|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hard to understand the point YBS is making (as usual). If the Israelis had gone all Dresden on S. Lebanon, I doubt there would be any Hezbollah left (but of course no civilians either).
I read a news report last week (didn't post it here and doubt I could find it again, sorry) where Lebanese were complaining that Israeli leaflets were dropped giving them only 20 minutes to clear the area before an airstrike levelled their building.
Israelis had determined that rockets were being fired by Hezbollah next to the building.
So, there has been fighting and evacuations ongoing for 3 weeks, then the local militia/terorist group (take your pick) starts launching rockets from right next to your building?
Wouldn't THAT be a pretty clear message that you might want to get out of the area?
Why wait for leaflets telling you the area is about to bombed?
They got an extra 18 minutes by my calculations.
Certainly in no way comparably to what the Allies did to Germany in their bombing campaigns, and a big ditto to what BB said about effectiveness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Hard to understand the point YBS is making (as usual). |
i think it's: violence is bad and counterproductive.
kumbaya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Bush and Vice-President *beep* Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah�s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel�s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre�mptive attack to destroy Iran�s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground. |
Certainly explains why Israel deviated from past doctrine and relied so heavily on airstrikes.
But talk about crazy- how did they manage to talk the IDF into this when clearly the "shock and awe" airpower tactics have not been proven successful in the past? In fact, there's a pretty good case for arguing that such tactics have been failures.
... |
There is also a pretty good case for arguing that "shock and awe" airpower is not a failure. It worked well in Afghanistan...the suceeding failures have been due to poor follow-up and focus on Iraq. Worked very well in Japan and Nazi Germany. Worked well against the Serbs. I'd say like any military tactic it depends on a number of variables including duration, intensity, type of bombs, number of aircraft, world opinion, media onlookers.... |
It didn't work at all in Germany |
So VE Day was an illusion? The NAZIs are still in power? Wow, I have a really bad case of denial apparently. |
If all of the resources that went into bombing German cities (some with little industry) had gone into other military operations the war against Germany would have been over sooner. It also would have saved 100,000s of civilian lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, given that clarification, I'd buy that line of reasoning and by extension the criticism that Israeli airpower was both ineffective and counterproductive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Bush and Vice-President *beep* Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah�s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel�s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre�mptive attack to destroy Iran�s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground. |
Certainly explains why Israel deviated from past doctrine and relied so heavily on airstrikes.
But talk about crazy- how did they manage to talk the IDF into this when clearly the "shock and awe" airpower tactics have not been proven successful in the past? In fact, there's a pretty good case for arguing that such tactics have been failures.
... |
There is also a pretty good case for arguing that "shock and awe" airpower is not a failure. It worked well in Afghanistan...the suceeding failures have been due to poor follow-up and focus on Iraq. Worked very well in Japan and Nazi Germany. Worked well against the Serbs. I'd say like any military tactic it depends on a number of variables including duration, intensity, type of bombs, number of aircraft, world opinion, media onlookers.... |
It didn't work at all in Germany |
So VE Day was an illusion? The NAZIs are still in power? Wow, I have a really bad case of denial apparently. |
If all of the resources that went into bombing German cities (some with little industry) had gone into other military operations the war against Germany would have been over sooner. It also would have saved 100,000s of civilian lives. |
and you make this argument based on what exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Bush and Vice-President *beep* Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah�s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel�s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre�mptive attack to destroy Iran�s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground. |
Certainly explains why Israel deviated from past doctrine and relied so heavily on airstrikes.
But talk about crazy- how did they manage to talk the IDF into this when clearly the "shock and awe" airpower tactics have not been proven successful in the past? In fact, there's a pretty good case for arguing that such tactics have been failures.
