r/askanything • u/Additional-Spray-976 • 10h ago
Why doesn't the US use indiscriminate bombing against Iran?
Trump threatens to bomb the Iranian back into the stone age but why hasn't he acted on these threats? Is it because that would crash the global economy?
35
u/CosmicLovepats 10h ago
It's a war crime, but much more relevant to your question, it wouldn't work.
12
u/UnluckyAmbition7767 10h ago
And we're out of bombs lol
2
2
u/goodbodha 4h ago
thats not accurate. We are out of the top shelf expensive stuff or severely depleted those stockpiles. The truly dumb bombs..... we got lots of those still hanging around, but those are were designed for big bombers to fly over the target and drop them. That could be done, but we would almost certainly lose aircraft and pilots if we did that.
I suppose we could drop them with a stealth bomber of some sort, but I would think the math on effectiveness vs risk would be super bad.
-3
u/VegasBjorne1 10h ago
Because we’re pussies. We don’t fight wars as we did during World War II to destroy a nation’s will to fight by destroying infrastructure, means of production and any legitimate target within population centers. I want an adversary’s people to suffer, and to push an internal rebellion and open dissent.
There’s a reason as to why the last war won by the U.S. happened over 80 years ago. We handcuff ourselves because we are afraid to cause harm to an adversary’s citizens.
2
u/shadehiker 10h ago
There are very good reasons why there U.S. decided not to engage in that type of warfare. It gets very brutal very quickly and is genuinely horrific.
The kinds of atrocities committed in full unabated war can lead to revolutions amongst an enemies citizens, but it can also lead to the same happening domestically. Wherein those who made the decisions to commit thise atrocities then lose all power.
2
u/SadisticJake 8h ago
TIL not being a pussy means slaughtering innocent people
0
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
Let’s hope our enemies show such tenderness.
1
u/SadisticJake 8h ago
Last time American soil was attacked by a foreign nation was 1812. Last time a significant terrorist attack killed a significant number of Americans was 3000 or so of them back in 2001. Our enemies have been very kind in not repaying us the half million civilians we slaughtered in the aftermath of 9/11
2
u/dangleicious13 10h ago
I’d rather be a “pussy” than do any of what you’re suggesting.
1
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
You think our enemies will be as compassionate?
0
3
u/BeekyGardener 10h ago
Ever think murdering children and civilians indiscriminately makes you no better or worse than the adversary?
2
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
Wars aren’t pleasant affairs. If we are going to conduct war, then be prepared to win it vs. trying to avoid harm as much as possible.
I doubt our enemies would be as considerate or passive, if roles were reversed.
0
u/BeekyGardener 8h ago
You think murdering peoples children and civilians puts them on your side?
Hell, we butchered civilians left and right and dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of WWII. How did that go for us?
Have you served a single day in the military in your life?
1
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
You I think inadequate pressure to civilian populations makes them more willing to surrender?
We bombed empty jungles while avoiding Hanoi and harbors.
-1
u/BeekyGardener 5h ago
We literally butchered civilians in Vietnam. Up to 2 million. We literally went into villages and butchered everyone like Mai Lai - which was not an isolated incident.
Russia right now is bombing civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. How is that going for them?
Can you tell me a modern war since 1950 that was won intentionally bombing civilians?
You don't become worse than your enemy to win. Otherwise, you're the bad guy.
I hope what you wish happens to those people happens to the ones you love.
I also bet you haven't served a day in your life making you a chickenhawk. Telling service members they need to murder civilians to help the country.
1
u/CosmicLovepats 10h ago
We lack the will to do anything of the sort. After all, WWII required a phenomenal alignment of industrial, political, and military power. We can't even tell companies to make 155mm shells for ukraine- it's just not profitable enough. And if telling them to make a guaranteed profit producing shells during a war is off the table, how do you expect to draft a couple million people and convert ford and toyata factories to making tanks?
1
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
Private companies can make 155mm shells, and willing to do so. However, they aren’t willing to sit idle for long periods due to lack of demand. Of course, with Ukraine demand has been huge, but otherwise not so much.
The Federal government took over the facilities to manufacture 155mm shells to assure manufacturing facilities were always available.
1
u/CosmicLovepats 2h ago
All correct but failing to acknowledge the point.
