Should we start high altitude bombings over insurgent areas in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Question

Recent talks have suggested to win this war on Terror we need to dishearten these militant islamics. It has been suggested to do high altitude bombings over Al-quida positons. Unfortunatly they hide behind civilians which would mean civilians will be killed. But this would keep in place the troops we have thier already without sending in anymore. It would also send a message to Al-Quida.
During WWII, one night of bombing over Hamburg (for instance) resulted in over 3,000 civilian deaths but it sped up the defeat of nazi held Germany. In times of war civilians do get killed, thats a plain fact. What our your views on this proposed plan?

I do not want to hear the Liberal point of view (we know your answer)

Answer 1

it would expedite the objective of stopping those who are killed from killing more. i hate that many who have no choice but to shelter them would be in the crossfire but that is a result of any war. most of the people who shelter them are sympathizers so no lost there as they would participate in killing other innocents if they could.

i think that it deserves serious consideration.

Answer 2

High altitude bombing is a thing of the past, it's very inefficient and rarely hits the intended target. The unmanned aircraft in use today are a much better choice, they can use precision weapons from a relatviely high altitude. Their use is also good for R+D data collection and development of even better systems.
What we really need is the political will among civilian "leaders" to go after targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to take out the training and command centers that we know are there. Between satellite assets and high-altitude surveillance we should be able to take them all down in less than 60 days.

Answer 3

It will only makes things worse for America in the future. The people who survive the assault or witness the suffering or experience losing a family memeber or a friend will only become more enraged and dedicate their lives to the cause; Jihad against America it's allies and civilian population who fund these campaigns via tax $$$. These bombings would quadruple the number of new recruits into Al-Qaeda and similar organisations. You would just be doing them a favour.

Answer 4

So, you don't want to hear the point of view of anyone who might disagree with you? Then why are you bothering to ask the question. Shouldn't you just post it on your blog and collect thumbs-up votes, if you're not really asking a question....?

But we'll push past that.

No, high-altitude bombings are not the best solution for two reasons. First, they are not as accurate as medium-altitude bombings, and thus more likely to miss and more likely to cause collateral damage to civilians. Also, high altitude bombings allow for greater response time by the targets.

Medium-altitude smart-bombs would be far more effective at taking out specific enemy targets, without causing collateral damage.

And no, attacking insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan is not effective, because most insurgents are only fighting as part of their civil/sectarian war. Insurgents (by definition) have no interest in international politics and no interest in attacking anyone outside their country.

So, if you wanted to be effective, you should bomb the known or reasonably confirmed terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Palestine. That is going to yield a greater reduction in international terrorists than attacking people solely for opposing their new local govt.

Go after the people who are a threat to our country, not the people who are merely fighting a civil war in their country.

Answer 5

Both wars are illegal; why not bring the troops home and take out the illegal personnel opting to pre-empt the destruction of America?

Answer 6

Yes. Let's do it.
Clinton did it a few years ago and killed over 3,000 civilians to liberal cheers.

Those countries are nothing more than a rubble heap anyway.

Answer 7

High altitude bombing is not accurate, women and children could be hit during the bombing.

Answer 8

That's why the Dem's try to empower the enemy through propaganda.
We should have done this 2 years ago but the left doesn't have the stomach for defending this great land.
We don't need terror attacks to destroy us, we have Democrats to do that.

Answer 9

You bet! Do it and do it as soon as possible. take out oil refineries and terrorist camps where they are training terrorist sub-human pigs to come fight in Iraq. Thank you for asking this question.

Oh and by the way. Don't tell them to get the women and kids away. usually it will make them place more women and kids around the targets, or start to train around Hospitals.

Answer 10

Low grade nuke warheads would be more effective. I would also suggest being as indiscriminate as possible since most Iraqis do not want peace. If they did, they would get off their butts and do something about it instead of taking a one month vacation in the tiris river.