... |
There is also a pretty good case for arguing that "shock and awe" airpower is not a failure. It worked well in Afghanistan...the suceeding failures have been due to poor follow-up and focus on Iraq. Worked very well in Japan and Nazi Germany. Worked well against the Serbs. I'd say like any military tactic it depends on a number of variables including duration, intensity, type of bombs, number of aircraft, world opinion, media onlookers.... |
It didn't work at all in Germany |
So VE Day was an illusion? The NAZIs are still in power? Wow, I have a really bad case of denial apparently. |
If all of the resources that went into bombing German cities (some with little industry) had gone into other military operations the war against Germany would have been over sooner. It also would have saved 100,000s of civilian lives. |
and you make this argument based on what exactly? |
Based on the fact that the Nazis held out til spring of 1945 and were only defeated by Russian manpower / cannon fodder in the end. High-level aerial bombardment did nothing to break the regime, as the regime could not be broken externally. Which would have been more useful - air groups to bomb Dresden, Cologne, and Bremen or mechanised divisions to push east with air resources going towards close support?
If you don't understand such a simple guns-or-butter theory it's little wonder you'd consider Israel's strategy to be effective and productive (which it couldn't have been less of). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Bush and Vice-President *beep* Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah�s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel�s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre�mptive attack to destroy Iran�s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground. |
Certainly explains why Israel deviated from past doctrine and relied so heavily on airstrikes.
But talk about crazy- how did they manage to talk the IDF into this when clearly the "shock and awe" airpower tactics have not been proven successful in the past? In fact, there's a pretty good case for arguing that such tactics have been failures.
... |
There is also a pretty good case for arguing that "shock and awe" airpower is not a failure. It worked well in Afghanistan...the suceeding failures have been due to poor follow-up and focus on Iraq. Worked very well in Japan and Nazi Germany. Worked well against the Serbs. I'd say like any military tactic it depends on a number of variables including duration, intensity, type of bombs, number of aircraft, world opinion, media onlookers.... |
It didn't work at all in Germany |
So VE Day was an illusion? The NAZIs are still in power? Wow, I have a really bad case of denial apparently. |
If all of the resources that went into bombing German cities (some with little industry) had gone into other military operations the war against Germany would have been over sooner. It also would have saved 100,000s of civilian lives. |
and you make this argument based on what exactly? |
Based on the fact that the Nazis held out til spring of 1945 and were only defeated by Russian manpower / cannon fodder in the end. High-level aerial bombardment did nothing to break the regime, as the regime could not be broken externally. Which would have been more useful - air groups to bomb Dresden, Cologne, and Bremen or mechanised divisions to push east with air resources going towards close support?
If you don't understand such a simple guns-or-butter theory it's little wonder you'd consider Israel's strategy to be effective and productive (which it couldn't have been less of). |
I'm not going to argue that every bombing campaign for every city was necessarily better, but the aerial bombardment undeniably sapped the German economic base. Perhaps you don't understand how technologically superior the German Panzers, Tigers, and especially later model tanks were compared to Britain and American tanks (the Russians had the best tanks).
WWII was total war and thus not easily comparable to the conflict in Lebanon. But, aerial superiority definitely proved pivotal against Germany. And while you may be restricting your argument to the effectiveness of bombardment, I wouldn't say WWI bombardment was useless nor all-effective, but it probably reduced casualties and broke the will of some German units to fight here and there.
If you want to look at the effectiveness of air power in WWII look at the battle of the Kursk salient and how the Germans used fighters and torpedo bombers to take out Russian tanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Bush and Vice-President *beep* Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah�s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel�s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre�mptive attack to destroy Iran�s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground. |
Certainly explains why Israel deviated from past doctrine and relied so heavily on airstrikes.
But talk about crazy- how did they manage to talk the IDF into this when clearly the "shock and awe" airpower tactics have not been proven successful in the past? In fact, there's a pretty good case for arguing that such tactics have been failures.
... |
There is also a pretty good case for arguing that "shock and awe" airpower is not a failure. It worked well in Afghanistan...the suceeding failures have been due to poor follow-up and focus on Iraq. Worked very well in Japan and Nazi Germany. Worked well against the Serbs. I'd say like any military tactic it depends on a number of variables including duration, intensity, type of bombs, number of aircraft, world opinion, media onlookers.... |
It didn't work at all in Germany and if it worked so well in Afghanistan, why have 16 Canadians died there in the past six months? It certainly hasn't worked at all for Israel in Lebanon, where Israel has proven excellent at destroying civilian targets but ineffective at stopping rocket attacks. |
It helped bring Nazi Germany to it's knees by destroying the industrial bases and sapping the will of the populace to resist. As for Afghanistan it drove out the Taliban in double quick time. The problem in Afghanistan (like I have already said) was poor follow-up and the focus on Iraq.
