Bombing makes great propaganda, but not for the side that's doing the bombing


Originally published at:


That’s what happened during the Blitz over Britain… And during the subsequent bombings of Germany.

1 Like

:musical_note: From Guatemala to Korea
To the tunnels beneath Hanoi
From Tulsa to El Chorillo
Fat Man to Little Boy

We fought them in Nicaragua
And upon the Cuban shore
We killed Khaddafi’s daughter
See what the fatwa’s got in store

We’re gonna bomb our way to freedom
With the cruise missiles of justice
And the spent shells of democracy
Oh, say, can you see

From Kabul to Khartoum
Where Allah’s martyrs bled
To the Iraqi desert
Two hundred thousand people dead

We’re gonna bomb our way to freedom
With the cruise missiles of justice
And the spent shells of democracy
Oh, say, can you see

From the School of the Assassins
To Argentina’s dirty war
From Arizona to Nevada
We’ll nuke our way to heaven’s door

We’re gonna bomb our way to freedom
With the cruise missiles of justice
And the spent shells of democracy
Oh, say, can you see


Once a country has made the decision to go to war, then the decision to use bombing as a weapon should not be based on whether it makes for good propaganda, but on whether it contributes to bringing the war to a rapid and successful conclusion.

A case can be made for the bombings of Germany and Japan on that count, given that neither nation has sought to conquer any of its neighbors in the last seven-plus decades.

The reasons that the USA’s bombing campaigns since 1945 have been counterproductive are first, the country has not expressed a committment to go to war (no declarations of war have been made by Congress) and second, our “strategists” have failed to communicate any concept of what a successful conclusion to the wars would look like.



In most cases, the people and resources mobilised against the bomber far outweigh the physical destruction the bomber can inflict.

Which does wonders for their recruitment, and so in turn our determination to spend them into the ground. It’s all very, very profitable. Totally win-win.


I’ve noticed that all the people who were fact-checking Trump are now lining up to salute. No questioning Glorious War President Leader.


So impeachment seems imminent before the next election, and Mike Pence is not nearly as incompetent as Trump but has morals that are paradoxically worse than Trump’s. Assuming that Pence stays clean through this whole thing, and becomes our next defacto president, would this born-again neo-con continue the same wars against the middle east that Trump in desperation for approval started?


I think we can pull the answer out of the messianic politics hat - the continuation/aggravation of what has been a very long war indeed.


What you say is correct, but the Syria situation seems different. We aren’t really trying to defeat an enemy, as I understand it, we are trying to help the rebels while not allowing ISIS or Al-Quaida to rise again. Or something. Trump’s bombing (which I disapprove of) is not because we’re trying to win a war. It’s punishing one side for doing something “bad”.


Please, please, please remove the 45 wig from Slim Pickens’ head!

Never mind. I’ll never be able to unsee that. sigh


what would a trump fan care? fake propaganda


The people fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria are the Syrians and Rojavans.

Turkey is invading Rojava alongside their ISIS proxies. The USA is funding the Syrian rebellion, which includes assorted groups with links to al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front etc.).


If we are not trying to win a war, we should not be using our military. But you already know this.

In a nutshell, we are killing Syrians in order to demonstrate to the Syrians that they should only kill Syrians using the same methods we use to kill Syrians.


Which is on the verge of defeat. Assad has won, and it’s about time we start taking stock of that reality.

1 Like
closed #16

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.