Replies

I didn’t think it was possible still not to have learner, but the allies’ major aerial campaigns against the axis homelands were terror bombings. There isn’t any way to call it “strategic” bombing unless the strategy was to scare Germany and Japan by killing a lot of civilians.

Oh, I didn't think I was going to have to explain the difference in our combat motives and strategies based on the combatant, but I will show you the distinction that you refuse to see.

During WWII, we were at war with the entirety of Germany and the entirety of Japan. Therefore it was necessary to destroy their ability to create weapons, move machinery, collect and train recruits, etc... Therefore, the bombing of Hiroshima, as I explained, was based on their military existence, their industrial parks AND the number of people that would be affected by the bomb. Now, I am not saying that 100% of the German or Japanese citizens were fighting against us, but enough of them were that warranted that level of attack.

Now, Vietnam, much like Afghanistan, was a more targeted combat scenario. Specific COMBAT related targets were identified and bombed. We did not attempt to infiltrate and establish ANY encampments into North Vietnam. The bombing raids of North Vietnam were TARGETED and often hit the same destroyed buildings that were hit two weeks earlier (which might help explain their ineffectiveness). As a strategy - we simply tried to preserve South Vietnam. In Afghanistan, like Vietnam, we are NOT trying to conquer the people as a whole, we are trying to help them throw off the cloak under which they are currently suffering. We cannot convince a people that we are there to help them if we kill them in wholesale style (i.e., My Lai).

NOW, you want to create a distinction between rules of engagement for ground troops as opposed to overall US strategy and yet you are the one who compared Hiroshima and My Lai?!?!? You asserted that we kill more civilians than Al Queda (preposterous) and that shock and awe was intended to kill civilians. These implications are simply BULLSHIT.

As I stated, clearly, the US has at times used bombing as a message - just for the record, a bombing can take out a military target, an industrial target AND send a message. Can you name a single time since WWII that the US specifically targeted CIVILIANS (ala 9/11, embassy bombings, Benghazi, American-frequented clubs, etc...)? Last by not least, the US bombings during WWII were PRECISION bombings to roads, bridges, industrial plants and military establishments - the USAF SPECIFICALLY refused to engage in the British "area bombings." Ever heard of the Casablanca Compromise?

As the war drug on, the US did finally engage in area bombings from the fall of 1943 to the end of the war - as a means to drive out the last vestiges of German and Japanese resistance - which just to be completely honest may have actually CAUSED further resistance to the US surrender demands. But for you to wholesale claim that ALL our air raids were designed to kill/scare civilians, you are talking out of your butt! As a matter of fact, the US military DID want to do wholesale bombings on North Korea and the evil idiot LBJ refused to allow them to do so.

So please tell me when and where the US government and military SPECIFICALLY targeted innocent women and children.