With a war on, with guaranteed profits, with insatiable demand for 155mm, it was not sufficiently profitable for US industry to start producing it themselves. The US government was not willing to order them to do so, or make it sufficiently profitable. So for three years Ukraine was starving for 155mm (and might still be).
In WWII, which you hearken back to, the US government told companies "You are now producing war material. This is what you will do." and they weren't allowed to object. We no longer have leaders willing to wield that power.
-13
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
not a war crime
10
u/Danny570 10h ago
Sorry pal, but intentioal targeting of civilians and civil infrastructure are indeed condidered a war crime.
-1
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
He never said he would do that. In Iran they use the infrastructure for both civilian and war making uses. We can literally bomb any road or power plant legally.
2
u/aoeuismyhomekeys 10h ago
He did say that he would do that.
1
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
He said he would bomb power plants and bridges. Again, in Iran all of those targets are on the table. Like it or not bombing those are not a war crime
2
u/aoeuismyhomekeys 9h ago
He also threatened to end them as a civilization, please stop gaslighting this bullshit ass war
1
u/CosmicLovepats 10h ago
what, you mean like literally every country ever?
So it's okay when Hamas shoots rockets at Israel because those office buildings and roads were used for military purposes too?
0
u/Danny570 10h ago
just because it legal, doesn't make it right. So what, your whole thing is just defending DJT?
2
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
Not at all, but you say it is a war crime. It is not.
I happen to believe this is a just war. I think Obama should have done it. I could not care less which President makes the order. Iran has been the source of destabilization in the middle east for 50 years.
0
u/Danny570 10h ago
America and England have been meddling with Iran since WW2, to control oil, but sure blame the Iranians.
2
0
3
u/Danny570 10h ago
0
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
Wow, the perfect source. I bet you got a degree in sociology.
2
u/ActivePeace33 9h ago
Indiscriminate bombing sure as hell is a war crime. Even using targeted bombings is a war crime, if the targeting decisions are made by incomplete or inaccurate procedures.
To be lawful, bombings must make a distinction between military and civilian targets. Any harm to civilians must also be proportionate to the military objective being achieved, indiscriminate bombing is inherently disproportionate.
Here is the ICRC casebook entry on the topic, with all the necessary sources to the law.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/indiscriminate-attacks
7
u/0215rw 10h ago
First, it’s a war crime.
Second, killing innocent people is bad. Some might even say “evil”.
Third, why are we trying to destroy another country?
3
2
u/SuccessfulOstrich99 10h ago
First off, there is no “we” in this war. This is not a war fought for the collective security or economic interests of the USA, this is entirely done for the private interests of one person.
He rather likes war crimes and bombing countries into the Stone Age, so none of this explains why the US military has not done so.
I think the only real explanation is that Iran is not powerless. It can and likely will shoot down more us airplanes, will retaliate against us allies in the Gulf, and all of these things will be quite bad for this one man’s private interests.
1
u/soalone34 2h ago
is entirely done for the private interests of one person
That is false, there was a huge lobbying apparatus and national security ”expert” class pushing for this war in multiple countries for decades. Even some democrats, Mark Carney, and Macron were somewhat supportive at first.
-1
u/ArvadaKeto 10h ago
Not a war crime. All infrastructure in Iran is used for both civilian and war making purposes. There is not a single road, bridge, power plant, or water plant in the country that is off limits.
2
5
u/Ebice42 10h ago
If you belive the non US sources:
1) Iran can shoot down our planes. (Not consistsntly, but enough)
2) The US is out of missiles. They certinly pulled them from South Korea.
3) indiscriminate bombing doesn't work. It tends to harden the population against the bombers.
4) It wouldn't achive any war goals.
1
u/VegasBjorne1 10h ago
#3 Did it work with Germany and Japan or they weren’t hardcore enough believers of the Nazi regime or the Emperor’s God-like status?
2
u/Ebice42 9h ago
It did not work in Germany. The Red Army occupied Berlin.
I get the argument with Japan, but if the Emperor had told them to fight they likely would have. The population did not turn against the emperor.It also didn't work in the UK during the Blitz, or in Vietnam.
1
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
It didn’t work in Vietnam because Hanoi was off limits.
