B-17s

Lmao stop I'm pooping

soon...

Attached: Screenshot_2019-05-06-08-39-00.png (1080x2160, 2.37M)

Time to put on some Glenn Miller.
youtu.be/EAVejLjXVdw

Attached: B-17s.jpg (1500x1001, 216K)

Don't make me cry. I was born too late.

Although I feel I love US WW2 nostalgia I hate what we did to Germany and 1488 and all that

>let's waste a shitload of money to scare people we've been threatening for decades
How about we just send refugees with swine flu over.

Can you imagine the Iranians sending a bunch of Scuds at the Kaaba in retaliation for a Saudi-backed American invasion of the country? That seems like it’d be a win for everyone.

>I hate what we did to Germany
Why? They brought it on themselves when they invaded 10 billion countries

I know this is b8, but neocons and boomers actually believe this.

Attached: 1556590529466m.jpg (735x1024, 73K)

More likely it will alienated Iran and having lots and lots fucking pissed Sunni coming to cut Iranian penis. Mecca already becoming International state (Administrated by House of Said of course) with lots of multinational people including American 'consultant' working in Saudi. Plus Prince Salman AFB (Obviously first prime targets for Iranian missile) also got hundred of American civilian contractors living and breeding there.

The first part is sort of true, though. Who does actually give a shit about Iran? The only country in the region that’d be more justifiable to destroy would be Saudi Arabia, which isn’t happening so long as they play ball with the US.

>They deserve it because they invaded many countries

Do you know how retarded you sound?

Attached: images (32).jpg (620x307, 29K)

>Do you know how retarded you sound?
Do you? Complaining about being bombed by the country you declared war on is extremely dumb.

I wonder how it feels being on the winning side yet still having your home country destroyed like the morgenthau plan...

>That map
I’m guessing Britain? It’s also worth noting how the Brits, as powerful as they were, could never make Chad their birch.

>Dresden 2.0 in the middle east

Attached: a6cffe7212a16925f245e61e3aa92494.jpg (600x315, 51K)

Im sure they get your money. Its just indirect.
And if im wrong they just help to grab your funs

Do it again Bomber Harris

Attached: 39846691_259013228051225_3229316082284101632_n.png (758x571, 269K)

>implying this NEET pays taxes
You’re not getting my checks, IRS.

And don't forget Fox News.

Out of the ashes of Iraq's toppled power structures rose ISIS and mass refugee waves. With Syria torn by civil war, Iran is the last stable power in the region. Taking Iran out would have a drastic effect on the region, and would only make Saudi Arabia (lol 9/11 bombers) more influencial.

Do it again bomber Harris

That’s true to some extent. Iran is already pretty busy funding insurgencies all over the Middle East already, though. Not sure how well groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis would survive if they lost the one country that was funding, training, and supporting them. Either way, as long as Iran doesn’t decide to pursue nukes again, the current status quo is probably better than the US shaking things up once more.

They might as well bring WW2-era bombers to bomb towel heads. What are the gonna do in response, throw rocks at them?

As a German, I'm disgusted by all those fags who cry about MUH DRESDEN MUH CIVILIANS

It was WAR. War always targets culprits and innocents. Get over it. We done shit, they done shit.
The only thing that counts is to win a war. And just like the great Warrior Poet John Rambo once said
>When you want to win a war you have to become war
Are you ready to become war, Jow Forums? Or do you still cry about some roasted civilians?

>When you want to win a war you have to become war
>Are you ready to become war, Jow Forums?
>Winning - nothing else matters
Based!

>tfw i will never see a thousand goddamn bombers level an entire city

That scene in Fury when they look up and see that bomber stream. Goosebumps galore.

Now all it takes is one.

This. I think it was either Bismarck or Von Moltke the Elder who said, in response to a letter about reducing suffering in warfare, that the most merciful way of fighting a war is to finish it as fast as possible, no matter how much death and destruction that swiftness may require.

>tfw no movie about the Ploesti raid.
>We'll never get to see the German flak train duke it out with a formation of B-24s.

