Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kenton
Realistically speaking, we're gonna have to go a long way to demonstrate the need for killin' up a bunch of civilians; who are otherwise powerless to change their political circumstances. Saddam and his minions are our enemies;, not the entire poulation of Baghdad! Had the total destruction of the city been our objective, we could have done that long ago, with impunity!
34 posted on 08/15/2002 1:35:39 PM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: old school
Think there were any civilians in Dresden during WWII? Thy blowed up real good!
36 posted on 08/15/2002 1:37:39 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: old school
Realistically speaking, we're gonna have to go a long way to demonstrate the need for killin' up a bunch of civilians;

How's this? "If we did not nuke all of Baghdad when we did, then we stood a significant chance of losing Tel-Aviv."

What is totally ironic in all of this is that it is Saddam who has assured that Sharon has nothing to lose by nuking Baghdad. Sharon would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as would all Israel.

IIRC, the bible talks about a scenario where Baghdadis are given one hour warning of the destruction of Baghdad so that they can escape. Perhaps Israel will do just this? We will see...

124 posted on 08/15/2002 11:43:35 PM PDT by greggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: old school
Realistically speaking, we're gonna have to go a long way to demonstrate the need for killin' up a bunch of civilians.......

Ah yes, as they say, "therein lies the rub".

As Americans, we traditionally try to conduct military operations that minimize civilian casualties. Nobody looks with glee to the prospect of killing a lot of civilians when we go after Saddam.

We should note however, that Saddam has no similar humanitarian concerns, and that he looks upon our desire to avoid collateral damage as our weakness and his strength. Using his own people as human shields is not a policy that can be permitted to work.

.... who are otherwise powerless to change their political circumstances. Saddam and his minions are our enemies;, not the entire poulation of Baghdad! Had the total destruction of the city been our objective, we could have done that long ago, with impunity!

Absolutely right. Our military planners are aware of this and their strategy will reflect this reality.

Saddam, in spite of all his posturing, is much weaker than he was in 1990. He is propped up solely by a few divisions of the Republican Guard, and without them to support his despotic rule, the people of Iraq would no longer be powerless to change their political circumstances. For that reason, we can expect the annihilation of the Republican Guard to be a top priority, right after taking out air defenses and command and control.

Military assets located in civilian neighborhoods can be taken out with close to pinpoint accuracy, but mistakes are sure to happen and civilians will suffer if they remain in the immediate area. Such is the nature of war, which is one reason it is against the rules of war to locate military assets in the middle of civilian areas, not that Saddam gives a damn about that, or his own people.

When we drop the leaflets on Baghdad telling the people that the Republican Guard no longer exists so they can do as they like, we just may find our entry into Baghdad feels more like the liberation of Paris than battle of Stalingrad.

139 posted on 08/16/2002 6:35:51 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson