Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?

Oralloy wrote:

Sarcasm aside, it is true that there was not nearly enough fuel there to support a firestorm.

Statements from authority on your part won't get it . . . what evidence do you offer that this is true?

Quite apart from that, this constitutes a case of you having contradicted yourself.

You earlier claim that the firestorm from the RAF raid has consumed all the fuel available, but now you are alleging that there were fuel available, but not enough. You know, when you backpeddle so furiously, the risk increases that you will fall down altogether.

If there were no fuel at all, what was the point of the USAAF using 300 tons of incendiary in their ordnance mix? If you allege that the USAAF couldn't know that, how can you now claim to know that were the case on the morning of February 14? If the firestorm started by the RAF raid had consumed all of the available fuel, in the city center, what was the point of the USAAF raid at all?

Please, stop with the "precision attack" bullshit, and stop with the claims about firestorms

but it is now becoming glaringly obvious that you can't keep your story straight.

Washington
August 9, 2003

A Pentagon official has confirmed that US forces used napalm-like firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad in March. The official defended their use on the grounds of being legal and necessary.

One of the air strikes was witnessed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was told by US Marine officers that napalm was used. Mr Murdoch's account prompted a flat denial by a Pentagon spokesman at the time.

But on Thursday a Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said US Marine Corps jets dropped Mark-77 firebombs at least once in March to take out Iraqi positions at the town of Safwan, across the Kuwaiti border from the US-led invasion force.

"It is like this: you've got (an) enemy that's hard to get at. And it will save your own lives to use it, and there is no international contraventions against it," the official said.

"I don't know that there is any humane way to kill your enemy."

Marines used the napalm-like bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad - against Iraqis defending a bridge across the Saddam Canal and near a Tigris River bridge north of the town of Numaniyah in south-central Iraq, the San Diego Tribune reported. "We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," Colonel Randolph Alles, the commander of Marine Air Group 11, was quoted as saying.

"Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video. They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die."

The bombs are filled with a different mix of incendiary chemicals than napalm but have the same terrifying effect - a penetrating fire that seeps into dug-in infantry positions.

"The generals love napalm," Colonel Alles said. "It has a big psychological effect."

The US military destroyed its stock of napalm bombs in 2001 because they were deemed an environmental hazard.

On March 22, correspondent Murdoch, who was travelling with the US Marines, reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill.

Mr Murdoch's account was based on statements by two US Marine Corps officers on the ground. The CNN network also reported that napalm was used in the attack.

Mr Murdoch's report was denied by Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant-Commander Jeff Davis, who said the report was "patently false".

Nope -- my story is straight. Since all I do is defend the truth each time I post, and since the truth tends to be the same thing from post to post, there isn't much cause for variance.

I am not sure if using radar guidance to try to take out the railyards constitutes a "precision attack", but our attack was in fact an attempt to destroy the railyards, and we had nothing to do with the UK's firestorm.

Words will never hide the inhumanity of war.

oralloy wrote :

Quote:

I am not sure if using radar guidance to try to take out the railyards constitutes a "precision attack", but our attack was in fact an attempt to destroy the railyards, and we had nothing to do with the UK's firestorm.

it most likely was an "attempt" to destroy the railyards , but the american (and british) bomber crews were not kamikase fighters who didn't value their lives .
quite often bomber crews when encountering either fighter attacks or heavy anti-aircraft fire would "unload" their bombs without being concerned about "precision" bombing .
even in iraq and afghanistan , (so called) "precision" bombing has often enough missed targets by more than a mile - even though today's guide systems are much improved over those in WW II .
imo "precision" bombing is simply a sanitized term substituing for : "drop the load ! " .

in the olden days there was mortal combat : soldiers against soldiers and any "civilians" who might be unlucky enough to be close by .

today we have sanitized "mortal combat" by calling it "precision bombing " .

the end result : DEATH - either way !
hbg

It is also estimated that more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed by this war.

The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

About 151,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in bomb attacks and other violence in Iraq in the first three years after the invasion, according to the most comprehensive study yet into the number of fatalities.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) based its estimate on a survey of nearly 10,000 households, conducted jointly with the Iraqi Government. It said that the actual figure of violent deaths between March 2003 and June 2006 could be as high as 223,000 or as low as 104,000.

The firebombs used at the beginning of the war is a contradiction of your "unfair" statement.

It is also estimated that more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed by this war.

So much for the "smart" bombs, heh?

Yes, many operations in the second world war by allied forces might be termed war crimes. Compare this to what has gone before in history, and our responses were fairly civilized given the horrendous crimes of the opponent. There is a valid distinction to be made between the actions of an agressor, and a belligerant who seeks to end the agressor's reign of terror.

Your response is relatively non-responsive. Would you have preferred we just went Roman on the 5+ million residents of Bagdad? It would have been a hell of lot cheaper, quicker, and infinitely more efficient.

Straw man. General Shinseki said we needed several hundred thousand troops, but Rummy and Bush gave him an early retirement for telling the truth.


Why is it so difficult for some people to admit the simple truth? We spent A HELL OF A LOT more money to effectively kill fewer civilians. Pretending this isn't so is inexplicable wishful thinking.

The truth is, we should never have gone into Iraq to start the war.

Where does this desire to paint America in the worst possible light, in spite of the facts, come from?

Because truth must be acknowledged - even when the US screws up.

Quote:

Your response is relatively non-responsive. Would you have preferred we just went Roman on the 5+ million residents of Bagdad? It would have been a hell of lot cheaper, quicker, and infinitely more efficient.

Straw man. General Shinseki said we needed several hundred thousand troops, but Rummy and Bush gave him an early retirement for telling the truth.

That isn't a Strawman, CI. Let's see if we can address casualties in a way simple enough for you to understand:
(Try and follow along)
1<2
100<1,000
100,000-1,000,000<5,000,000
LESS<MORE
LESS=BETTER
LESS MORE

Smart bombs= LESS (not to be confused with ZERO )

Is that clear enough for you?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

Why is it so difficult for some people to admit the simple truth? We spent A HELL OF A LOT more money to effectively kill fewer civilians. Pretending this isn't so is inexplicable wishful thinking.

The truth is, we should never have gone into Iraq to start the war.

That has NOTHING to do with the equation, CI. Focus.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

Where does this desire to paint America in the worst possible light, in spite of the facts, come from?

Because truth must be acknowledged - even when the US screws up.

So lacking a coherent argument against the simple fact that Smart Bombs increase accuracy; you just pretend they don't anyway, in spite of the simple, obvious truth because you didn't like the war? That's REALLY stupid, CI.

Naw, you're not seeing the BIG picture; smart bombs didn't help the Iraqis one iota. Starting a war has "everything" to do with all the subsequent screw-ups of this administration.

I'm gonna let somebody else address your "side" issues about numbers, where the basic facts are that wars kill innocent people, smart bombs or no smart bombs. Less doesn't justify the war.

do you think RAF bombing was criminal but USAF not so?