[Timesink]

So be it. If Baghdad gets nuked by the Israelis, I guess it's no different than the set of conditions Harry Truman had to face; given the choice of lots of Japanese innocents dying versus the American carnage that would have taken place by invading the Japanese mainland.

Actually, it's is rather different. The Geneva Convention, which didn't yet exist in 1945, clearly states that when an enemy combatant intentionally either hides in a residential area or forces civilians to act as a human shield around him, then you're fully justified in killing that combatant anyway. And the "collateral damage" is to be considered the fault of the enemy combatant, not you.

The only thing stopping us from nuking Baghdad, if it comes to that, is any worries we might have about bad press. And since the Bush Administration is going to get bad press no matter what (especially outside the US), we have nothing to lose.

[greggy]

And since the Bush Administration is going to get bad press no matter what (especially outside the US), we have nothing to lose.

Bush can't lose- because he aint got nothing to lose! Oh, I love it!