Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19408)	8/15/2002 8:55:41 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think I'd prefer the "leveling the cities" options. Don't you think this might complicate the already serious problem of how to install a friendly, cooperative, stable post-Saddam government? The most important tasks of this war will be psychological, not military. We need to convince Iraqi soldiers and mid-level commanders of three things: that they can't win, that if they surrender they will be treated well, and that if they participate in any WMD deployment they will face horrible and inevitable death. If we can do this successfully, we will face very little fighting and a much easier post-war situation. The nastier the fighting is, the nastier the task of creating an acceptable government after Saddam is gone will be.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19408)	8/16/2002 6:24:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Leveling cities will probably cause more hatred and post war problems, but I do admit it would make the war itself easier. The "that's actually a good thing" comment referred to the fact that I would rather not see Americans intentionally killing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians. If that is what it would take to stop Saddam's WMD program then I would rather just run the risk of Saddam getting WMD, while making it as clear as possible that if he ever uses them against us we will end his rule of Iraq even if it means ending a lot of Iraq at the same time. Saddam might at some time in the future try something with conventional forces and then threaten to use WMD (no s at the end like RBI) against us if we did intervene but I would take that risk rather then kill a couple of million Iraqis. OK to be fair to you, you are only suggesting that we could level a smaller city (say population 50,000, killing maybe 20,000) and the rest of Iraq would surrender, so you aren't talking about millions of Iraqi deaths. But I'm not sure this would work, it might result in less conventional city fighting but even more guerilla warfare as the Iraqis and the rest of the Arabs come to hate us with a passion, and it would be considered a black mark on the US's reputation for years, so I still don't like the idea. We've already had more then one debate about using nukes to end WWII so I don't want to go in to that again, but even those who think it was wrong probably would consider it more justified in the context of global total war then in the context of the Middle East today. BTW - When I said "that's actually a good thing.." I was also referring to "and the entire nation is focused on the objective above all other concerns". Its a good thing that the situation is not so bad that we have to be concerned at that level, and its a good thing that we don't have to have 25 million men under arms and a $4 trillion defense budget (take the WWII figures and scale them for our population and economic growth and you get a military about that big). Tim