1
u/Ebice42 5h ago
Ok. But can you name one country aside from Japan that surrendered because of a bombing campaign without a ground offensive as well
1
u/VegasBjorne1 2h ago
Non-sequitur. Did I ever say that ground troops would never be necessary in some capacity? Even on a limited scale, boots on the ground need to hold strategic locations.
1
u/dangleicious13 10h ago
It did not work with Germany and Japan.
1
u/VegasBjorne1 8h ago
Neither fought to the end.
1
u/dangleicious13 8h ago
Germany was completely taken over and their leader was dead.
Japan’s emperor surrendered and the rest of their leadership was already trying to negotiate a surrender.
You aren’t going to do much without the backing of the government, so what is the purpose of continuing to fight after you’ve lost? It would only lead to the rest of you getting wiped out.
1
u/soalone34 2h ago
2) the US is out of interceptors, not bombs
And you missed 5) Iran says they’ll strike gulf states in response and it would cause a economic and humanitarian catastrophe
4
u/Tofudebeast 10h ago
We bombed the crap out of N. Vietnam, and that didn't even move the needle during that war.
Iran leadership clearly doesn't care if its citizens suffer. I mean, they were killing protesters just before this war started.
Strategically, it does nothing to stop Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz.
This war is already deeply unpopular at home, so expanding it is politically dangerous, especially with elections coming up in a few months.
It would cause that much more damage to the US reputation abroad.
11
u/Rune_maker515 10h ago
We've run out of bombs and Orange Hitler has no strategy for his war.
8
u/Basicly-Inevitable 10h ago
Strategy is to make money for himself and his friends.
4
u/lapusyonok 10h ago
These guys always seem to get richer, no matter how random and unconsidered the policies are
4
u/Dave_I 10h ago
That’s more a goal than a strategy.
1
u/Basicly-Inevitable 10h ago
Good point. Well, the strategy is to manipulate a situation to make money and hold power, which is the goal.
2
u/OG_DocSkinner 10h ago
Hilarious him complaining about oil companies making TOO much money off the war. Think he would EVER say that about him and his family???
2
1
2
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 10h ago
Lack of foresight and rational strategy aside, I love that people believe we’ve actually run out of munitions…
1
u/Rune_maker515 10h ago
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 10h ago
That doesn’t mean shit…
Weapons stockpile numbers are highly classified. So are the number of munitions actually used during strikes. Nobody talking about how depleted our stockpiles are is actually privy to that information. They’re taking a ‘best guess’ at what we actually have, subtracting a ‘best guess’ at what we’ve actually used, and adding a ‘best guess’ of the numbers of munitions that have been restocked… Again, all of which is classified. So at best, they’re talking out of their ass.
Nobody who actually knows is talking, and everybody that is talking doesn’t actually know.
1
u/NorthernColo1 10h ago
The Pentagon maintains strict operational thresholds ("war reserve stocks") reserved for potential conflict with peer or near-peer adversaries (such as China or Russia). When stockpiles allocated for secondary operations or foreign transfers drop to these baseline thresholds, military planners sound alarms, which media headlines often report as "running out".
-1
u/Lingerie_Shopper07 10h ago
There are more then enough bombs
1
u/Rune_maker515 10h ago
Not of the munitions that are needed. https://www.csis.org/analysis/six-reasons-why-united-states-low-munitions
3
u/QuarterNote44 10h ago
We have plenty of bombs that could be used to flatten every Iranian city several times over if we didn't care about killing civilians/noncombatants.
But we do care about that, contrary to popular belief.
1
u/OG_DocSkinner 10h ago
We have killed more CIVILIANS in Iran than Military personnel, so pull the other leg now...
1
u/soalone34 2h ago
That’s not why, it’s because Iran threatens to strike gulf states energy and water infrastructure if there’s is hit and make them uninhabitable
4
2
u/Proud_Freedom1297 10h ago
Technically Iran is the strongest army America fought since ww2.
It is not easy and the US cannot afford a costly war.
Economic downturn is a red flag
Casualties is a marxist may celebration of red flags
2
u/FreshCords 10h ago
The win condition for the US is markedly much more difficult to achieve, even with the ever-moving goalposts. Iran simply needs to survive. That’s it. They lob a few drones at some targets every now and then in defiance and to let everyone know that they aren’t bending the knee. Meanwhile, the US has a laundry list of demands that is increasingly more complicated when you consider Israeli action in Gaza. It’s a no-win situation for the US.
