SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (31002)5/28/2002 6:17:39 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I really don't think that the military risks are going to be that horrible. The US has increased the accuracy and effectiveness of air bombardment by several orders of magnitude since the Gulf war. A lengthy bombing campaign was very effective then and it will be doubly or triply so in the near future. Because of advances in accuracy, the damage to the civilian population is going to be minimized significantly.

Serious damage to Saddam's military machine without huge corresponding civilian casualties will cause a lot of internal problems for Saddam. He will no longer be seen as invincible.

I don't think he's crazy enough to use WMDs on US troops, but you never know.



To: Bilow who wrote (31002)5/28/2002 6:59:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Our cause is just and therefore time is on our side. Unlike Hitler or Napoleon, these nations that are now our enemies will eventually fall peacefully into our hands like ripe fruit when the time is right. This is what Osama bin Laden saw and knew, and this is why Osama tried to get us in a war against the Arabs.

Even Josh Marshall wound up agreeing that really is necessary to get rid of Saddam. Why? Because he's not going to fall peacefully, he's going to fall shooting off his collection of nukes. Which is why prevention is of the essence here. You got any better ideas?