| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | | According to a report I was readin on CNN yesterday....USA has so far fired 700 Cruise missiles and more than 8000 smart bombs on Iraq. The scope of the destruction is unimaginable.
What I don't understand is, how much it will cost to rebuild the infra structure...how many years it will take and what will happen to the generation that grows up in this period.
Was it possible to wage this war without so much destruction? Historically, you don't burn a city to win the fight...you might burn it after you loot and take valuables but not before.
I do not understand these war tactics...especially when USA claims to want to rebuild Baghdad...if that's true, it appears that every bomb falling on the city is bad news for the American tax payer...
Any comments? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: fred hooper | | You must understand that they're only bombing tools of war and those of the regime. Things a country doesn't even need to rebuild and actually have in the first place.
The last few days bombings have been mostly targeted at armed forces of Iraq and the majority at the Republican Guard which seems to have copped a pounding.
They could have knocked alot of civilian things to disrupt to help stop the regime but they havn't for civilian reasons. They'll also decrease once troops enter Baghdad or surround it.
Fred Hooper | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Bebert | | I think we should compare the number of US bombs thrown onto Iraqi towns and the WMD owned by Saddam.
I think that the argument "we are fighting because Saddam owns WMD" will be ridiculous after the war. We will see...
Regarding Iraq reconstruction, several US neocon people claimed that "Iraq should pay for it"...
The real cost of this war seems to be a taboo in the US. When presenting the budget several weeks ago, GWB did not mention any war expense. Lawrence Linsay (white house economic consultant) was fired becaused he claimed that the cost of the war could reach $200 Billions.
See for example :
http://www.amacad.org/publications/...r_with_Iraq.pdf
page 77 : " the outer limit of costs would be around $1.9 trillon, most of wich fall outside of the direct military cost..."
Maybe this is over estimated...maybe... 1991 the cost of the gulf war ($62 billins) was mainly shared between the US, SA and Koweit.
But know it seems that the US tax payer will pay most of the bill. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Bebert
I think we should compare the number of US bombs thrown onto Iraqi towns and the WMD owned by Saddam.
I think that the argument "we are fighting because Saddam owns WMD" will be ridiculous after the war. We will see...
|
I totally agree...it's interesting to see that 700 cruise missiles and 8000 precision bombs do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction while whatever Saddam allegedly has is weapons of mass destruction.
I think the fire power of the 700 cruise missles and the 8000 bombs should at least be equivalent to the bomb dropped on Heroshima.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Bebert | | Lets start the counting :
IRAQ :
2 poor al-sahmud found
several "WMD" hit the sand or the sea in koweit with no effects.
US :
700 cruise missiles and 8000 precision bombs ...
In fact I think that US intelligence knows that Saddam has no WMD, that's why the US went to war. Otherwise the US wouldnt have attacked, the risk would have been too high. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Bebert
Lets start the counting :
IRAQ :
2 poor al-sahmud found
several "WMD" hit the sand or the sea in koweit with no effects.
US :
700 cruise missiles and 8000 precision bombs ...
In fact I think that US intelligence knows that Saddam has no WMD, that's why the US went to war. Otherwise the US wouldnt have attacked, the risk would have been too high. |
I totally agree...
USA has no recent history of attacking a nation that could fight back. That's why you have to laugh when guys like Rambo stutter around proud of their navy and boasting about their heros.
How heroic is it to get an international body involved to force iraq to destroy it's weapons...then send in your inspectors to make sure there are no serious weapons. When you are totally satisfied that you can't get hit, send in your "friendly reporters" who can tel you exactly where to drop the bombs from your stealth bombers that can't be reached by a missile. While iraqis don't even have the anti aircraft munition to fire back. And their soldiers are fighting barefoot and with hardly the uniform on their back in severe weather.
I'd say we need to make a distinction between being heroic and being a bully.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Bebert | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by GuyFromPakistan
I totally agree...
USA has no recent history of attacking a nation that could fight back. That's why you have to laugh when guys like Rambo stutter around proud of their navy and boasting about their heros.
How heroic is it to get an international body involved to force iraq to destroy it's weapons...then send in your inspectors to make sure there are no serious weapons. When you are totally satisfied that you can't get hit, send in your "friendly reporters" who can tel you exactly where to drop the bombs from your stealth bombers that can't be reached by a missile. While iraqis don't even have the anti aircraft munition to fire back. And their soldiers are fighting barefoot and with hardly the uniform on their back in severe weather.