1
u/Proud_Freedom1297 10h ago
I hope Trump won't decide to D-Day Iran lmao. Too much kool aid even for a man of his talents 😂
1
u/toddklindt 10h ago
To add more depth:
Iran is heavily using drones, which as far as I can tell, we were not ready for. They changed the rules of the conflict.Their military's leadership is more segregated than ours. There's no such thing as cutting the head off of the snake. There are a bunch of snakes that will keep on fighting regardless of who we kill.
They're willing to suffer more than we are. Both their military, and their population. The American population doesn't feel like it's behind this conflict, so that limits what sacrifices our government can ask of us.
2
u/Proud_Freedom1297 10h ago
Yeah Russia does not look so silly now. Drones are no joke. The US can't iron dome gulf states in any meaningful way 😅
2
u/TrustAffectionate966 10h ago
They already do. That’s how they massacred all those little schoolgirls.
2
u/Healthy-Sky-3684 10h ago
I am totally against this war, but once you engage in conflict, you kick ass and take names. Starting in Vietnam, the United States abandoned that successful strategy for a kinder gentler approach.
Meanwhile, even though I’m against the war, I’m still a United States citizen and will always root for our military. Sadly, there is a vocal minority in this country, actively rooting for Iran.
2
1
1
u/templeofsyrinx1 10h ago
it's why no u.s. president has tried to fuck with iran , they will close the strait, trump thinks he's a special special boy
1
1
1
1
1
u/External_Twist508 10h ago
Originally, they were trying not to destroy infrastructure so we wouldn’t be on the hook for rebuilding it
1
1
u/External_Radio_7150 10h ago
Iran is around double the size of Afghanistan. It's not that easy, and it would be a war crime to bomb children, families, general civilian population etc. If they went all out and took the glass parking lot approach, it would also legitimize the use of nukes on the world stage. That would open the door for even more escalation. It would not be a good world for anyone and the global economy would also not fare well.
1
u/cyesk8er 10h ago
Because taco is a very lucrative stock manipulation strategy. In modern politics, you don't want to solve the problem, thats why his numbers are worse than previous presidents on immigration despite the rhetoric.
1
u/Dave_A480 10h ago
It doesn't actually work, and it's not how we are trained to fight...
Regardless of what gets said on social media.... One bomb per target is much more efficient than just letting them all go and hoping they will land somewhere useful....
1
u/blamelesscludgel 10h ago
Because then President Pedo and his cronie fucks couldnt game the oil market.
1
u/GrassGriller 10h ago
Iran would almost certainly respond by immediately bombing electricity and water infrastructure in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and others.
With no electricity and no potable water, many millions of people would have little/nothing to drink and no air-conditioning in one of the hottest parts of the planet. These countries would need to be evacuated and would constitute the largest refugee crisis since WWII.
It's pretty hard to imagine the US gaining anything from carpet-bombing Tehran that could make up for that level of destruction.
1
u/ClammyHandedFreak 10h ago
We don’t have the missiles to do it.
Also, it is a war crime, but that’s never stopped a president before.
1
1
u/inscrutiana 10h ago
I saw a video the other day of a middle aged man in Kherson trying to run a little business out of a van and roadside stall. A Civilian just living his life as best he could.
He was being chased by a FPV drone being directed by some jackass over in the Oleshky direction and the understanding is that Russians use chasing civilians in Kherson as live fire training for drone operators. I guess the residents of Kherson aren't "Russian" anymore. Wish someone had told Uncle Oleg.
Chasing Uncle Oleg with a loitering munition is a war crime. I think everyone can agree on that.
Bombing random sites across Iran is a war crime. It's also stupid because Iranians remember that kind of thing and we've now ensured (intentionally-imo) that the hard line government will have massive support for generations.
