Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 09:01 PM

mr. superbad: "everything i've read about this indicates the exact opposite with careful targetting of communication centers and the upper ranks of the Iraqi army in order to make the enemy surrender. Killing a ton of people in Baghdad is the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve."

Regardless of what must be meticulously planned by the US, history shows inevitable tragedy and atrocities:
From Dresden To Baghdad: 58 Years Of "Shock And Awe"

emphryio · 02-21-2003, 09:23 PM

Well that was an interesting article. Mickey Z is a strange name for a journalist.

It's nice to have you here gqtie.

Mr. Superbad · 02-21-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
Regardless of what must be meticulously planned by the US, history shows inevitable tragedy and atrocities:
From Dresden To Baghdad: 58 Years Of "Shock And Awe"

Wow, that pretty much says the same thing as the sfgate article. Are they leeching off the same sources? Or is there someone in the administration giving the "real" version of the war plan to only anti-war reporters for some reason?

Wow, firebombing and the a-bombs on japan killed a lot of people? No shit? I guess that means we are going to do the same thing in Iraq! Or.. err.. what the hell is the point of bringing that up?

Danya · 02-21-2003, 09:37 PM

Do your own search on Shock and Awe. Tell me how you drop 800 bombs on a city without killing thousands of civilians? The war party has already covered themselves by pointing the finger at Saddam and saying he will hide behind innocent people. But that won't stop us from killing them anyway. During the Gulf War they knowingly targeted a bomb shelter full of children and women..because they claimed there was a communications center below it. They declined to offer any proof to back this up.

The Pentagon said themselves there will be no place to hide from these bombs. Exactly what does that mean? I do believe they will plan to be specific as well, as they said, by targeting water supplies and bridges, etc. If the bombs were so smart you would only need one.

This is not just attack...it's overkill. And I bet Saddam get's away just like bin Laden did and the Middle East television stations will have plenty to say about how many deaths we've caused. If they're lucky they'll get a few pics and plaster them all over their news. The terrorists should be getting a fresh new influx of volunteers after that.

Mr. Superbad · 02-21-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danya
Do your own search on Shock and Awe. Tell me how you drop 800 bombs on a city without killing thousands of civilians?

Where do they get this figure? The unnamed pentagon source who seems to be contradicting everything the pentagon has been saying about the upcoming conflict?

Quote:

pentagon said themselves there will be no place to hide from these bombs. Exactly what does that mean?

Source for this? Surely this quote has been reported elsewhere and not taken out of context by reporters with an agenda?

Here's what I've found out about the "shock and awe"

Quote:

"Up to 900 cruise missiles reportedly will be launched in the first two days of any assault, more than during the Desert Storm conflict of 1991. Up to 3,000 bombs will be dropped, all of them precision-guided munitions destined for chosen targets. Military leaders will be targeted so that Iraqi field officers after initial shocks will have no superiors to turn to for orders or intelligence.

The overpowering strategy aims to be lethal, destroying military forces, and demoralizing, convincing Iraqi citizens with AK-47s strapped to their shoulders that resisting allied firepower is not just ill-advised but suicidal."
- source

Notice that nowhere does it say that those 900 cruise missles will be launched only in at Baghdad. Nevermind that blowing up random civilians is an extremely stupid thing to do when they are planning on staying in the country for who knows how long.

Quote:

"You will see simultaneous attacks on hundreds if not thousands of key points. No matter how they try to disperse, a large percentage of the Iraqi senior commanders will be dead in the first few hours," Harlan Ullman, a military analyst at Washington's centre for strategic and international studies, said yesterday. "It's all designed to convince the ordinary Iraqi soldier that his personal situation is hopeless and certainly beyond the control of Saddam and his cronies."
- source

Quote:

"Instead of completely destroying Iraq's infrastructure such as electrical systems and factories, the airstrikes would probably be focused on key military and leadership targets, Krepinevich said."
- source

Quote:

"Their targets are military and government strategic points such as communications centres, anti-aircraft units, missile launchers, airfields, military command posts, munitions depots, tank bases, electricity and water pumping stations and headquarters of the elite Republican Guard."
- source

I could go on like this...

I guess it would be easy misconstrue that into comparing "shock and awe" to the dresden firebombing, or hiroshima. Or saying we are going to "rain down 900 bombs on civilian targets" or whatever. Or they are just reading between the lines, right?

Those articles would be more convincing to me if they didn't lie, insult my intellegence, and weren't obviously written by agenda-driven partisan twits.

Danya · 02-21-2003, 10:30 PM

Gee, I feel so much better getting the latest. The original story came out in January from CBS news. At that time they were talking fewer bombs than what you just posted...your news sources weren't exactly well known. However, they do all basically say the same thing. Almost all the links mention the fact that Baghad will be the target and the sheer number of bombs will be meant not only to keep us from having our ground forces go in but to psychologically get the army under control. Where do you think all the peolpe will be? The last war was on a smaller scale and we killed over 100,000.

What are your estimates for the civilian casualties? And the army you are fighting is really only self defense...they never attacked anyone first. So maybe this time they all should be considered innocent, if not civilians.

I think you're trying to minimize the civilian deaths and I'm sure you think I'm trying to maximize the number. The only difference is I don't feel any of them are necessary to keep us safe.

