H. Bush (41) went to war with Reagan's military and was able to put close to 500,000 American boots on the ground.

In 2003 Bush's generals warned Bush that 200,000 Americans can defeat Saddam's military and accomplish the mission of regime change but it's going to take a minimum of 400,000 American troops to occupy Iraq after the mission was accomplished. The Weinberger/Powell Doctrine called for 400,000 troops and Bush ignored his generals and the Weinberger/Powell Doctrines.

As then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the military you have."

The rest is history, what followed in Iraq was looting and an insurrection because there weren't enough troops to occupy Iraq.

At the end of WW ll in Europe there was an American or British or Soviet soldier standing post on just about every street corner in Germany. There were more occupation soldiers than there were actual combat soldiers who were on the battlefield actually fighting the Germans before Germany surrendered. The U.S. Army troops that were in Europe during the war were about 90% support troops not combat troops.

G.W. Bush made more than a few mistakes, he didn't listen to his military advisers. Ignored the Weinberger and Powell Doctrines and one big mistake the Iraqi military was disbanded.

When France surrendered during WW ll even Hitler was smart enough to leave most of the French army and navy intact. When the American military landed in North Africa in 1942 (Operation Torch) it wasn't German troops that were shooting at the Americans but French soldiers.

In 1942 the French Governor of New Caledonia in the South West Pacific wouldn't allow the U.S. military to come ashore and establish a forward operating base. When Admiral Nimitz put Admiral Halsey in charge of the navy in the South West Pacific the first thing Halsey did was to send his personal Marine rifle platoon ashore and threw the French Governor out on the street and took over the Governor's home as Halsey's HQ's.

Even in French Indochina the Japanese occupation forces left the French colonial army intact and weren't disarmed until 1945.

 

Good post. I am no defender of either Bush.