And now that we've heard from the peanut gallery, I'm going to bed.Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
yep, conjur is right, Bush is the great pres in history, you just wait and see what he does next
G'night, chirping bird.
And now that we've heard from the peanut gallery, I'm going to bed.Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
yep, conjur is right, Bush is the great pres in history, you just wait and see what he does next
Originally posted by: AndrewR
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.
First of all, the "doomsday scenario" is consistent with what Saddam has done in the PAST.Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: conjur
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.
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.