war in Iraq long ago?
2006-12-01 12:51:14 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
My point is this: if many thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying every month because of the war that is showing no signs of ending anytime soon (meaning many thousands will continue be killed for many more years) if B-52 bombing, in insurgent controled terroritory only, could stop the war in a few months wouldn't that be worth it? No cut & run/withdraw, no US causlities, no civil war, Iraqi national govt. would strengthen & could take control of Iraq, lots of dead terrorists, and US troops could come home in a year with honor.
2006-12-02 08:07:59 · update #1
Don't give up your day job, general...
2006-12-01 12:54:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
B-52's are a bit obsolete
They usually are used for mass carpet bombings that are more shock and awe then strategic
carpet bombing has about a 10% target sucess rate
as opposed to todays smart weapons laser and camera guided that are close to 100% accurate
1 cruise missle can take out a small town, fortress or stronghold
2006-12-01 21:01:06 · answer #2 · answered by gdeach 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea right... The PC "peace" lovers, anti-war dummies, and America haters in general are already bashing the President, the military, the troops in general and *anyone* who supports the war against Islamic Jihadist. And *YOU* want us to have carpet bombed a city with alleged civilians in it?
Actually that would be the correct thing to do... however the propaganda war would be lost because all the media are already against US and support the terrorist.
2006-12-01 21:12:48 · answer #3 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!! Militarily we are DESTROYING the enemy. We have not lost ONE battle since we entered Iraq.
We are losing because we need the Iraqis so take leader ship. Unfortunately the Iraq gov, police and army are very corrupt. If we went to simply invade and take over, we would have won very quickly. But we are going in to invade, and pass over the power.
Passing over the power is what we are failing at.
2006-12-01 22:05:46 · answer #4 · answered by BAD KARMA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Strategic bombing wouldn't be politically effective in Iraq...it wasn't in Vietnam either. Hence the designation of tactical warfare.
2006-12-01 21:56:28 · answer #5 · answered by iraq51 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the US should have conducted massive bombing raids
every time an insurgent hotspot appeared...
Pretty soon, local residents would not permit insurgents & terrorists to come into their neighborhoods..
2006-12-01 20:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if they had done proper spying, they would have known fallujah would be hussein's natural hiding place. but anycase i don´t think that would have necessary guaranteed triumph, since he and his croneys could have fled somewhere else. plus... winning the war is a vague concept. saddam was deposed, but the country is in such a disarray that i wouldn´t call that a victory
2006-12-01 22:13:45 · answer #7 · answered by G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a guess...kind of a what if.....it could have shortened it or encouraged the rest of the islamic area to support the insurgents. many innocent women and children would have died, the american public would not long endure that.
2006-12-01 20:55:07 · answer #8 · answered by ronnie b 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont think the goal is to win .. i think its to stay ... but yes ... if they had, or would, commit to it totally it could be ended rather quickly i assume ... why they want to play around with a puppet govt is beyond me ... wipe out anyone with a gun that isnt in american uniform would be a better policy to straighten things out ...
2006-12-01 20:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It would have caused large civilian casualties which would have turned lots of people against us.
2006-12-01 20:54:39 · answer #10 · answered by Cerdic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - it would have increased the opposition
2006-12-02 01:44:47 · answer #11 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