Israel....

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

I am not so sure I would classify it that way. Certainly you can go back to the Huns or the Vikings, etc and find cases where they targeted civilians. But, prior to WWII, we didn't have the technology to kill civilians on such a massive scale. We certainly didn't do it in WWI. And in spite of the property destruction in Sherman's march, we did no such thing in the Civil War or other US wars. Like I said, once the Japanese started using planes to bomb cities in China, we reacted with horror and condemnation. This was not the continuation of an "old" method. It was a new and frightening development.

And there was not uniform support over the strategy of targeting civilians. The Tokyo firebombing was promoted by Major General Curtis LeMay. There was quite a bit of resistance, but he insisted and had the authority to push it through. He took a lot of criticism for it after the war and his military career never recovered. The bombs dropped on Tokyo did not detonate. They simply splattered burning blobs of Napalm over wide areas, ensuring that the wooden homes would catch fire as quickly as possible. There is an excellent discussion on the military discussions leading to the bombing in the movie: "The Fog of War" which focuses on the role played by Robert Macnamara who was an assistant to LeMay. An excellent history of the technical aspects of the bombing can also be found in the book "Flyboys" by James Bradley.

As for Dresden, that was largely payback for bombing of London. And while it wasn't exactly kept a total secret, it was downplayed and not widely publicized for quite a few years after the end of WWII. It was not something the Brits were particularly proud of. Dresden had no military significance. The bombers dropped bombs in a ring around the city so that the fire would work towards the city center. This way the heat would be more intense and there would be no avenue for escape. It was designed purely as a slaughter.

Did you forget Sherman's march to the see.

The Civil War of scorched earth was a war against the civilians and cities. We can describe what you said in the manner described. However, I imagine the citizenry didn't oppose the prior tactics only because they didn't know about them.

In any respect, war against civilians has been part of warfare since the Babylonians and Assyrians, the Huns and many others.

Once the civilians through tv became aware of the activities, the citizenry became horrified, but it has always been with us.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Did you forget Sherman's march to the see.

The Civil War of scorched earth was a war against the civilians and cities. We can describe what you said in the manner described. However, I imagine the citizenry didn't oppose the prior tactics only because they didn't know about them.

In any respect, war against civilians has been part of warfare since the Babylonians and Assyrians, the Huns and many others.

Once the civilians through tv became aware of the activities, the citizenry became horrified, but it has always been with us.

From the widipedia page on Sherman:

"The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to the destruction of property. Though exact figures are not available, the loss of civilian life appears to have been very small.[42]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

[creekster]

Originally Posted by homeboy

I am not so sure I would classify it that way. Certainly you can go back to the Huns or the Vikings, etc and find cases where they targeted civilians. But, prior to WWII, we didn't have the technology to kill civilians on such a massive scale. We certainly didn't do it in WWI. And in spite of the property destruction in Sherman's march, we did no such thing in the Civil War or other US wars. Like I said, once the Japanese started using planes to bomb cities in China, we reacted with horror and condemnation. This was not the continuation of an "old" method. It was a new and frightening development.

And there was not uniform support over the strategy of targeting civilians. The Tokyo firebombing was promoted by Major General Curtis LeMay. There was quite a bit of resistance, but he insisted and had the authority to push it through. He took a lot of criticism for it after the war and his military career never recovered. The bombs dropped on Tokyo did not detonate. They simply splattered burning blobs of Napalm over wide areas, ensuring that the wooden homes would catch fire as quickly as possible. There is an excellent discussion on the military discussions leading to the bombing in the movie: "The Fog of War" which focuses on the role played by Robert Macnamara who was an assistant to LeMay. An excellent history of the technical aspects of the bombing can also be found in the book "Flyboys" by James Bradley.

As for Dresden, that was largely payback for bombing of London. And while it wasn't exactly kept a total secret, it was downplayed and not widely publicized for quite a few years after the end of WWII. It was not something the Brits were particularly proud of. Dresden had no military significance. The bombers dropped bombs in a ring around the city so that the fire would work towards the city center. This way the heat would be more intense and there would be no avenue for escape. It was designed purely as a slaughter.

Homeboy is spot on about Dresden. It was absolutely not necessary and it was done purely for effect and to see if we could create a true firestorm. It wasn't even in reatiliation for bombing London, really, as we had bombed Berlion for that purpose.

[Colly Wolly]

Mike, you are a prophet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14079298/from/RS.4/

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by homeboy

From the widipedia page on Sherman:

"The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to the destruction of property. Though exact figures are not available, the loss of civilian life appears to have been very small.[42]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

Sherman was very of a high moral caliber. It is absolutely true he only damaged property. (This is why I love Wikipedia; to settle these types of arguments that used to drive us all crazy.)

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Sherman was very of a high moral caliber. It is absolutely true he only damaged property. (This is why I love Wikipedia; to settle these types of arguments that used to drive us all crazy.)

I don't disagree, but will simply point out that Sherman was never confronted wtih a guerilla enemy who in a very calcualted fashion blended in with civilians.

The conundrum is this: if we exalt the preservation of civilian life above every other principle, then an enemy need only mix in with them while he carries on his operations with impunity.

I think it is an untenable position to say that civilian lives should never been taken. The question is only when is it appropriate to do so and when is it not.

[MikeWaters]

I think I may be changing my mind...maybe Israel should go in. It will be bloody on both sides, a real war. It may be important for Israel to not let Hezbollah win (or claim to win).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think I may be changing my mind...maybe Israel should go in. It will be bloody on both sides, a real war. It may be important for Israel to not let Hezbollah win (or claim to win).

Hard to argue against that.

[Colly Wolly]

Its just a really tough position for Israel. Their enemies have realized over the last few decades that there is no way they can defeat Israel with conventional warfare.

So now its like UtahDan said. These bastards mingle in with the civilian population, teach their people its noble to strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a bus full of Jews.

This is real secret combination shit, and it is going to be interesting to see if Israel and the the rest of the nations who choose to fight terror can figure out how to win.

Terror = secret combinations.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think I may be changing my mind...maybe Israel should go in. It will be bloody on both sides, a real war. It may be important for Israel to not let Hezbollah win (or claim to win).

I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic, but if we are convinced that there is no compromise to be had between Israel and those who are sworn to destroy it (this seems obvious) then I wonder what good a cease fire will do.

The hostilities are going to resume at some point, so the death, destruction and loss of life are just postponed. The choice is not between peace and war, because there isn't going to be any peace as long as Hezbollah has one rocket left to fire. It seems like that a lasting peace can only come of them being defeated thouroughly. How the hell you accomplish that I have no idea, but it seems to me that you can't do it through an air campaigne which is basically all Israel has done at this point.