Mr. Superbad

Of course not, what the hell kind of question is that? I'd actually be more afraid of Saddam unleashing chemical weapons on everyone and having his troops hide behind me.

Mr. Superbad

But they won't be targetting hospitals or schools.

When did I ever say there wouldn't be civilian casualties? All I'm saying is that it won't be on the level of the last gulf war, Hiroshima, or the firebombings during WWII.

Putney Swope

With all our sophisticated bomb delivery mechanisims we have, isn't it amazing how many of our own troops we kill? In Afghanistan, in the first 6 months of the war, we killed more American Soldiers through "Friendly Fire" than the Taliban did. I don't know for sure, but that statement may still be true today. So much for "Smart Bombs" and "Surgical Strikes".

Yes, Saddam is an evil man who should be killed, but before we start throwing stones, remember "The School of the Americas" at Ft Benning Georgia? We have taught many regiems how to torture. And we know what Saddam is capable of because we taught him most of what he knows!

The best way to get Saddam is the same way we should have gotten bin Laden. No cop in the world goes on TV and says, "Next week we are going to raid the crack house at the corner of Maple and Vine." No wonder we never got bin Laden.

I say we should send in Special Forces at night and let them gut the Republican Guard. That way, only the bad guys get killed, and we might even get Saddam like this. But sending in the bombers is guaranteed to miss Saddam.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Putney Swope
With all our sophisticated bomb delivery mechanisims we have, isn't it amazing how many of our own troops we kill? In Afghanistan, in the first 6 months of the war, we killed more American Soldiers through "Friendly Fire" than the Taliban did. I don't know for sure, but that statement may still be true today. So much for "Smart Bombs" and "Surgical Strikes".

Because we do so much more shooting than the bad guys.

Note that most friendly fire incidents come from mistaken identification of what's being shot at. Thus having accurate weapons does you no good--the weapon did it's job right. The only incident that comes to mind that wasn't due to this was the FAC who screwed up with his GPS and gave his own coordinates to the bomber. He got a bomb on his head for his mistake.

Putney Swope

So the bomb isn't REALLY so "smart" after all. And the "surgical strike" isn't so precise. To me, those terms imply that we are so precise in our weapons delivery, that they hit their target every time. During "Desert Storm", the Pentagon kept showing videos of their bombs swooping in on the target. We never got to see videos of the bombs which went astray, only the ones which hit their intended target.

"Gun control" is hitting what you aim at. You don't shoot at someone on a crowded street. I never did like that expression, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." A Bazooka will kill a rabid squirrel sitting on the edge of your roof of your house the same as a .22 will. Which one would YOU use.

What's the difference? Mr. Superbad says they won't be targeting schools or hospitals, but if a "smart bomb" DOES hit a school or hospital does that make it OK because we "didn't mean to"? Even without human error, they still aren't 100%. I'm sure that "Great White" didn't mean to burn down that RI nightclub, but many people are STILL dead. "Good Intensions" don't excuse your actions.

Mr. Superbad

The smart bombs and cruise missles will go where we target them. The person who does the targetting can and will screw up eventually, but it's much more accurate than what any other army can do. If the military didn't give a crap what they hit with their bombs, they wouldn't have spend billions of dollars developing the damn things.

Of course there will be some incidents where they misidentify a target and kill people. I don't think they are going to be so numerous as to equal the Dresden firebombing, or even anywhere close to that level of destruction.