Attached: Ploesti raid.webm (640x480, 2.47M)

>The only thing that counts is to win a war.
The moment you take that line of thinking is the moment you become just as bad as the Germans. The difference between Allies and Germans was that Allies recognized when they did wrong things. Germans did not. You learned nothing, Hans.

Thats how a NEET trys to hide his own problem. Just call random Nogs on k NEETs, nobody gets angry about it

I mean, I’ve been there for about a year now. I really need to get back into life again, but I’ve just lost any desire to move forward anymore.

Im here since 4 years as a knifefag and 1 years as a gunfag. I wish you luck but Jow Forums isnt something bad that takes you down. Try to get a topic like reloading with goal on precision and FUNS is pretty nice to spend time with constantly improvments.

>The difference between Allies and Germans was that Allies recognized when they did wrong things
Talking about it 70 years later isnt exactly what you call recognizing buddy.
A nation's gotta do what a nation's gotta do to win a war. Period.
We gave no two shits about what we did in the east, you guys didnt give two shits about how many german civies you have roasted from above. Such was war. War is always ugly. I dont blame any bong or amerilard or vatnik for what happened back then. Back then it looked like the right decision to win a war so they did what the did, end of story, cry harder

You shouldn't. I'm German, if we had the option we would have done the exact same. If you're in a state of total war you do what is necessary to win. Sure, the glorification of it via >muh bomber harris do it again is pathetic but the action itself is just another occurrence of war.

>the most merciful way of fighting a war is to finish it as fast as possible, no matter how much death and destruction that swiftness may require
This and only this. You can see that moste of day/k/are is a bunch of weak-ass pansies. War is about beating your enemy so hard and so often in his fucking face until he does what your politicians want him to do. When you dont beat him hard enough, you have to beat him more, make him (and obviously his civilians) suffer longer.

>but the action itself is just another occurrence of war.
Danke, endlich einer, der es versteht.

No. This is wrong thinking.

The only reason to offer mercy is if it will benefit you. IE you want to encourage surrenders by treating prisoners well (see Sun Tzu) or you are planning on occupying and utilizing the infrastructure (see the Neutron Bomb).

Otherwise do whatever you must to accomplish your goals so that war may end.

I am not the one crying here you retard, I am saying that your line of thinking is just twisted and leads to more evil and not good. If you defeat your enemy only to become just as bad as your enemy, then you are just perpetuating the cycle that started that war in the first place. The only true way to overcome it is to defeat your enemy while retaining your own humanity. That's how mankind can actually grow and improve from the wars, not just mindlessly repeat the same mistakes that start wars again and again. But you are Hans after all, I don't expect your people to ever understand that. Instead of learning something from that war you just decided to keep justifying the same line of thinking under the different sauce.

Why do you write so many words when you wanted to say
>If you kill your enemies they win
?

>If you kill your enemies they win
No Hans that's not my point, you once again fail at comprehending things. Sad.

>the illusion that all wars are purely ideological

If you take your enemies resources, you now have your enemies resources, so you no longer need to take them.

The only person here failing to comprehend things is you. I wrote it here: War is not about unnecessary, cruel violence. Its about THE RIGHT AMOUNT of violence to force your enemy to do what your politicians want him to do. Get it?
We were acting pretty hard in WW2 so you guys needed "more" violence.

I fully understand your point and it's wrong.
>War is not about unnecessary, cruel violence.
Correct, I fully agree.
>Its about THE RIGHT AMOUNT of violence to force your enemy to do what your politicians want him to do. Get it?
Correct, I fully agree too.
>We were acting pretty hard in WW2 so you guys needed "more" violence.
No, that's the part that you get wrong. Assessing the right amount of violence is finding the ways to bring the least possible amount of violence possible, not steering up to your enemy in the amount of violence. That's just savagery. The only way to beat the savage is to prove that your ways are superior to that of a savage. What you're saying is just some "eye for an eye" shit that never works as a way of solving the conflict.

how do you define "the least amount of violence possible"?