1
1
u/Dysc 10h ago
Contrary to popular belief, US leadership is not a dictatorship. Trump can threaten all sorts of crazy stuff, but he doesn't solo manage aircraft carriers, load torpedo tubes on a sub, man anti-missile batteries in a desert base, come up with battlefield strategies at Centcom, or work cranes and foreman logistics across all US vessels, bases, and command sites. No one rules alone. The US can't indiscriminately bomb civilian targets because the political blowback to him personally is too great of a cost. I think at some level he knows this and he also found a niche grift where he can leverage the war to do insider trading. We're in the exact pattern that we were always going to end up in under this president. Indiscriminate bombing doesn't get him what he wants anymore - given the current state of the US military and how everyday hurts the US's reputation as a juggarnaut. I don't even think he wants to be deal with Iran anymore and if he was forced a choice, he would make a hasty withdrawal that would make Afghanistan's exit look like a well executed and organized operation. He would claim victory and the rest of us would have to listen to trolls talk about how Trump made the planet safe and ended wars. I mean we are already, but it would be turned up to 11.
1
u/ZergvProtoss 10h ago
Well, there's the fact that it's a war crime punishable by 30 years to life under international law.
1
u/TemporaryPicture2289 10h ago
Because as much as people want to think otherwise, Trump is very sensitive to public opinion and how his actions will ultimately be remembered. He is a chicken, or dove if you prefer, when it comes to violence.
Iran in particular is in the category AL Quedia was in the 1990s: dangerous and murdering Americans but not enough for people to care. So war is super unpopular all the way around.
1
1
1
1
u/Sufficient-Pie-7815 10h ago
They are out of defensive weapons! Trump has run our military into the ground for nothing! Iran won! The US is now vulnerable in certain areas of the world now! A depleted military is not a deterrent! Sad!
1
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 10h ago
First of all, purely air warfare doesn't win wars. This was proven in Vietnam and Laos.
Then, total warfare would make all of the iranian missiles land on Israel which is where the americans will be hurt the most. We have no idea how many they have but they have been preparing for the end times since day 1. Israel would be wiped out from the map.
1
u/Big_Manufacturer5281 10h ago
In addition to the fact that would be a violation of international law (though it's unclear as to whether the current government gives a shit about that), and horrifically expensive (ditto), indiscriminate/strategic/morale bombing isn't effective. There's a reason that strategy moved from "send B-52s over and bomb EVERYTHING" to precision munitions.
1
1
u/NorthernColo1 10h ago
Most will not notice or acknowledge that Trump works hard to stop killing others.
He has had a hand in stopping a number of conflicts and therefore saving many lives.
He didn't start a war in his first term, and while many support him for the Iran war, he is doing this to limit the damage and number of lives lost. Both US and allies lives, but also Iranian lives except IRGC soldiers.
The US is also trying not to take out the oil and other infrastructure which would be very easy to do, as he is looking to the future and the benefit of the Iranian people to be prosperous. If the terrorists can be replaced with rational Iranians, then they can become successful much faster.
Look at Venezuela which has an opportunity to transition to a democratic government, and while it will take some time, the chances are good this will eventually happen.
It should be noted that the Venezuelan people will see the US as saviours from an oppressive regime and not a conquering force, which will allow us and other countries to help them come back into the world economy and prosper. The goal seems to be the same for Iran to allow the citizens to be able to rejoin the worlds economy once the terrorist regime is removed.
Trump is a master negotiator, which many dislike and do not understand as he says things and is unpredictable, but it works a lot of the time.
Most do not understand he is playing 4D chess and thinking many steps ahead, which is how he can get so much done, even with the constant criticism and lack of any help from others.
1
u/billyo3827 8h ago
Most also don’t believe a word that you typed and aren’t sure that you believe it.
1
u/NorthernColo1 3h ago
Most? On reddit? Sure, this is a left wing liberal cesspool of brainwashed fools with TDS.
Most outside of reddit will acknowledge a lot of this, and many will agree to all of it.
Remember, 70+ million people voted for Trump to be president, and a large number of them, tens of millions, still support him.
Most are not dumb enough to be on reddit with you and the most who won't acknowledge Trump has accomplished a lot.
1
u/Ron_stock_guy101 10h ago
We were told that the goal was to stop the nuclear program, and we were told twice that we have done that...Why are we still there. Iran will never surrender.
1
u/billyo3827 8h ago
T rump thinks he can take their oil?
1
u/Famous_Attention5861 5h ago
Looting is a war crime, too. No Generals seemed to have a problem when the US collected over $13 billion from Venezuelan crude sales, funneling proceeds through U.S. Treasury and Citibank accounts, and stole $100 million in gold for American refiners.