Had America NOT invaded Iraq but instead put those troops in Afghanistan it is likely we would have more control over it than we do at present. 16 Canadians killed? Hardly compares to the bloodbath of Iraq, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
.
Certainly in no way comparably to what the Allies did to Germany in their bombing campaigns, and a big ditto to what BB said about effectiveness. |
And that's exactly why it lacked effectiveness. I am just pointing out that "shock and awe" bombardment CAN be effective...it's just a question of how far you are willing to go. In no way am I saying that Israel SHOULD have imitated the Allies and gone all Dresden on S. Lebanon's hinny, simply pointing out that air power has not exactly been a failure in the past, it has had some successes. It depends on how it is carried out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good points made all around but I think everyone is in agreement that Israeli airpower was not effective in S. Lebanon? It didn't stop Hizbullah rocket attacks, it barely slowed them down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm not going to argue that every bombing campaign for every city was necessarily better, but the aerial bombardment undeniably sapped the German economic base. |
But it did little to sap Germany's ability to fight on the ground or sap the will of its defenders.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps you don't understand how technologically superior the German Panzers, Tigers, and especially later model tanks were compared to Britain and American tanks (the Russians had the best tanks). |
Which Germany produced despite the UK and US placing such a heavy emphasis on bombing of civilian targets.
| Quote: |
| WWII was total war and thus not easily comparable to the conflict in Lebanon. But, aerial superiority definitely proved pivotal against Germany. |
Yes, indeed. Flying fortresses did nothing to gain aeriel superiority. In fact they were a liability to the Allies' fighters.
| Quote: |
| And while you may be restricting your argument to the effectiveness of bombardment, I wouldn't say WWI bombardment was useless nor all-effective, but it probably reduced casualties and broke the will of some German units to fight here and there. |
It did little but produce 600,000 fatalities and increased, not decreased, Germans' will to fight.
| Quote: |
| If you want to look at the effectiveness of air power in WWII look at the battle of the Kursk salient and how the Germans used fighters and torpedo bombers to take out Russian tanks. |
Exactly, because air power was used in close combat support, not the indescriminate killing of civilians. Thanks for making my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Had America NOT invaded Iraq but instead put those troops in Afghanistan it is likely we would have more control over it than we do at present. 16 Canadians killed? Hardly compares to the bloodbath of Iraq, no? |
Indeed - this is a good example of the misapplication and failure of high-technology aerial bombardment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm not going to argue that every bombing campaign for every city was necessarily better, but the aerial bombardment undeniably sapped the German economic base. |
But it did little to sap Germany's ability to fight on the ground or sap the will of its defenders. |
So it doesn't require money or factories to fight? Hmmm.. Interesting..
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And while you may be restricting your argument to the effectiveness of bombardment, I wouldn't say WWI bombardment was useless nor all-effective, but it probably reduced casualties and broke the will of some German units to fight here and there. |
It did little but produce 600,000 fatalities and increased, not decreased, Germans' will to fight. |
And you're basing this on what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Had America NOT invaded Iraq but instead put those troops in Afghanistan it is likely we would have more control over it than we do at present. 16 Canadians killed? Hardly compares to the bloodbath of Iraq, no? |
Indeed - this is a good example of the misapplication and failure of high-technology aerial bombardment. |
WHAT? It was largely due to aerial bombardment that the U.S was able to gain control of Afghanistan so quickly. Had they followed up with a massive deployment of troops and left Iraq for later it is likely that the Taliban would not longer be a threat or at least not as much as they are at present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Had America NOT invaded Iraq but instead put those troops in Afghanistan it is likely we would have more control over it than we do at present. 16 Canadians killed? Hardly compares to the bloodbath of Iraq, no? |
Indeed - this is a good example of the misapplication and failure of high-technology aerial bombardment. |
WHAT? It was largely due to aerial bombardment that the U.S was able to gain control of Afghanistan so quickly. Had they followed up with a massive deployment of troops and left Iraq for later it is likely that the Taliban would not longer be a threat or at least not as much as they are at present. |
Ain't that the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
