There was no such thing as precision bombing in the 1940s.
You simply saturated the target area.
The bombing of Dresden was not specifically targeted at civilians but at the city as a transportation hub.
The allied could have bombed the railways, and not the inner city.
You can't bomb a railway - i.e. you can't bomb an eight-foot wide target with dumb bombs at night from 4,000 feet. You need to go after stations, interchanges and rolling stock. Most of which were located in the central city.
In addition, everybody knew that the Nazis were never going to surrender, because they wanted the German nation to share their personal fate (death, suicide).
They surrendered six weeks after Dresden was bombed, didn't they? That's interesting.
He who continues to claim that it was alright to kill thousands of civilians shall explain me why the US Air Force did not the same with Baghdad 2003.
There have been some slight advances in technology in the past 60 years. The Allied bombers over Dresden didn't have infrared or GPS or smart bombs.
Additionally, the USAF was supporting ground troops who were pretty confident in their ability to totally crush the Iraqi ground forces. The Republican Guard was not exactly the Wehrmacht, after all.
Of course it was possible to bomb railways then. Your claim is ridiculous.
Germany surrendered 2,5 months after Dresden, and this is not interestíng, because the surrender was signed when the German army was almost dissolved and more than 80% of the Reich was occupied by the enemy. This is more a sign how useless the bombing of Dresden was, rather than proving its necessity.
My comparison between Dresden and Baghdad is aimed to those who claim that it was ok to use massive bombings on cities.