Is a 2 year campaign of misery worth firebombing one city? Do we total up the dead? Do we have modifiers for type of death? Starvation vs incineration vs bullet?

This is why Just War isn't a useful theory. It all boils down to handwringing and subjective feelings.

>feel bad for germany
Why? They made their own bed when they started a war they couldn't hope to win and then set the precedent of terror bombing civilians being perfectly fine.

Your kind will be eaten by those with the resolve to do what is necessary in time.

> That baby carriage

Bomber Harris memes are literally just Edge-Lord Posting for the kids too cowardly or indoctrinated to be Edgy Fascists.

Yfw

Attached: E5AFD9FD-8516-4FC1-9B9E-D701D23986AF.jpg (252x291, 29K)

There’s a difference between what a government does and what it’s civilians deserve
Otherwise terrorism is perfectly valid

>how do you define
It means waging a conflict in a matter that would prevent any unnecessary collateral damage, following the rules of engagement and doing anything possible to prevent the occurrence of war crimes by your side.
Just Christ my man, take your cynicism and edge somewhere else. We live in a 21 century, not 13th.

Oh? Are we going to turn Gaza into the next Dresden or has Israel got that covered?

EDGY

>Is a 2 year campaign of misery worth firebombing one city?
Answer the question.

Fuck you warmongering jew

I would prefer not to firebomb any cities, okay.

It's an iconic bomber! A B-52 silohuette would be mistakable as a transport plane and a B-1 would just look like a fighter or something.

just wait until Jow Forumspol/ finds out the Rhodesian military was 99% black african.

t. asking the chinks later to spare on his wife and kids (last is a joke)

take that gobyldygook elsewhere. You said
>least amount of violence possible
I showed you that this excuse for thinking leads to impossible comparisons of what might have happened and ultimately utilitarianism. Now you're trying to bring in a bunch of other concepts that actually don't wind up helping you. You still can't define "necessary collateral damage" or "acceptable collateral damage". Rules of engagement is a bullshit defense because those are idiosyncratic between wars and participants. And "war crimes' are just decided by the victors. In trying to make war less what it is you "just war" fags make war longer, less effective and net more suffering. War is what it is. Take your misplaced idealism elsewhere.

"Isn't it funny how we mistake the hidden unity of cruelty and kindness?"

>just wait until Jow Forumspol/ finds out the Rhodesian military was 99% black african.
Well this just isn't true but I know where you're coming from.

Do it again Bomber Harris

This logic is true, that is why militarism is not nearly as popular as it was. It's the total ending of humanity, dignity, and compassion. All for the benefit of the state. I dearly hope we never see another total war as long as we live, nobody is prepared to win a war like that. It's hell and nothing more.

Attached: lifeishard.jpg (473x473, 24K)

Well it's your problem that you're dummy with comprehension issues, user. All the things listed by me were made to decrease the amount of unnecessary violence, not my fault that you can't to understand that while also failing to make any sense out of an absolutely retarded point that you're trying to make here.
>I showed you that
So far you only showed me some incoherent rambling, try again user.
>You still can't define "necessary collateral damage" or "acceptable collateral damage"
Terrible attempt at grasping for straws. Necessary collateral damage is the only form of acceptable collateral damage. That is, a collateral damage that is required to minimise the possibility of any occurrence of collateral damage in the future.
>because those are idiosyncratic between wars and participants
Irrelevant, what matters is that our side has rules of engagement and follows them. What other side considers doesn't matter.
>And "war crimes' are just decided by the victors
Again, irrelevant. What matters is that we use and apply that concept correctly.
>In trying to make war less what it is you "just war" fags make war longer, less effective and net more suffering
Ah shit, this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever seeb posted on Jow Forums. Just a word salad. No, you make war less effective by trying to go on a genocide spree, killing as much people possible while destroying all the shit that could be left unharmed in the process. That doesn't decrease the time of war or make it more effective, it makes it more chaotic, uncontrollable and damaged both parties in a long run, as it prolonges the conflict by radicalizing both sides and preventing the possibility of allowing fast and effective post-war stabilization efforts.
>"Isn't it funny how we mistake the hidden unity of cruelty and kindness?"
Do you really have to use quotes you don't understand just to sound better? Sad.

