That may not be the idea-- It may be the press which might place a higher value on “occidental targets.”
I’m sure nobody wants to see a repeat of what happened in 1989 in Panama-- where, if you believed the news, the Panamanian people were grateful for the surgical removal of Noriega and the PDF, and most people didn’t find out that entire neighborhoods had been completely flattened until the whole thing was long over. You can bet that we would have looked closer sooner if a couple of our neighbors stood up and said, “My husband/daughter/cousin was killed while staying in an apartment building which was bombed.”
General Meyers is saying that, if they know there’s shields there, they’ll assess each situation differently. “The object is clearly not to engage noncombatants.”
Remember Saddam kidnapping luckless foreigners, soldiers and civilians, and literally chaining them to his missle silos and such in 1990 and '98? In a way, I hope that happens to these–maybe traitors is too strong a word, but they’re idiots. I want to see Saddam say to them, “OK, if you really want to help Iraq, forget the hospitals–we need our weapons protected!” and see what they do then.
And, oh yeah, using human shields is against the Geneva Convention and all, but Saddam doesn’t care. You would think an ex-Marine would.
The press jumps all over every misplaced round as it is. It seems to astonish them that wars actually kill people. I have no problem with the coverage. I want everyone to know before we go in just how serious the consequences are. It just irks me that once we commit ourselves folks act surprised over the cost we knew was coming.
In Panama, the PDF intentionally set fires to neighborhoods. Looting and general chaos destroyed whole neighborhoods, not US forces. Most Panamanians still feel the cost was worth it.
An Iraqi whose husband was tortured to death probably would be willing to pay a high price as well. Don’t expect her to greet the flesh shields with enthusiasm.
The problem is of course we don’t know what the Iraqi people really want, we have little way to really guess, and do we have the right to decide for them? The Iraqi opposition sure wants our help, but they have their own agendas at work.
As I said, I fully understand opposition to the war, but I oppose doing anything that could help Saddam.
Civilian casualties are all but inevitable during any large scale warfare. All this will do is give the media the names of some ‘heroes’ to blabber on and on about, when they get killed. Our forces are already very cautious about civilian casualties, the only way to reduce them further is to stop dropping bombs altogether. We all know that won’t happen, so this will wind up being nothing more than a propaganda tool to inform the world how evil the US is.
So what do you think the whole war is in the first place? Do you honestly think taking out Saddam will cause Al-Qaeda to dry up from lack of members? Please, they will swell by the thousands to fight off the perceived threat of US Imperialism against their way of life. And then Americans HERE will die. And the blood will be on W’s hands, but he will probably use it as an excuse to invade Iran.
Saddam has no solid connection to AL-Qaeida. I suppose that’s one of my objections to this war. It seems we’re gearing up for it under false pretenses.
Terrorists will kill Americans in the US again if we attack Iraq. They will kill Americans if we don’t. Short of the US becoming an Islamic fundamentalist state, we’re going to get attacked again. I don’t really see any use in deciding anything in a manner that would try and placate would be terrorists. If we don’t attack Iraq, it should be because that’s the right thing to do, not because we fear some pond scum.
yes Saddan and Al-Qaeda have little or no connection, but that will change when we come rushing in to fight our little war. A common enemy unites the people. Us running around beating the war drum with little evidence Iraq is doing anything makes up look like war-mongers and gives fuel to the terrorists. Since you seem to be on the fence, do you think that there are other options?
Personally, we ought to let them go in. Fly them in, ourselves, and give Saddam our blessing to use them as human shields.
To further show our concern for the protestors, we also need to make sure that they are equipped with military-spec GPS positioning units, telling them QUITE LOUDLY, REPEATEDLY, AND FORCEFULLY that the transmissions will ensure their safety as we know where they are and therefore will not attack those locations. We also need to let Saddam know about our newfound resolve as well.
Then, when Saddam puts these people in front of military installations, gov’t buildings and the like…
As I said before, I really don’t think it matters what we do as pertains to Iraq, Al-Qaeida is going to attack us anyway. If we do attack, I don’t think Saddam is going to be in a position to provide them much help.
What are other options on really depends on what the US’s real goals are. If the goal really is to simply disarm Saddam, then we should just give the UN arms inspectors whatever time they need. Saddam’s had chemical weapons for decades, so what’s the rush? Nuclear programs tend to be rather large and difficult to hide and since the inspectors haven’t tripped over one yet, I doubt he has an active one.
If our real goal is to get rid of Saddam and thus put pressure on Saudi Arabia while at the same time securing our future buying rights of oil in the region as well as creating a new US ally in the Middle -East, well then the only option to gain that is to invade. But I don’t think there’s anyway under current International Law to justify it.