Very Large Bombs.

[General Geiger]

I'm sure you've noticed that the Medina division of the Republican Guard has been "destroyed". Twenty five thousand soldiers are dead, incapacitated, surrendered, or otherwise gone home.

I at first assumed they had been killed by intensive artillery and aerial bombardment, tank fire, cluster bombs, and the like. I was reading in the paper this morning, though, and it noted that the US B-52s dropped "two 15,000 pound bombs" on the Republican Guard division.

Holy f*cking sh*t. No use of the 22,500 pound MOAB ("Massive Ordnance Air Blast"; or, as has been alternatively suggested, "Mother Of All Bombs"), but christ. The majority of an eleven-thousand-strong group of Iraqi soldiers, half the so-called "Medina division" was killed. Just consider that. Two bombs killed roughly six thousand people. That's two 9/11s. Each one of those bombs was a 9/11. Just think about that. Christ.

I can't reiterate that enough: imagine an explosion sufficient to kill three thousand people. We're not talking an explosion that knocks down a building that kills half that number; we're talking a single huge explosion that wipes out three thousand lives. The closest thing there is to a radiationless nuke.

[Tietäjä]

Yes.

A test of force. Of course, tactically I wise move, if true.

[ChubbyChecker]

Have you read "The Bear and The Dragon" by Tom Clancy? It shows you the wonders of modern technology and how it is used to kill lots of people with nothing more than a few planes and a few bombs.

[treelo]

the wonders of modern technology

why is it that when the americans fight....they dont actually fight, just sit about 10,000ft above everyone else and blow sh*t out of them?
we all know that the american army is w*nk. they just have bigger and more expensive bombs than everyone else. notice how they refuse to fight with countries who have a half decent airforce.
cowards.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by treelo
notice how they refuse to fight with countries who have a half decent airforce.
cowards.

Example?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by General Geiger
Two bombs killed roughly six thousand people. That's two 9/11s. Each one of those bombs was a 9/11. Just think about that. Christ.

Thats an utterly offensive comparasion, and you cannot possible draw any meaningful similarities between the two. One of those events was an inhuman travesty, and is one of the worst tragedies to ever hit the Western world. Whilst the other one is no doubt an unfortunately incident, this is a war and these things often happen. I suppose you liberals would rather we dropped flowers on them.

[treelo]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Example?

i dont see many iraqi fighters in the sky....
and korea.....they have planes that could kill them damn ancient bombers.

[Slidey]

you'd rather iraqi planes were in the sky to attack the bombers?

part of the american plan was to knock out the air defences on the first day, and gain air superiority. in that respect, their plan is totally on course

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Thats an utterly offensive comparasion, and you cannot possible draw any meaningful similarities between the two. One of those events was an inhuman travesty, and is one of the worst tragedies to ever hit the Western world. Whilst the other one is no doubt an unfortunately incident, this is a war and these things often happen. I suppose you liberals would rather we dropped flowers on them.

Perhaps I should have qualified my example. Alter "Each one of those bombs was a 9/11" to "Each one of those bombs killed the same number of people as died as a result of 9/11". I did not intend to draw similarities between the two. I am sorry if it appears that I did. I should have worded myself more carefully.

More than anything, I'm merely going, "Christ! That's a big bomb!"

[Nusselt]

if the RG were sitting on their arses on the sand then they deserve to be jihaded for stupidity. They are not leet. Especially after GWI. I think that since the RG are Leet, they've gone into Baghdad leaving a skeleton type force, and when the americans come into baghdad they'll be hai karated.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by treelo
i dont see many iraqi fighters in the sky....
and korea.....they have planes that could kill them damn ancient bombers.

The standard US tactic is to knock out all air defences (SAM sites, planes...) before sending in the troops. Air superiority has to be garantueed before troops will be committed.
It was easy in Iraq since we've been bombing them pretty much since the first Gulf War started.

If the Americans do attack Korea you'd better believe they will bomb them till there's nothing left of their air defences before committing any troops. I wouldn't call this cowardly, just practical. There is no honour in war, leave that to the samurai.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Thats an utterly offensive comparasion, and you cannot possible draw any meaningful similarities between the two. One of those events was an inhuman travesty, and is one of the worst tragedies to ever hit the Western world. Whilst the other one is no doubt an unfortunately incident, this is a war and these things often happen. I suppose you liberals would rather we dropped flowers on them.

Drop flowers and food to attract them to one point.

Wait till point is crowded with Iraqi soliders.

Bomb point with Moab.

No civilians lost as they would not be let near a food supply.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Nodrog
3/5s of the amount.

No, one half. I'm assuming that six thousand people died as a result of those two bomb blasts ("more than half" of eleven thousand). 3029 people died on 9/11 (2801 in Manhattan, 182 in Washington and 46 in Pennsylvania). That's near enough half of 6,000.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by General Geiger
No, one half. I'm assuming that six thousand people died as a result of those two bomb blasts ("more than half" of eleven thousand). 3029 people died on 9/11 (2801 in Manhattan, 182 in Washington and 46 in Pennsylvania). That's near enough half of 6,000.

sorry, I deleted that post just before you quoted it because it was too trolly and I didnt think that many non-Americans would understand the reference I was making.

I was referring to the fact that people generally tend to feel far more outraged when "one of their own" dies, than people from another culture. 3000 iraqi soldiers dying is "just something that happens in war", whereas 3000 american soldiers dying would result in most people wanting to nuke Iraq (or at least start intensively bombing civilian centers).