I don't think the USA has entire wings parked there at all times are that would increase logistical costs.
Maybe two for the occasional ISIS bombing run.
But when stuff might hit the fan, they fly in the whole wing.

What bombers/wing are being sent, any info?

Attached: 1491524408826.png (618x850, 596K)

>if you use "least necessary" you wind up in utilitarianism
>tha..tha...that's just rambling!

>collateral damage that is required to minimise the possibility of any occurrence of collateral damage in the future
so are we adding up bodies or not user? Because that directly contradicts You have no metric beyond your feelings.
>all that matters is we follow OUR rules
Except we haven't been consistent over time. Nor has anybody else. Hell the Germans and Americans couldn't agree on whether shotguns violated. According to your logic both are right as long as consistent. You're useless.

>Killing the enemy and destroying their ability to wage war makes wars last longer user!
Now that's just pants on head retarded.

>this quote makes me look bad!
Yes. Yes it does.

You're joking but in reality most countries could not defend themselves against good old B-17s.

>America declares war on Bolivia
>bombs it with QB-17's

Do you want to know how many anti aircraft missiles Austria has in its arsenal? 30.

>that's just rambling
Well yes user, sorry. Sorry that the truth hurts. Either word it properly and present your point in a more coherent manner or admit that your point is retarded.
>so are we adding up bodies or not user?
No we don't, stop trying to put words into my mouth.
>Because that directly contradicts
There is no contradiction. I said that I would prefer not to because I fail to see how firebombing a city would prevent more collateral damage in the future. You have not stated if we're talking about a specific case or not in which there are billions factors to consider when choosing between available options, so I can only give you the most generic answer.
>You have no metric beyond your feelings.
Bruh, stop projecting. You fail to make your points in any way coherent because you're too emotional, so calm down.
>Now that's just pants on head retarded.
Yeah, your reading comprehension truly amuses me. That's not what I said, read it again and try using that brain of yours. What you proposed is bringing as much damage as possible with no regards if it's necessary or not. That's not "killing and enemy", that's killing an enemy and then ten random people who just happened to stand around and than hoping it won't steer up even more enemies in response, you mong.
>Yes. Yes it does
No, but it does make you look stupid because it's inapplicable, so keep going.

We probably have at least one wing already there, B-52s operate in iraq and syria.

Remember that the news might not be *real* but not quite false, like that time Trump declared he was sending a carrier somewhere and the carrier was heading somewhere else because he'd just declared it without planning at some news conference and no one in the navy had been told about it yet. "we're gonna send in a bomber wing" is probably a tweet he had his interns make after Netenyahu gave him a call and the military is finding out about it at the same time we are, possibly at the end of the day someone is gonna explain that, uh, mr. president, we already have a bomber wing in the middle east, and he'll go "Good!" and talk about how he was the first president who put a bomber wing in the middle east etc...

The MSM has done real good countering assertions that it's fake news from the presidency by treating the bits of soup that dribble from his chin that they catch before it can hit his shirt and then treating that as breaking news.

>Least amount of violence --> utilitarianism
>Nope I'm flat out ignoring that.

I can't tell if your brain just won't accept the level of cognitive dissonance that leads to or if you're hardcore baiting. Either is impressive.

>we do not add up bodies to decide action.
>we have to do the least violent thing
I'm actually curious, in spite of myself, as to how you are comparing violence and not bodycounting or including modifiers for type of death.

>You proposed is bringing as much damage as possible with no regards if it's necessary or not

Nope. Absolutely untrue. I said "do whatever is necessary". If being merciful leads to victory faster fine. If firebombing cities does, do that. My position gives me flexibility. Yours does not.

>kindness and cruelty have a complex relationship
Totally inapplicable to just war vs total war.

user you might be braindamaged.

