Operation Shock and Awe/Iraq (page 2)

Pleasuredome

This is barbaric. There are ppl.....men, women and children living in that city!

well bigboi, we have to think about the cost of oil dont we? i mean it must be worth kiling these people so that we have a low cost high standard of living? just ask larc, he'll tell you.

Yerusalyim

SS:

Shock and awe?? Why not call it what it will be -- terror. So who are the terrorists? But then, no civilians are ever killed by these smart missiles, are they

BIG Difference, we're not INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. We're targeting "hard" targets. Some civilians will be killed. That's an unfortuante part of war. Put the blame on Saddam for not complying with the UN Resolution.

bigboi

BIG Difference, we're not INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. We're targeting "hard" targets. Some civilians will be killed. That's an unfortuante part of war. Put the blame on Saddam for not complying with the UN Resolution.

That's b.s. Yeru. If the Armed Forces do this (which they definately don't have to do!) we will have proved ourselves as being no different than the regime we're trying to bring down. Saddam Hussein used poisoned gas to bring about the mass slaughter of dissidents, no doubt to Shock and Awe any who might resist him. What's the difference between that and 400-1000 missles raining down on a populated area. It's reckless and barbaric.

Edited by - bigboi on 25 January 2003 14:10:30

Yerusalyim

Big

What's the difference between that and 400-1000 missles raining down on a populated area. It's reckless and barbaric.

The biggest difference is that these missles will be targeted at military targets, not civilian population centers. It's neither reckless, nor barbaric. What IS reckless and barbaric is Saddam building civilian bomb shelters on top of his command and communication control centers.

Satanus

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,"

shows that the planners know that they will likely wipe as many civilians as 'soldiers' out of that city. Guess it's those stipid peoples' fault for not 'getting out of babylon'.

it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

Not physically destroying military forces??? with 1000 missiles?? Are they putting fire crackers in for warheads?

SS

Yerusalyim

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,"

Actually, this means that no place the MILITARY has a presence will be safe.

Not physically destroying military forces??? with 1000 missiles?? Are they putting fire crackers in for warheads?

Command and control headquarters, leaders, not large scale troop concentrations, will be destroyed.

bigboi

Actually, this means that no place the MILITARY has a presence will be safe.

Exactly Yeru, I'm pretty sure the entire city of Baghdad has a military presence throughout. It will be impossible to have an attack of the magnitude they are proposing without significant civilian casualties. That, under these circumstances, is unacceptable, since the expressed purpose of this military action is disarming Saddam and removing him from power. That should not have to include an unprecedented use of weaponry.

back2dafront

Yeru,

If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect grabs YOUR child which just happened to be coming out of a store, are you going to shoot through your kid to kill the crook? Would you fire multiple shots at the crook knowing that the possibilities of hitting your kid would be high?

Hopefully you'd answer no to both of those questions.

Therefore I don't see any difference in what's about to happen in Iraq. We claim we want to help these people, but we're going to kill them at the same time..?? Replace the Iraqi people with our troops - what would you do differently? What if Sadaam had our troops hostage over there somewhere, and we knew the chances were high he'd plant them at military posts to discourage us from bombing them....what would we do then?

Your reasoning is sick and you know it. Is life not important to you?

Bendrr

If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect grabs YOUR child which just happened to be coming out of a store, are you going to shoot through your kid to kill the crook? Would you fire multiple shots at the crook knowing that the possibilities of hitting your kid would be high?

I would not have to shoot through the child, nor would I need to fire multiple shots. I would fire one shot to the head and kill the s.o.b. Why? Because I have learned and practice the ability necessary to do so. Likewise our military has the ability to inflict massive damage on military targets and military targets alone. We all know what Saddam is going to do. He's going to hide behind women and children like the sniveling little coward he is. It's not going to save him and it damn sure isn't going to help his image.

Mike.

back2dafront

Likewise our military has the ability to inflict massive damage on military targets and military targets alone.

Oh yeah...that's right. The smart bombs. Forgot about those. They never miss, and our pilots sure as hell never make a mistake.

Why don't you just spit it out - you don't give a rats ass about the Iraqi people and neither does the government. If they did, 600 missiles raining down on Baghdad would not be an option because there is no way in hell those missiles will only effect military postitions.

Operation Shock and Awe/Iraq

Share this