@TG:
Huh, I heard the civilian deaths were larger then the ones you gave. But the point still stands, the great majority of bombing attacks were aimed at war producing factories or logistical stations. I dare you to say otherwise.
Yes, early attacks where aimed at industry and infrastructure. But later attacks were totally unneeded. How can you explain the attack on Hamburg in 1945? By no means there was much left that would have been worth bombing.
So, i don’t go against your point in the way you say it here, but you did not relativate it before with the term “majority”, before that it sounded like all, and that is simply not true. The civilian deaths and the civil destruction were not only taken into account, but more or less embraced (with P-49s (AFAIR) strafing the ground of Dresden to “increase the chaos” in the late phase of the attacks).
We been over this point before, you know that. You could say these attacks were intended to bottle up the movement of Axis forces (both attacks on the army and logistical wise - at least for Dresden).
Why don’t you not just admit that your nation has commited war crimes, instead of fleeing from one weak excuse to the other?
(As Swinemuende can by no means explained by the above)
Not at all. THe no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel was made to monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. The northern no-fly zone is not an aggression against Iraq or a violation of its sovereignty, it is a necessary and legitimate measure to limit Iraq’s aggressive air activities.
You probably have read something from eucom.mil.
If you instead looked directly at the three mentioned resolutions, you will find:
in 678 (Nov 1990):
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
with “all necessary means” meaning the war for liberation.
In 687 (Apr 1991):
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 ….
I 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
THIS is something that says No no-fly-zone.
688 (April 1991) states:
Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, …
Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved …
but you will not see anything that you could be used to limit the sovereignity of the Iraq state somewhere.
So, TG, you fell to someones propaganda, and did not read the original sources.
For WWI:
Perhaps, though I don’t US was guilty anywhere near as France, UK, or Italy. Besides, US was more of a non-factor. …Who were we to dictate the terms of the peace treaty.
The US had set up a plan for an armistice/peace “without victors and victims”. That was the basis for the Germans to enter the negotiations. I don’t say you are as guilty as France or the UK, but you consistently try to play down the negative aspects of the role of the US played.