Saddam Survivied Latest Bombing According to British Intelligence
- Thread starter Murpheeee
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Alright Morph:disgust:
We don't need every thread turned into a gallery of Dead children and/or civilians. We know these things happen but they don't need to be paraded out in every thread.
CkG
The Guardian?
Please...no more. Seriously. Heck, there haven't been any Newsmax links so stop with this rag.
You seemed pretty eager to deal out some "Shock And Awe" of couple of weeks ago. Remember?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. The point, which you failed to grasp, was the hypocrisy of pretending like we give a damn about the civilians. We don't, as the ill-fated "decapitation attack" #2 has shown. So either do it quick and and get it over with, or do it methodically to avoid these types of things. This half-assed approach of only bombing civilians when it seems like a really good idea won't move things along OR win us any goodwill. I NEVER meant to imply that we should bomb civilains as a strategy.
<sigh>
Yeah...that's it...we're only bombing civilians. Will you give the rhetoric a well-deserved rest?
No one here condones out-and-out targeting of civilians. Civilians are getting killed in some of the bombings simply due to the fact that Saddam has placed many military installations, radar sites, AA sites, etc. in the middle of residential areas. He's placed ammo dumps inside of hospitals and schools. WTF do you want the troops to do? Ask Saddam's mom if he can come out and play?
All I've been hearing for 2 weeks is how precise our military is. Bombing residential areas where Saddam might or might not be doesn't seem very precise. If you secure the city one area at a time, eventually you'll find him.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
Yes, I do. The point, which you failed to grasp, was the hypocrisy of pretending like we give a damn about the civilians. We don't, as the ill-fated "decapitation attack" #2 has shown. So either do it quick and and get it over with, or do it methodically to avoid these types of things. This half-assed approach of only bombing civilians when it seems like a really good idea won't move things along OR win us any goodwill. I NEVER meant to imply that we should bomb civilains as a strategy.[/quote]Hypocrisy? How ironic.
Baghdad is a very large city and there are still areas of resistance. And, Saddam has an intricate network of underground bunkers and tunnels. If reliable information places him at a particular place (and from what I read they picked up on communications discussing plans to flee the country), then one has to act and act quickly.
Personally, I would like to see a bit more restraint used by our forces in Baghdad (was a blast to the Palestine Hotel required if a tank was taking on small arms fire? Why not just send some troops in and search it?) But, in this case, I feel the GBUs were justifiably deployed.
I disagree for 2 reasons. 1.) I just don't want civilians dead and 2.)This war is very much about politics. How do we convince the Iraqis and the Arab world at large that we are here to help when we are blowing up their homes? If our ultimate goal is to be reached, restraint is now the best policy.
1) You don't disagree with me. I don't want civilians dead. But, the fact of the matter is that Saddam doesn't give a rat's a** about his own people. He knows very well any military force used to get to him will inevitably result in the deaths of innocents. Saddam most likely plans to use that as propaganda for those who would try to have his forceable removal stopped. Just look at how he took advantage of the press of the anti-war protests going on to flaunt his violations of 12 years' of UN resolution-making. He figures, let Bush take the blame, he'll be forced to retreat due to public sentiment, and then Saddam would be back in power.
Well, guess what. Bush isn't playing his game and is taking many risks in this action. But the payoff, for the long-term good of Iraq, is immense.
So what you're saying, Jaeger, is that sending in a squad of troops, riding on Bradleys, sporting M-16s, grenades, and M60's on turrets, will kill less civilians than the bunker busters dropped actually did?
I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. In this case, the scenario which would've likely produced the least number of casualties is just what they would've done. Period.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. In this case, the scenario which would've likely produced the least number of casualties is just what they would've done. Period.
But why the risks now? Is Saddam a real danger to anyone at this point? His army has apparently vanished and our troops roam the streets. I think if he was going to unleash a chemical attack it would have been done by now. Only the doomsday scenario where he takes the whole city with him would seem to justify such measures, but how many believe that will happen? Maybe the Iraqis will be better off, but you'll never convince them of that with these tactics.
You ever wonder why you never stopped seeing Iraqi's on the streets of Baghdad? For the most part they trust our intentions and our ACCURACY. Why is a military bunker in a civilian neighborhood anyway? Was the school too stocked with weapons and the hospitals too full of troops? This was definitely the way to handle this and the one which would have likely produced the FEWEST civilian casualties.
Why now? My question is why not sooner?!?! No more than two years into the non-compliance with the cease-fire Saddam should have been taken to task. The sanctions in place for the last 12 years have devastated the Iraqi populace. But, and here's the hard part to swallow, they had to be put in place. Otherwise, Saddam would have had free reign to continue his war-mongering ways. And, Saddam is the definition of a war-monger. Not Bush. Calling Bush a war-monger is just blind ignorance or sour grapes from the 2000 election.
As far as the Iraqis, look at the myriad reports coming in re:civilians taking up arms against the Fedayeen and Ba'ath party members. Look at them celebrating in the streets. Look at them giving flowers to the troops coming into Basra and Baghdad.
Those families cursing Bush and the action due to their loss of friends and family are just in their outcry and demand for a stop to this and I grieve with them. But, I understand the bigger picture and take this all in as a learning experience. To stop madmen like Saddam from exerting such oppressive tactics over a country. We must not let another Saddam happen.
What Bush and his administration do from this point on will set the course of action for many countries in the future. He just may very well prove to be the Great Uniter as he was known as Governor of Texas.
I, for one, hope that happens. If I see Bush letting an incredible opportunity slip away by closed-minded actions as to the rebuilding of Iraq, I will be right out there protesting that inaction and will do my darndest to turn it around.
I had hoped he'd live up to that reputaion too, but he hasn't in America. When you nominate Miguel Estrada, an man so ultra conseravtive that he can't voice his opinions in court because he knows not even the Republicans will stand for them, it only divides. By that token, I have little hope for postwar Iraq because the diplomatic damage has already been done. Only by installing another iron regime will we be able to prevent the various Iraqi factions from slaughtering each other the minute their yoke of oppression under Saddam has been lifted. If we fail in our efforts to mediate these conflicts it will again be the civilians who suffer the consequences.
1 girl died in the bombing. tragic. even more so if he wasn't really there. i hope he was though. we'll see. however, do you know how many children die every year BECAUSE of him? do you? 6,000 children under 5 years old die every year in Iraq, b/c of what he does. Even more if you consider people above that age. this is from the red cross. just be sure you understand that. it is tragic when innocents die, we all know that. but if in the long run they are better off, than maybe it has to be this way.
I never said it was going to be easy. But, with assistance from the U.N, the process can be helped along.
And in the meantime, more and more soldiers on both sides and in particular more civilians will die as a result. So, in lieu of sparing a handful of civilians from this attack on a residential neighborhood which could end Iraqi resistance almost immediately, you would have the US military systematically take over every section of the city in house to house fighting which would undoubtedly result in hundreds if not thousands of additional civilian deaths?
Of course, it's difficult to expect a logical argument from someone who supports the unconstitutional block on Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination.
yep, conjur is right, Bush is the great pres in history, you just wait and see what he does next
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter