they were used in vietnam, and every other conflict! it is obvious we cannot win guerrila warfare with ememy! we need to bomb areas with al-queda fighters in it! that just might make the job easier for our ground troops! why hasn't that fool bush ordered such tactics? we fight a war to win!!! not to lose 10,000 ground troops!! and using the air force bombers will help!! not hurt our cause! or do you fear an escalation?
2007-06-21 05:23:26 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
So, now you're an expert on military tactics? Tell me, how do you limit civilian casualties by carpet bombing? The MSM would have a field day with the "collateral damage" aspect.
2007-06-21 05:28:02 · answer #1 · answered by Mark A 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The military has used USAF bombers in Iraq...even in the 1990-91 conflict. They continuously use bombers in areas that require them. Just because you don't hear/see it on television doesn't mean the US military isn't using it's full arsenal of weaponry on this war. Obviously, using bombers in condensed living spaces of the Iraqis is very difficult to minimize the civilian casualties, but once in a while, you'll see a story about the collateral damage to the civilians for an insurgent cell operating in civilian neighborhoods. Why do you think the Sunni's are now getting tired of the Al-Qaida network of terrorism in Iraq? Also, President Bush is not a fool. I may not agree with all his decisions, but he didn't get to where he's at for being a fool. Reality is reality, the majority of the countries voting population (how small that really is in comparison to the actual population) voted to keep him in. Why, I have no idea. There is no escalation in this war...bombers are and have been in use.
2007-06-21 12:38:18 · answer #2 · answered by jaowli 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We have used them. A B-1 bomber was used to attack a resturaunt at the beginning of the war that Sadaam was thought to be at. There was actually a show on the discovery channel about it. To add onto this, Iraq is really not the place to be dropping bombs. The goal in Iraq is to help build a new government for them. Rules of engagement have been a huge issue with this war and protecting innocent civilians is one of the rules. The people we are going after are not organized and it would be very difficult to take a bunch out with bombs without killing innocents.
2007-06-21 22:50:43 · answer #3 · answered by blue2thecoreaf 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
O.K. first of all I can tell you first hand they are using bombers over in Iraq. I live on an Air Force base in which ONLY bombers are stationed here. And they have been deployed to Iraq on a regular basis since we got here last year, and before Im sure. As for the rest of your question I have my opinions but I will keep them to myself.
2007-06-21 13:57:13 · answer #4 · answered by HarmonyNY 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda and other terrorists hide and live right amongst the rest of the population and it would not be practical to try to bomb them from the air. The only aerial bombing you're likely to see in Iraq is the smart bomb that can take out individual buildings where terrorists are believed to be gathered or in close air support or US troops engaged in ground combat.
2007-06-21 12:38:16 · answer #5 · answered by Whitty 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the airforce would use bombers, it would destroy stuff they really didint want to destroy.... thats why instead they use more precise means to destroy, like missles.also they really arent there to destroy,but instead they are there to liberate (and get oil). after the war is done, youll see the government pouring tons of cash into rebuilding Iraq, just like they did in Japan and Germany in WWII. The more they destroy the more they pay =p and i belive around 3,500 u.s troops have died.
2007-06-21 12:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by jlspyderi 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They make extensive use of air force bombers in Iraq. You are misinformed.
2007-06-21 12:55:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There isn't enough enemy in one spot to justify carpet bombing. At most, the enemy could produce no more than 600 at a time and it's often down to just less than a dozen at a time.
2007-06-21 12:33:40 · answer #8 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
it's not "politically correct" to bomb like that anymore---
everyone thinks war should be "civilized" with no civilian casulties
apparently they have no conception of what it takes to win a war
2007-06-21 12:43:58 · answer #9 · answered by mcspic63 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a better question than asking why we haven't bombed the people we went to free is why aren't we going to the countries where AlQeada has training camps and take out those installations rather than sitting in Iraq waiting for them to bring the war to us.
Never in history has a war been won by waiting for the enemy to come to you but War(lord) Bush doesn't concern himself with learning from 10,000 years of recorded history.
2007-06-21 12:37:11 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