[Gayle29uk]

Link pls? Neither the BBC nor CNN seem to be carrying this story.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Nodrog
meh, I deleted that post just before you quoted it because it was too trolly and I didnt think that many non-Americans would understand the reference I was making.

I was referring to the fact that people generally tend to feel far more outraged when "one of their own" dies, than people from another culture. 3000 iraqi soldiers dying is "just something that happens in war", whereas 3000 american soldiers dying would result in most people wanting to nuke Iraq (or at least start intensively bombing civilian centers).

Whil this post is a pure troll attempt, the fact that either side wants to win with as few casualties as possible. Saddam will use Vx or nerve agents once he realises he has lost beyond comback. The US of A will do the same once they 'lost' their goal. Can't really blame them tho.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Whil this post is a pure troll attempt, the fact that either side wants to win with as few casualties as possible. Saddam will use Vx or nerve agents once he realises he has lost beyond comback. The US of A will do the same once they 'lost' their goal. Can't really blame them tho.

At what point does it become justifiable to intentionally kill innocent civilians in order to save the life of military personnel?

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Whil this post is a pure troll attempt, the fact that either side wants to win with as few casualties as possible. Saddam will use Vx or nerve agents once he realises he has lost beyond comback. The US of A will do the same once they 'lost' their goal. Can't really blame them tho.

What on earth are you talking about? What 'goal' are you talking about? Are you somehow implying that the USA would use chemical weapons in Iraq? Have you just had a sudden and total lapse of brain, or are you always this dumb?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Nodrog
At what point does it become justifiable to intentionally kill innocent civilians in order to save the life of military personnel?

Depending on what you want to accomplish. If you just want to save your own people regardless of cost than it should be done at first sign of casualites of any significance. If you want to liberate the people your not really aiming at killing them all infront of the public opinion. Bush on the other hand, would probably have started nuking months ago if it was entirly upp to him.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Nodrog
At what point does it become justifiable to intentionally kill innocent civilians in order to save the life of military personnel?

August 6, 1945

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by General Geiger
What on earth are you talking about? What 'goal' are you talking about? Are you somehow implying that the USA would use chemical weapons in Iraq? Have you just had a sudden and total lapse of brain, or are you always this dumb?

Goal of liberating the people of Iraq as a 'walk in the park' operation. In other words, not loose to many American Soliders.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
America has shown us how powerul they are by attacking one of the weakest nations in the world, yet when North Korea gets a nuke it's time for "a diplomatic solution".

This raises an interesting point. You are partly correct that North Korea would be a more viable and obvious target for American attack, but they are so much stronger than Iraq militarily speaking that the US are, you might say, "too scared".

It is also worth noting that the North Koreans are utterly fanatical, prepared to die for their leader, have several nuclear bombs and enough artillery to annihilate the South Korean capital of Seoul. An attack on them would provoke many, many times more deaths than the war in Iraq will.

The war in Iraq is intended to prevent a second Korean war, in which a million people might die, by showing the North Koreans that the US is prepared to fight a ground war and take casualties. It is a vast political gambit to prevent a war that would be ten times as bloody from ever occurring.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
150,000 people and for what, Saddam offered to withdraw from Kuwait in August(6 months before the gulf war),

So why didn't he? Kuwait's not that big, if they had six months the Iraqi troops could have walked out!

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
So why didn't he? Kuwait's not that big, if they had six months the Iraqi troops could have walked out!

And burn the oil wells. And rape the women. And murder the men and the children. And burn down the houses.

Doesn't it strike you as an interesting comparison that setting oil wells aflame is the closest thing we hae these days to ploughing the fields with salt?

Actually, nuclear and chemical cotamination do that job pretty well, also.

[nickhall]

Originally posted by General Geiger
MOAB "Mother Of All Bombs"

i lmfao when he called it that on BBC news 24 last night.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Nodrog
That One of those events was an inhuman travesty,

they are all travesties.

[Texan]

Originally posted by General Geiger

Holy f*cking sh*t. No use of the 22,500 pound MOAB ("Massive Ordnance Air Blast"; or, as has been alternatively suggested, "Mother Of All Bombs"), but christ. The majority of an eleven-thousand-strong group of Iraqi soldiers, half the so-called "Medina division" was killed. Just consider that. Two bombs killed roughly six thousand people. That's two 9/11s. Each one of those bombs was a 9/11. Just think about that. Christ.

In one dramatic raid last night, the 101st Airborne Division - in their first action of the war - blasted the Medina, an elite Republican Guard unit near Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The 101st's helicopter gunships wiped out four tanks, six armored personnel carriers and 15 other vehicles and a fiber optics communications tower, said Maj. Randall Haws.

Your information is incorrect. Allied forces have been attacking the Medina Division for some time. It was not just two bombs. Where did you get your bull**** information from?

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Texan
In one dramatic raid last night, the 101st Airborne Division - in their first action of the war - blasted the Medina, an elite Republican Guard unit near Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The 101st's helicopter gunships wiped out four tanks, six armored personnel carriers and 15 other vehicles and a fiber optics communications tower, said Maj. Randall Haws.

Your information is incorrect. Allied forces have been attacking the Medina Division for some time. It was not just two bombs. Where did you get your bull**** information from?

Well no sh*t; of course they've been attacking the Medina division with everything they have as well. The point I was making, you hillbilly sh*tstain, is that the two 15,000 lb (roughly 6.75 tons) bombs were used to devastating effect, and killed about six thousand Republican Guard soldiers. Didn't you get this?

And in terms of where I got the information from, I read it in the Times newspaper (a respectable English broadsheet), on the front page.