Yes I see what you are saying and I agree. But it is very hard in the sound-byte news environment in which we live to determine who started what, or who is really exploiting issues for political gain. It is kind of like basketball where the referee blows the whistle because an elbow was thrown. Often times it happens that the elbow was in reaction to something else so the perpetrator gets away with a shove or a punch while the one reacting gets called for the foul.
strike on iraq
- Thread starter ElCubano
- Start date
Yes I see what you are saying and I agree. But it is very hard in the sound-byte news environment in which we live to determine who started what, or who is really exploiting issues for political gain. It is kind of like basketball where the referee blows the whistle because an elbow was thrown. Often times it happens that the elbow was in reaction to something else so the perpetrator gets away with a shove or a punch while the one reacting gets called for the foul.
I agree with you here. Also, it is possible to do this without killing INNOCENT civilians. Have Sadam move away from them. If he were to not hide amongst the civilians, or they not act as a shield, we could do this quickly.
Originally posted by canyonman00
I agree with you here. Also, it is possible to do this without killing INNOCENT civilians. Have Sadam move away from them. If he were to not hide amongst the civilians, or they not act as a shield, we could do this quickly.
That is correct. And that is why I don't think a conventional "war" is necessary to accomplish what we want. Which is just to get rid of Sadam. So as I said previously, our military and our defense has to evolve to today's world.
Our resources are much better spent on intelligence gathering and the education of foreign assets and just about anything but big guns and big tanks and big bombers. These are tools of obsolete military strategy.
Even a stealth bomber is not very "stealthy" to a sophisticated enemy. Fortunately, so far, Iraq is not very sophisticated. But it will be eventually, and so I see the danger of not stopping Saddam from developing his ability to wage war. But ideally we should be able to achieve our objectives without unnecessary bloodshed. All we really should require is one well placed bullet. I know this is easier said than done, but still, somewhere between a one bullet solution, and carpet bombing a nation, there should be something.
Somehow I wanna' believe that the military will not give in to all the overly squeamish types who say do not kill another leader. I do think that they might go in and try to effect a removal, possibly with prejudice, of Sadam and his protectors. Maybe an improved version of what happened to Noriega. I am not so sure that it can't be done. I don't know that the weak are prepared for the consequences though.
Somewhere there is a lawyer who is ready to defend his "American" rights and go for all the violations of the constitution crap. Then there are those who would fight the death penalty because it's unconstitutional. There are those who would claim he was illegally held and that he has the right to do whatever his peoples want. Of course, there are those who still think he is a great man.
Should we kill him? If we do, he becomes a martyr. If we bring him out and throw him in jail, someone gets kidnapped and there will always be trade offers. In either event, there is a wacko somewhere who would feel that self-sacrifice is now needed for the cause. So we will lose some assets and innocent lives. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Or is this some lame definition of what Sadam is counting on?