I'd say we need to make a distinction between being heroic and being a bully. |
In fact it is safer to be a US soldier (although US soldiers are volunteers and have weapons) than an Iraqi civilian. This paradox of modern wars always surprises me.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Bebert
In fact it is safer to be a US soldier (although US soldiers are volunteers and have weapons) than an Iraqi civilian. This paradox of modern wars always surprises me. |
I think it's the test point for all "terrorism". When you reach a point in a war where your intended opposition involves civilians, you will invariably get retaliatory measures that involve suicide bombing. The reason is simple. When you don't have weaponry to fight fairly, you fight with whatever you can make at home.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sable | | while i agree with you when you say
| quote: |
| USA has no recent history of attacking a nation that could fight back |
the fact is there are but a few nations that can do it nowadays.
now that they have an example, every nation know they have to get some nuke as it seems to be an effective way to keep american bullies at bay. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Sable
while i agree with you when you say
the fact is there are but a few nations that can do it nowadays.
now that they have an example, every nation know they have to get some nuke as it seems to be an effective way to keep american bullies at bay. |
I agree with that...actually Mcbevin posted a very interesting link to some documents that reveal this to be true. North Korea issued a statement recently, saying that they will not compromise on their nuclear program and they cited Iraq as an example of what happens if you do that.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Bebert | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by GuyFromPakistan
I agree with that...actually Mcbevin posted a very interesting link to some documents that reveal this to be true. North Korea issued a statement recently, saying that they will not compromise on their nuclear program and they cited Iraq as an example of what happens if you do that. |
I guess maybe they are strongly thinking about developping WMD in Iran, as it seems they are next on the list...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: JohnUS | |
| quote: |
GuyFromPakistan said this in post #8 :
I think it's the test point for all "terrorism". When you reach a point in a war where your intended opposition involves civilians, you will invariably get retaliatory measures that involve suicide bombing. The reason is simple. When you don't have weaponry to fight fairly, you fight with whatever you can make at home. |
I can't get over this post. From what I gather, you're talking about terrorists, and you go on to say lack of weaponry is the reason for them to fight by any means necassary????? come on, when have terrorist fought fairly. Futhermore, don't you think our war in iraq is to prevent terrorists from gaining the means to fight fairly (gorwing as an organization?) even if they do... let's think.... Japan 1945, Germany... I don't think the world powers will allow it. anyways I know this post is late, but I just had to reply to this one.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | |
| quote: |
GuyFromPakistan said this in post #4 :
I totally agree...it's interesting to see that 700 cruise missiles and 8000 precision bombs do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction while whatever Saddam allegedly has is weapons of mass destruction.
I think the fire power of the 700 cruise missles and the 8000 bombs should at least be equivalent to the bomb dropped on Heroshima. |
The key here is "precison". I would have been a lot cheaper for the U.S. to carpet bomb Iraq with old world war 2 "dumb bombs." A heck of a lot cheaper.
But the U.S. spends millions to make sure they are hitting the target they want. And while it is true that they don't hit the mark everytime and civilians are killed, the military vrs. civilain target ratio is no where near as bad as in ww2.
Shoot, in ww2, the U.S. carpet bombed many major German cities, killing a boat load of civilians.
A nuke is a weapon of mass destruction, not cruise missles and smart bombs. A nuke takes out everyone. A smart bomb aims for a military target and winds up hitting it a good amount of the time.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | | If you go back and read the thread more carefully, you'll find out that the comment was about civilian casualties in a war. These civilians are not armed, when they get killed, some of the turn to home made weapons and fight. Now, since the only thing they can make at home is usually some kind of improvised bomb, they are termed suicide bombers/terrorists. The point is not about keeping advanced weaponry from terrorists (you can't do that in the long run) the point is to not convert common civilians into what we call "terrorists".
| quote: |
JohnUS said this in post #12 :
I can't get over this post. From what I gather, you're talking about terrorists, and you go on to say lack of weaponry is the reason for them to fight by any means necassary????? come on, when have terrorist fought fairly. Futhermore, don't you think our war in iraq is to prevent terrorists from gaining the means to fight fairly (gorwing as an organization?) even if they do... let's think.... Japan 1945, Germany... I don't think the world powers will allow it. anyways I know this post is late, but I just had to reply to this one. |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: JohnUS | | OK, the WMD issue, if I remember correctly this a war on "terrorism." yes we went there looking for WMD, but the reason for the war was because terrorist were housed there, and sadam was in support of them. was this not the case?
| quote: |
| GuyFromPakistan said this in post #6 : USA has no recent history of attacking a nation that could fight back. That's why you have to laugh when guys like Rambo stutter around proud of their navy and boasting about their heros. |
Do we have a valid reason to go attack a bigger nation?? You don't think we would be involved if (God forbid) WWIII were to erupt? Yes, I'm proud of our Marines and the rest of our military branches. I think if you were to talk to any of them, almost none if not none portray a rambo like persona, they are all very proud of their country, what it stands for, and those who have payed with their lives have died for. Are we bullying... are we not supposed to do something because they don't have the same military forces we do?
| quote: |
| GuyFromPakistan said this in post #8 : I think it's the test point for all "terrorism". When you reach a point in a war where your intended opposition involves civilians, you will invariably get retaliatory measures that involve suicide bombing. The reason is simple. When you don't have weaponry to fight fairly, you fight with whatever you can make at home. |
Come on, we know the difference between a terrorist and a regular civilian, and so does the military. What's going on there is NOT a bunch of fed up civilians making house bombs and going on suicide missions, besides, it's against their religion to commit suicide, those are the acts of the muslim extremists(terrorists.)
| quote: |
GuyFromPakistan said this in post #10 :
North Korea issued a statement recently, saying that they will not compromise on their nuclear program and they cited Iraq as an example of what happens if you do that. |
You think N Koreas actions are a result of our war on terrorism?
that was becoming an issue before 9/11, now they just have an excuse. | | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Baghdad-Dead or Alive
|