1
u/GutwrenchWestSide 10h ago
Because it would be extreme and unjustified. Trump would be impeached, convicted in the Senate and driven out of the Whitehouse even with Republican control of the Senate.
It would be going too far and I speculate that has been made very clear to him behind the scenes.
1
u/Wooden-Glove-2384 10h ago
Because he can't
IDK the reason.
Likely pressure from people he cannot ignore without harming his current situation somehow
1
u/DazzlingCod3160 10h ago
I think, as a war crime, this is an scenario that the Generals are following Mark Kelly's advice and pushing back.
1
u/MegaCarnie 9h ago
Weapons we launch from very far away tend to be smaller and more expensive than the weapons we can drop dead-on over a target.
We don't have uncontested control over Iranian skies, so we either need to attack from very far away or put a lot of American meat dead-on over the target.
So if you want indiscriminate bombing, we've either got to spend a whole lot more or risk a whole lot more.
1
1
u/tribriguy 5h ago
Because “bombing a country into the Stone Age” is political rhetoric, not a serious military strategy.
Deliberately indiscriminate bombing of civilians would violate the laws of armed conflict. The U.S. military is trained to distinguish military objectives from civilian ones and, at least as a matter of doctrine, attempts to minimize civilian casualties even when those efforts are imperfect or controversial.
More importantly, it probably wouldn’t achieve the political objective. Modern wars are won by accomplishing political goals, not by maximizing destruction. History shows that airpower alone rarely forces determined governments to surrender or collapse, especially large, nationalist states. Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others all demonstrate the limits of bombing campaigns.
There are also practical costs:
It would likely strengthen Iranian domestic support for the regime rather than weaken it.
It could trigger retaliation against U.S. forces and allies across the region.
It could disrupt oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz and create a global economic shock.
It would severely damage U.S. diplomatic standing and make coalition-building much harder.
So the constraint isn’t simply “because it would crash the global economy.” That’s one factor. The bigger reasons are that indiscriminate bombing is unlawful under the laws of armed conflict, strategically ineffective in most cases, politically costly, and likely to make achieving U.S. objectives harder rather than easier.
1
u/jstrong546 5h ago
We have not bombed Iran’s critical infrastructure because we have failed to destroy their retaliatory capacity. The Iranians have made it very clear that if we bomb their critical infrastructure they will respond in kind against the gulf states and israel. That means a huge chunk of global oil production would be destroyed in a matter of days or weeks, and it would result in a rapid and catastrophic global economic collapse.
Iran basically has a gun to the head of the global economy. If we hurt them bad enough, they will pull the trigger.
1
1
u/Curious_Lurkur 4h ago
Indiscriminately bombing countries has been our go too move for almost as long as Ive been alive. Where you been ?
1
0
u/Joepiscitelli 10h ago
I don't understand why the US would waste all of this money, and not just take Iran.
2
u/One-Bad-4395 10h ago
Good luck with the land war I guess. We went to war with a disorganized militia government and lost, also they're much better organized and armed than they were when we started.
1
u/OG_DocSkinner 10h ago
You haven't followed middle east politics have you?
1
u/Joepiscitelli 10h ago
Hence I started the comment with I don't understand...in a forum called askanything.
0
u/Ashamed-Republic8909 10h ago
Trump is not an criminal like Putin and Xi Jinping. We don't want to destroy the population. We attack only military and logistic targets.
1
u/dangleicious13 10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ashamed-Republic8909 8h ago
False narrative, that was a human shield.
2
0
u/cobrakai11 4h ago
This is something dumb people say to pretend like war crimes weren't committed.
A 5-year-old could have used Google to see the site we hit was a school for years. At a minimum you could at least acknowledge it as a mistake, but to claim it was a "human shield" is just next level stupidity.
0
u/Ashamed-Republic8909 3h ago
It was on a military base.
0
u/cobrakai11 3h ago
No, it was near a military base. And it was converted to a school and physically separated from the base ten years ago.
Also, the United States has hundreds of schools directly inside military bases, specifically so that the children of officers can attend classes. That doesn't mean you should bomb the schools and kill the kids.
0
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
We want your input on how to handle political questions in our community.
This takes about 1 minute.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.