Quote:

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.....

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.

You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.

CBS

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 11:28 PM

Danya: "And the army you are fighting is really only self defense...they never attacked anyone first. So maybe this time they all should be considered innocent, if not civilians."

Good point.

Harlan Ullman, military strategist, also said: "the planned attack will...take the city down. You get rid of their power, water."

This was done in the first Gulf War.

Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, also said: "But they believe that if you can move fast enough, if you can generate this snowball effect -- this momentum for collapse -- then these plans to turn cities into killing zones won't be able to be executed, because the regime will start to collapse."

So it seems there are possible plans to "rain down...on civilian targets" as you put it, Mr. Superbad.

But, whether civilians are intentional targets or not is irrelevant if there will inevitably be thousands of casualties anyway.

Amen-Moses · 02-22-2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProNihil
I have heard that Saddam Hussein has tortured many people. Think "Marathon Man", think "Midnight Express." I heard that he tortures parents in front of their children and vice versa.

I've heard that German's eat babies as well.

I wonder what tall tales Iraqi children get told about what we get up to.

I wouldn't mind betting that Saddam has never even met one of his political prisioners (well at least before he let the all go a few months ago anyhow) let alone tortured them.

Amen-Moses

ProNihil · 02-22-2003, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

I wouldn't mind betting that Saddam has never even met one of his political prisioners (well at least before he let the all go a few months ago anyhow) let alone tortured them.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses,
I suppose that is to say that if I personally provided someone with, let's say, sulfiric acid, for the express purpose of putting it on another person, that I am not in any way liable for the crime. Comon!

Of course, in all fairness to Saddam, I have only heard about these things through the media and therefore should chalk it all up to political slander and fairy tale spin doctoring. After all, Saddam has the most wonderful record of care and concern for those who inhabit his country.

Nira · 02-22-2003, 02:20 AM

I particularly don�t like the randomness of international politics. The US opposed the ICC, which would lay down a rule of law. It would create a system of checks and balances, holding everyone accountable for their actions.

For instance if Bush starts a war based on deliberately false information (like his father in Iraq W1, tanks on the border), he should be held accountable.

If we got such a system I would be more inclined to believe in the stated goals of democracy, which I think will yield for practical concerns like the demand for a united Iraq.

When the US in addition starts with stating that the opinion of the UN not meaning anything, there is no way I�m going to support a war against a man I don�t mind being removed from power.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2003, 09:01 PM	#11
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	mr. superbad: "everything i've read about this indicates the exact opposite with careful targetting of communication centers and the upper ranks of the Iraqi army in order to make the enemy surrender. Killing a ton of people in Baghdad is the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve." Regardless of what must be meticulously planned by the US, history shows inevitable tragedy and atrocities: From Dresden To Baghdad: 58 Years Of "Shock And Awe"

02-21-2003, 09:23 PM	#12
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Well that was an interesting article. Mickey Z is a strange name for a journalist. It's nice to have you here gqtie.

02-21-2003, 09:37 PM	#14
Danya Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: USA Posts: 638	Do your own search on Shock and Awe. Tell me how you drop 800 bombs on a city without killing thousands of civilians? The war party has already covered themselves by pointing the finger at Saddam and saying he will hide behind innocent people. But that won't stop us from killing them anyway. During the Gulf War they knowingly targeted a bomb shelter full of children and women..because they claimed there was a communications center below it. They declined to offer any proof to back this up. The Pentagon said themselves there will be no place to hide from these bombs. Exactly what does that mean? I do believe they will plan to be specific as well, as they said, by targeting water supplies and bridges, etc. If the bombs were so smart you would only need one. This is not just attack...it's overkill. And I bet Saddam get's away just like bin Laden did and the Middle East television stations will have plenty to say about how many deaths we've caused. If they're lucky they'll get a few pics and plaster them all over their news. The terrorists should be getting a fresh new influx of volunteers after that.

02-21-2003, 11:28 PM	#17
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	Danya: "And the army you are fighting is really only self defense...they never attacked anyone first. So maybe this time they all should be considered innocent, if not civilians." Good point. Harlan Ullman, military strategist, also said: "the planned attack will...take the city down. You get rid of their power, water." This was done in the first Gulf War. Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, also said: "But they believe that if you can move fast enough, if you can generate this snowball effect -- this momentum for collapse -- then these plans to turn cities into killing zones won't be able to be executed, because the regime will start to collapse." So it seems there are possible plans to "rain down...on civilian targets" as you put it, Mr. Superbad. But, whether civilians are intentional targets or not is irrelevant if there will inevitably be thousands of casualties anyway.

02-22-2003, 02:20 AM	#20
Nira Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Norway Posts: 806	I particularly don�t like the randomness of international politics. The US opposed the ICC, which would lay down a rule of law. It would create a system of checks and balances, holding everyone accountable for their actions. For instance if Bush starts a war based on deliberately false information (like his father in Iraq W1, tanks on the border), he should be held accountable. If we got such a system I would be more inclined to believe in the stated goals of democracy, which I think will yield for practical concerns like the demand for a united Iraq. When the US in addition starts with stating that the opinion of the UN not meaning anything, there is no way I�m going to support a war against a man I don�t mind being removed from power.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.