God bless those 1940's aesthetics, God bless Glenn Miller, God bless America!
t.swissfag

>Least amount of violence --> utilitarianism
Yep, this guy is retarded.
>Nope I'm flat out ignoring that.
Incoherent things are incoherent, yes. I am sorry I can't engage with ramblings that only make sense in your head. Once more, try again.
>I'm actually curious, in spite of myself
Anyone who uses that phrase is not curious, he's just trying to hide his asspain under passive-aggressiveness. Why are you so angry?
>we do not add up bodies to decide action.
>we have to do the least violent thing
Who said that we don't? Stop putting words into your opponent's mouth, it doesn't work when we can see all the previous posts here.
Once again. We can, if left with no other option, but it is highly undesired and should not be considered as an option if less violent alternatives are possible.
>My position gives me flexibility.
Your position turns you into a renegade and a bad actor. No one will ever acknowledge your legitimacy, you're just a mad dog that cannot be reasoned with.
>Totally inapplicable
Yes, you're the one bringing all that garbage that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, turboretard. Maybe you should stop acting like a retard for once.

We adding bodies or not?

>No we don't, stop trying to put words into my mouth.
>Who said that we don't? Stop putting words into your opponent's mouth

Soooo whichever seems like it won't disclose your incoherence. Fuck off and die.

>No we don't, stop trying to put words into my mouth.
>he keeps putting words into my mouth
Jesus Christ, how dumb can you get? So you failed to properly comprehend things that have been clearly stated before by me and then you gott mad at me because of the contradiction that existed only in your head? user, please.
>incoherence
The only incoherence here is coming from your lack of reading comprehension, you illiterate mong.
>Fuck off and die.
Why are you so angry?

>are we adding up bodies or not?
>no we don't, stop trying to put words in my mouth
>who says we don't? Stop putting words into your opponent's mouth

They're your words. It's not my fault you flat out contradicted yourself. In subsequent posts no less.

Wasn’t this the mentality on the part of the Germans that made things like Dresden acceptable (if unfortunate) in the eyes of the British public?

>are we adding up bodies or not?
Learn to read, nigga.
>No we don't, stop trying to put words into my mouth.
>>Because that directly contradicts
>There is no contradiction. I said that I would prefer not to

>Who said that we don't?
>Once again. We can, if left with no other option, but it is highly undesired and should not be considered as an option if less violent alternatives are possible.
I never said that isn't not an option, I said I still would prefer not to, brainlet.

"that's just savagery"
You're not gonna make it.
>What you're saying is just some "eye for an eye" shit that never works as a way of solving the conflict.
The Carthaginians would have a word with you.. except they were a Roman problem that was solved permanently with overwhelming violence. What you call "savagery" is simply efficient and time honored solutions to a problem. War is not civilized. It never has been, it never can be.

Attached: Go and stay go.png (721x506, 536K)

Fuck off kike

I'm still confused, so you lied when you said "we don't". So you're just a utilitarian that lies. That's fine.

Rhodesia was more about being against communism and kikery like race mixing, if blacks want to take up that cause thats good but your stupid brain cant comprehend anything else but
>POL BAD POL RAYCISS

Problem is, we don't live in a times of Romans and Carthagians anymore, so their experiences are irrelevant. Every war is a humanitarian issue now, it requires public approval. Do one mistake and media or public will tear you apart. Your government will be forced in a resignation, your upper military echelons will be fired and international sanctions will be put on you.

That's Jow Forums not Jow Forums but I still laughed

>Every war is a humanitarian issue now, it requires public approval. Do one mistake and media or public will tear you apart.
This is why Crimea is back in Ukranian hands. No wait....

This. I don't hate other races or even other religions. I just hate all forms of authoritarianism, and god bless anyone who will take up the cause against it.

If saturation bombing with these fucking things worked saturation shooting with fucking A-10 doesn't fuck up the same amount of shit. If an a10 demolishes the right thing that is a flying coffin that ought to be doing whatever the fuck it does.

Woah it’s almost like there’s major issues with journalistic integrity as a whole or something

Attached: DA0D0A3A-1BEB-48BA-9606-37ABDF32FB84.jpg (1080x1350, 480K)