Originally Posted by NZ Benz
Ok so your suggestion is strike these targets over there in the open with no cover but not those that are placed in cities? Hmm good idea if the US started waging war like that I know exactly where I would place all my troops and military targets. Precision weapons may be able to fly though someones window but they still have to have the power to destroy their targets. I think you also forget in war the primary goal is to destroy the enemy whilst minimising your own losses. That is the principle that was used for using atomic weapons in WWII and it holds true today.
You guys keep overlooking the fact that the Iraqis posed no new, or immediate or other danger to the US in March of 2003, so bombing them, regardless of the locations of the "targets" picked by the US Military, was senseless. And, JE, yes, many photos of the atrocities in Vietnam were presented repeatedly to the public and to our government officials. For the same reason. If we were not on their land forcing our way of life on them, they posed no danger to the United States, which made killing innocent people and calling it "collateral damage" just as unacceptable as this misguided mission in Iraq.
The US Civil War was a completely different issue, as was WWI and WWII. The loss of innocent life is equally painful, but there was a very real danger being faced. When you bunch all this stuff together and don't do a little sorting based on logic and context upstream, it makes you seem, well, dull. Since you aren't it makes you seem duplicitous and purposely deceptive to stack up what you know are poor arguments just to add mass. Like the proverbial 400 page term paper of meaningless babbling that you suppose will be graded based on page count instead of content.
I fail to see how the logic of "Shock and Awe" was supposed to be an integral part of our strategy to win over the Iraqi people. Along with the rest of the blunders that Bush's team instigated. I also fail to understand this deathgrip on a strategy that relies 99.99999% on a military solution, when in all cases in the past this kind of situation calls for a diplomatic solution. When will we give the diplomatic solution equal billing? When will we spend equal resources trying to find an answer that doesn't involve shooting guns and firing missiles and killing our sons and daughters? Especially in light of how poorly the strategy that depends on a military solution is turning out. Jim