Ironworks Gaming Forum - Are they really so smart?

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Are they really so smart? (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78243)

I was just wondering what kind of things they will say about the bombs and other weapoins they will use against Iraq when the war starts. And I say when because it clear that the US will push it until they succeed.

They will probably say smart bombs. But I remember all the smart bombs that were used by NATO when they were bombing Yugoslavia. There was a rumour these 'smart bombs' were really old, okay, maybe still smart, but still old bombs which were used because it was cheaper to drop them on a country than to destroy them. But, that doesn't really matter. There are no smart bombs. The bombs weren't that smart when they hit a hospital, and an elementary school, the Chinese embassy or when they exploded next to the house of the Swedish embassador so that the window in his bedroom exploded. But those were so-called 'mistakes'. But why were factories bombed? What does a car factory have to do with Milosevic? Or a bridge leading from a city? I understand that you have to disable the dictator first before you get rid of him. But destroying the buildings which give service to civilians is, in my opinion, wrong. Sending a country back in the development for several decades is wrong.

I have heard of a civilian village being bombed in Afghanistan because they thought it was full of the Taliban. But, it was just a village full of farmers. We asked the representative from the American embassy at the lecture here how that happened, and he said there was some mistake. Apparently somebody from the next village told them that there were Taliban in the village because they didn't like the people in that village that much. This gives new meaning to intelligence. They just go and believe some person from somewhere and don't check anything? Or maybe they checked it, but not enough. I haven't heard anybody being put to trial or anything because of this. But maybe I'm wrong. However, deaths of men, women, and children is inexcusable. Why does a woman carrying a child look like a Taliban? Oh well.

So, really, my question is just what kind of smart weapons will they use this time, and how many civilians will get killed or hurt by them. I have read in a Slovene newspaper that they are planning to test new weapons, and that they are quite excited because of it. I couldn't find any info about it elsewhere, so maybe that was incorrect, but it certainly still seems possible.

This was just my rant. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Edit --- spelling.

[ 03-02-2003, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Well Spela you`re right.Bush&CO. are really stupid.I remember that they "accidently" destroyed a hospital in Yugoslavia...They sent a smart bomb and it missed the target.Then they said "We are sorry"...

Cheers [img]smile.gif[/img]
Xen

Yep, Bush and CO are really stupid. No other nations have ever gone to war, no other nations have ever made mistakes, and no other nations have ever accidentally killed innocent civilians, right? Just Bush & CO? Sounds to me like you are more anti-Bush, than anti-War. I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least be realistic. ;)

Smart weapons are smart. They aren't dumb weapons that fall out of the belly of a plane and land where ever gravity and wind takes them, they are guided and therefore have a significantly lower chance of going off target. You want to talk about innocents being killed, look at the bombings of the past 100 years, and then complain to me about these weapons which have produced the lowest civilian casuality rates in history.

They aren't perfect. Do you know any smart people that don't make mistakes? Do you know any smart people who are perfect? Do you know any smart people who can solve the worlds problems?

Um...Wasnt Cliton in Office during the bombings in Yugoslavia?

Quote:

Originally posted by Xen:

They sent a smart bomb and it missed the target.Then they said "We are sorry"...

We also hit the Chinese Embassy. The Embassy had changed locations, but the maps provided did not reflect it, so it was accidentally considered a valid target. They got an I'm sorry, too. When you are in a war zone, you take some risks. That's the way it works.

When was the last time you got an I'm sorry from Saddam?

After he invaded Iran? After he used chemical and biological weapons on them? After he gased the Kurds? After he invaded Kuwait? After he raped and pillaged that country? After he massacred the Shites with helicopter gunships AFTER the Gulf War while within sight of UN troops who didn't act because of the cease fire which he continues to violate today? After he refused to to totally, completely, and immediately disarm even to this day?

Funny that you didn't feel led to mention any of those things, isn't it? ;)

[ 03-02-2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
Um...Wasnt Cliton in Office during the bombings in Yugoslavia?

Don't be rude IR, there's no reason for you to expect people to know what they're talking about. ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Yep, Bush and CO are really stupid. No other nations have ever gone to war, no other nations have ever made mistakes, and no other nations have ever accidentally killed innocent civilians, right? Just Bush & CO? Sounds to me like you are more anti-Bush, than anti-War. I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least be realistic. ;)

Smart weapons are smart. They aren't dumb weapons that fall out of the belly of a plane and land where ever gravity and wind takes them, they are guided and therefore have a significantly lower chance of going off target. You want to talk about innocents being killed, look at the bombings of the past 100 years, and then complain to me about these weapons which have produced the lowest civilian casuality rates in history.

They aren't perfect. Do you know any smart people that don't make mistakes? Do you know any smart people who are perfect? Do you know any smart people who can solve the worlds problems?

I was complaining more about the fact that they mention these 'smart bombs' as if that means no civilians will get killed. And when they do, 'Oops, we're so sorry'. I haven't heard of any trials when civilians got killed. Okay, I admit, accidents do happen, but negligence and accident is something totally different. If I run over somebody with a car because the road is icy and it's an accident, then I probably won't be in trouble. But if I do it because of negligence, then I should get in trouble. And I don't think it should be different with soldiers. Sure, they're stressed, but sometimes these things happen because they weren't careful enough. People should know that shooting is not a joke. It's real. And if you're not careful enough and don't care, then you'll get in trouble.

And studying maps and checking up information is a part of it. If the village was bombed because they wanted to bomb it as quickly as possible and didn't have enough time to research stuff, then I want a trial. Is that too much to ask? Or are the generals and soldiers like small gods that are immune to everything?

