Baird, I agree that destroying oil wells would probably cause "extensive ecological harm". But if we want a less defiant and more compliant Saddam to comply with the wishes of the U.N., then the loss of oil wells would do it. However, the result would probably be then Saddam throwing his nation on our nation's mercy, and then the world would expect us to rebuild Iraq, and guess who would pay for that. So it's a tough call. Saddam did lose the last Gulf War, and I expect he'll lose the next one, if there is one.
I personally think that if Saddam continues to refuse unfettered access to arms inspectors, then not only should the US immediately commence a heavy, sustained bombing campaign, but that at some point we should commit ground troups, with the objective of flat-out taking over Iraq, and make it a U.S. territory.
It's time the USA started showing the world that we mean business when we say that we don't want tin-horn despots who use chemical weapons against their own people. It would show the world that we're also tired of all the whiny countries who think that the US taxpayer should pay to fix all the world's problems (environmental summits, aid to Russia), but then these same countries oppose the USA in our efforts to make the world safe from dictators who have a flair for destruction; people like Saddam.
DK |
