We’re even bombing railroad stations in Iraq. I guess that with the insurgents taking out bridges, the USAF generals thought we were falling behind in the war on Iraq’s infrastructure.
I don’t know if, in the chain of command for the Iraq war, the flyboys report to Petraeus, or whether they’re outside of his chain of command. If Petraeus is signing off on this sort of mission, then he has to know the game’s over. If he’s not, then he should be raising holy hell about this, but he’s not.
Either way, you don’t defeat an insurgency by dropping bombs. It. Just. Doesn’t. Work.
I swear (frequently) that it’s getting more Orwellian by the moment. I heard Tony Snow telling the press corpse the other day that the increase in violence in Iraq was (paraphrased) ‘proof that the surge was working’. Does that mean if there’d been a decrease that the surge was failing?
Kinda like 9/11 proved that the way we’d been conducting the War on Terror up to that point was working too. (Guess GWB screwed the pooch by abandoning that proven-successful strategy.)
Remember how it sometimes seems like “9/11” is the conservatives’ answer, no matter what’s the question?
Same deal here. The implication is that their strategy’s working. The implication of what, you ask? Of whatever happens.
I can barely feel it anymore. Should be hot fury, terror and death from the sky, visited on the innocent for their proximity to the guilty. Burned out. All that remains is dreary regret, like day old oatmeal. Even when war doesn’'t kill, it deadens.
What?! To say that airstrikes are cowardly or signs of losing is to prove to be an imbecile. Why in the world would we want to fight the insurgency with one hand tied behind our back? That’s just stupid. I suppose the words “positive identification” mean nothing to you. Who tells you people that we just drop bombs out of the sky for no reason?
I’ve personally seen numerous airstrikes called off because a camera lost sight of a car or insurgent for a split second. Everyone was sure that those guys were the ones just shooting at us, but if we take our “eyes” off them for a second, we can’t be sure sure. You all really need to get this idea of willy-nilly bomb dropping out of your heads and start thinking the same way we do air strikes- accurately.
Kindly fuck-off, IntelSoldier. Go sell your bullshit to all the living relatives of the thousands upon thousands innocent people you’ve murdered from up up high.
Yeah, yeah, I realize you could do much worse. Hardly an endorsement, is it?
As opposed to the BS you get fed on a regular basis by your tightly censored and controlled MSM? (in bed, fuckin’ “journalists?” :rolleyes: ) Please, John, surely you are smarter than that.
Tightly censored? Yeah, well… let’s assume that’s true. Still doesn’t change the fact that the OP’s source is an agenda driven site. Frankly I have no idea whether the guy is a good military analyst* or not. But then neither do you. It’s anti-war, though, so you accept it without question. Is that what passes as “smart” around here?
*I looked him up on wikipedia, and it looks like a mixed bag. He has his admirers and his critics.
Yeah, I’m already blushing. Oh wait, it’s Friday and that’s the booze…
Well, the successful military intervention that we’re often reminded of is the one waged by Clinton against Serbia which was, what, 100% air strikes? Was that a cowardly last resort or just smart military strategy. I lean towards the latter.
(First off, to thank IntelSoldier for his service. That is due.)
This “accuracy” of which you speak? You are quite confident of this? I was always under the impression that shrapnel is rather non-specific, unlike a sniper’s bullet, it lacks the personal touch. But you are here to reassure us that innocent civilians are secure from such? Because we are so smart, and careful, and specific?
I find that a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps you could be more convincing.
One other thing. Care to explain what the “lapse in judgement” was? The linked article is an editorial on the website “antiwar.com”. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but I need more than someone on that website to tell me something before I believe it’s true. Don’t you?
1-The International Herald Tribune is hardly what one would call an “anti.war” site, but rather a well respected paper – as is their source, AP. Seriously, is that the best you can muster? Weak doesn’t even begin to describe it. “Full of shit” does.
2-Airforce, by its own inherent indiscriminate nature, beyond beginning hostilities, does little else than kill by its very aforementioned nature and raise the ire of the survivors. Smart bombs my ass. Carnage is more like it. Stop playing Nintendo.
First offered link is to the International Herald Tribune, source to the Associated Press. Have you any scorn to offer those sources? *Yahoo News * tainted, in your estimation?
Anyone with the reading comprehension available to a bowl of mashed potatoes can grasp the tone of your slur, that we are so simple minded and naive, so easily led in hive-mind mode, that we willingly swallow any load of horseshit so long as its from a PC source. Its crap, you know its crap, and you said it anyway.
Either a lapse in judgement, or petty and nasty. And, as you know, I am by nature generous in my assessments.