What I want is that we take responsibility for the people who die. And not that we pretend that we're so good just because we managed to get rid of a dictator.

PS: I didn't criticise only the US, but also others (I mentioned NATO, see). I think war is wrong, and mentioning 'smart bombs' doesn't make me feel better about it.

Edit --- spelling.

[ 03-02-2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
When was the last time you got an I'm sorry from Saddam?

After he invaded Iran? After he used chemical and biological weapons on them? After he gased the Kurds? After he invaded Kuwait? After he raped and pillaged that country? After he massacred the Shites with helicopter gunships AFTER the Gulf War while within sight of UN troops who didn't act because of the cease fire which he continues to violate today? After he refused to to totally, completely, and immediately disarm even to this day?

Funny that you didn't feel led to mention any of those things, isn't it? ;)

Ah, you see, but that's what is supposed to be different. If we don't apologise and try to correct things, rebuild things, help people, we're no different than him. Why is it so hard to do that? Why is it so hard to admit: Yes, we bombed that place, and a child died because of it, and we will do whatever we can do to help. And we will research to see if it was an accident, or something more. If we don't do that we're no different than Saddam.

PS: I never mentioned Bush in what I wrote, and I do know Clinton was in office when NATO bombed Yugoslavia. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Spelca:
I was complaining more about the fact that they mention these 'smart bombs' as if that means no civilians will get killed. And when they do, 'Oops, we're so sorry'. I haven't heard of any trials when civilians got killed. Okay, I admit, accidents do happen, but negligence and accident is something totally different. If I run over somebody with a car because the road is icy and it's an accident, then I probably won't be in trouble. But if I do it because of negligence, then I should get in trouble. And I don't think it should be different with soldiers. Sure, they're stressed, but sometimes these things happen because they weren't careful enough. People should know that shooting is not a joke. It's real. And if you're not careful enough and don't care, then you'll get in trouble.

Please don't belittle the situation by pretending all the US did was say, "oops, we're so sorry." That belittles your point.

And since you aren't a soldier please don't insult the people who have put their lives on they line by saying they aren't careful, that they think shooting at someone is a joke, and that they should understand it's real. I can assure you that they are much more keenly aware of those things than you or I could ever hope to be. To you, it's a moral argument, to them the difference is literally life and death.

These things are looked at on an individual basis, there was a case in the past few weeks involving US troops who accidentally fired on coalition forces and caused their deaths.

In war people die, no matter how careful or compassionate someone is. The only ways to save innocents from accidental death during a war in the face of an aggressor is to ignore the aggressor or surrender. Even these methods have been proven to result in a high civilian casualty rate. Of course those deaths aren't accidental, but I assume they are just as important.

No nation in the history of the world has done more to avoid the deaths of innocent civilians during conflicts over the last generation, but that isn't enough. Can someone please tell me who does it better, and when they'll offer training? ;) 

And studying maps and checking up information is a part of it. If the village was bombed because they wanted to bomb it as quickly as possible and didn't have enough time to research stuff, then I want a trial. Is that too much to ask? Or are the generals and soldiers like small gods that are immune to everything?

Maybe you'd consider trying those who provided the false information in the hopes of having their enemies killed instead of the soldiers who acted on the best information they had. You seem only interested in holding the soldiers responsible. Researching stuff, as you call it, isn't always as much of a possibility in situations like this as some would choose to believe. This isn't an school exam or a project at work, it's war. The information given by people on the ground has always been and will always be considered the most valuable. If the Afghans that we trusted and relied on said these people were to be trusted, why wouldn't we trust them.

Do you want to go into the village and administer lie detector tests. Your idea is more of an ideal, but ideals aren't always possible to live up to in the life and death situations presented by war.

What I want is that we take responsibility for the people who die. And not that we pretend that we're so good just because we managed to get rid of a dictator.

We don't have to pretend we're so good, and no one else has to believe we're so bad. Just because we get rid of a dictator might not seem like much to some, but what about those who are saved from his regime? What about every innocent life that is save through this action? Don't those innocent lives matter, too? 

PS: I didn't criticise only the US, but also others (I mentioned NATO, see). I think war is wrong, and mentioning 'smart bombs' doesn't make me feel better about it.

Wrong in ever single instance? There is never a time for war?

Smart bombs aren't suppose to make you feel better about the war. They are suppose to shorten conflict, increase on-point destruction, and minimize civilian causalities amongst other things. They do exactly what they are intended to do.

[ 03-02-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Spelca:
Ah, you see, but that's what is supposed to be different. If we don't apologise and try to correct things, rebuild things, help people, we're no different than him. Why is it so hard to do that? Why is it so hard to admit: Yes, we bombed that place, and a child died because of it, and we will do whatever we can do to help. And we will research to see if it was an accident, or something more. If we don't do that we're no different than Saddam.

That is what's different. We do apologize, we do try to correct things, we do rebuild things, help people, and that IS what makes us different, but, with that said, lets not be ridiculous. There is a huge difference between intentionally gassing the Kurds or invading your neighbors, and accidentally hitting a civilian target.

The US is helping to rebuild Afghanistan, and after Iraq is liberated, it will be rebuilt, and the nation will have a new start, and the people will lead their own destiny. For the first time in history, the wealth of the Iraqi oil fields will be used completely for the benefit of it's people.

PS: I never mentioned Bush in what I wrote, and I do know Clinton was in office when NATO bombed Yugoslavia. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know. :D

[ 03-02-2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]