[Boondock Saint]

I am one of the first to support this war in Iraq but I have a question and want to see honest opinions.

The use of large bombs to kill regime leaders such as Saddam or his sons or a general.

I beleive it was appriximatly one year ago when Isreal dropped a very large bomb in a residential area to kill a Hamas leader. While I agree that targeting a leader of a military or paramilitary or 'terrorist' organization is legitimate I do not believe that the intentional disregard for human life should be a part of war ... for example the leader I speak of was in an apartment complex and the 'collateral' damage was I beleive about 200 civilians killed ... it could have been injured my memory is foggy.

Anway, the world including the US cried out against the attack as heavy handed and brutal. Isreal later apologized for the attack.

Now, here we are in the middle of a war against Iraq and the US drops massive bombs on a restaurant in the middle of a residential area to cut the head off of this regime. The collateral damage is obvious by images shown on the tv ... if those images are to be believed ... but then with the pentagons admittance of using 4,000 lb bombs (yes plural) for the strike one could only imagine the amount of collateral damage ... those are massive bombs ...

Now, my question is ... are such leadership strikes acceptable during a war?

I know Saddam is a legitimate target during a war just as any leader is ... but at what cost?

What is your take on this? Would you place the importance of such a strike over the collateral damage? If you were in such a position that you could take out the head of state of your enemy but knew for a fact you would be placing civilians in clear and present danger would you?

I am not talking about errant bombs, I am not talking about targeting SAMs or tanks or infrastructure and coming out with collateral damage, I am talking about targeting one man ...

[Deicidus]

First, they can't target him because they dont know where the fuck he is. Second, if he's still around, he's in a bunker under the city, it's been digged up more than 20 feet under the ground, how could the reach him.

Third, killing Sadam will only solve a part of the problem. freing Iraq from him will not halt the anti-american feeling rising in the middle east. It's the same with Ben Laden. do you really think that terrorism will stop if they catch him.


They try to bomb him because they try to finish him quick. It's a long shot but they gave it a try. The imperials dont need another Vietnam. A quick ``intervention`` is to prevent the population to go agaisnt what Bush wants. On tV, you dont see half of what those bombs do to people. In Kosovo, we saw a glimpse of men cleaning up an alley of what looked like brain parts that had blown all over a wall. Thats something you dont see when you push a button.


War was born with humanity. But there was a time where wars were fought another way. Take the guns away from two enemy soldiers, you'll see who will win. The advantage of superiority is lost. It's the man with the most courage, willpower and desire to fight who will win. There is a difference between a man defending his country or religion out of his own will. Compare it to the other guy who is here because he's paying to do so. But today, the call wars launching bombs from a distant place on civilian population. This war, like all the others these days are not wars, they're genocides.


DULCE BELLUM INERXPERTIS.
War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it.
Caius Julius Caesar

[Vassili Zaitsev]

[SF edit: no one line posts in this forum]

[Boondock Saint]

genocides

This is a word I find greatly overused.


Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Anyway ... so what u are saying is ... no .. you would not target a leader.

Ok, thats cool.

I dont know ... a greater number of guys with swords will still beat a group of rabble with pitchforks.[/quote]

[RighteousFever]

These guys just cannot handle it.

Bush Was Right, the Left, France, Germany, Russia, and China were wrong. It is as simple as that!

[CasX]

These guys just cannot handle it.

Bush Was Right, the Left, France, Germany, Russia, and China were wrong. It is as simple as that!

I especially liked it how you (haha!) gave absolutely no (hehe!) evidence of anything!

However...

Stupidity isn't a crime...so you're free to go.

[grinner]

...still waiting to be shocked or awed.

[Boondock Saint]

Grinner ...

I dont think it matters if you were shocked or awed ... I would imagine though that the people 100 feet away from those 2,000 and 5,000 lb bombs were sure as shit shocked and awed ... if they lived.

[Siberian Fox]

Pissed off I think is more like it Boondock. Especially the ones cought up in that bombing of a Pizza Hut or whatever the hell it was in a residential area with four 2,000lb bombs just because they though Saddam was having lunch there or some nonesense like that.

By the book would that be a flagrant breach of the Geneva convention?

[Boondock Saint]

I dont know Fox ... It is a legitamate target ... but ... its overkill in my book ...

Seems like a waste of bombs ...

The being pissed off comes after being shocked and awed ... besides they said they backed off their initial idea ... I think it all may have been some ploy to scare Saddy and his boys ...

[Noumenon]

I think its kind of pointless to use two 4000 lb bombs on a single restaurant. Its also overkill. You could wipe out a restaurant with a single 1000 lb bomb I'm sure. Does anyone know if the US used any of those 30,000 lb MOAB bombs? I think the decapitation stretegy was essential to the US's victory without many casualties...its obvious that the reason we rolled right through Baghdad was they had no leadership to mount an effective defense. I don't really care too much about getting Saddam now though, he's not a danger to anyone when he's not in power. Of course if we find him he should be brought to justice though.

[Boondock Saint]

Does anyone know if the US used any of those 30,000 lb MOAB bombs?

No, and they arent 30k ... they are more like 21k ...

[ahab]

I think its kind of pointless to use two 4000 lb bombs on a single restaurant.

They were bunker busting bombs, I'm not entirely sure but I thought there was a bunker below the resturant. The plane with the bombs was one of the few in the air, and the target was time sensitive so they used the best means possible...

Flagrant break of the rules? Hardly.

All the gov't has to do is say "Whoops... we had intelligence that pointed that a serious legitimate target was there." and then provide the intelligence and the US gets out.

If you haven't guessed by now I'm lean more twords the thinking of "overkill is a good thing"

[grinner]

I dont think it matters if you were shocked or awed ... I would imagine though that the people 100 feet away from those 2,000 and 5,000 lb bombs were sure as shit shocked and awed ... if they lived.

If they were shocked they were pretty ignorant to what was going on around em. Awed? I would have expected a nuke put in their shoes. I'd a been pleasantly surprised. But then I would have split a long time prior to my street being bombed.

[Comradeski]

I agree with grinner; no-one in Iraq could have been shocked or awed by the scale of destruction imposed upon them by the coalition. The Iraqi people knew what was coming, I just think that the phrase was used by the US in an attempt to make the Iraqis think that a nuke might have been heading their way if they didnt rebel against Saddam.

However, I am pro-overkill (for lack of a better term) in that it is sometimes the only way to achieve a specific military target.

[grinner]

I agree this was a buzz term to intemidate. The buzz term "operation iraqi freedom" was to try to say we went to free folks I guess. While the first one may have worked, the second fell a little flat.
Opens up a whole new party game... How many buzz words were invented for or during the war (so far)?