Ok. My bad (anyhow, it struck me that the first impulse of anyone would be to go look at the destruction... then again, come to think of it, we are all disaster-fetishists, aren't we?).
Yes sometimes we are voyeurists (sorry for the lack of translation of this latter word).
Although it may seem like quite a bit of death and destruction, this *is* precision warfare. Few people live near the places struck, much less drive near there when not absolutely necessary. IMO a great majority of those killed are government and military figures, and therefore not Baghdad commoners in my view.
Mushroom clouds are somewhat amusing when thinking about the sh!t that regime has put the Iraqi people through.
I hope civilian casualties are very limited. Heard something about one of the targets being right next to a hospital; with luck it's still fairly intact.
Fairly intact is a good thing. Fairly intact means maybe some chipped paint, or something else that really doesn't matter. Fairly intact is pretty good for having a bomb go off next door.
Few people live near the places struck, much less drive near there when not absolutely necessary.
It is not clear that this is true. I just heard on the TV news (from a freelance reporter still in Iraq) that palaces and military installations that were struck are spread out across civilian areas of the city and that it would be highly unlikely that there would not have been civilian causualties.
Of course, you can't believe anything you hear on the news.
The reporter had so for been denied access to the civilian neighbourhood near the Foreign Ministry building - which was destroyed - to see the extent of any adjacent civilian damage.
How can the U.S. be proud of their total domaninace over a defenseless opponent? Don't think it'll be the same or this easy against North Korea.
Plus if I were the Americans, I wouldn't get too cocky too soon. Me thinks Saddam has a surprise waiting for them in the heart of Baghdad.
I agree on both points. There were only two things that ever worried me about invading Iraq: Saddam using bio/chem weapons, and us really messing up the reconstruction. As much as it looks like the former isn't going to happen now, I can't shake this nagging worry in the back of my head \ . Of course, I'll have to reserve judgment on the latter until at least after we've started.
Personally, I was expecting far more "pyrotechnics" to deliver on a "Shock and Awe" strategy. I do give my hats-off for the amount of restraint and focus that is being exercised over targets. The claims of "surgical" and "precision" are being fulfilled well, IMO. My hunch tells me that the real "Shock and Awe" barrage was never truly unleashed. Due to the success of the impromptu "decapitation" manuever, "Shock and Awe" was radically scaled down because there was no longer a need to go to that extent, evidently. I feel that deserves even further commendation that US leadership could decisively revise their plans to scale to the immediate situation (in my estimation), rather than simply going through with the original "Shock and Awe" just to flaunt military supremacy.
...or alternately, maybe the news media is simply not properly equipped to fully show the actual scale of the assault? I'm certainly not sold on the "Shock and Awe" impression. ...or maybe "Shock and Awe" was completely overhyped by the media prior to the actual operation? It was for me, at least.
Of course, no one else seems to be talking about it in the manner I'm describing, so it's probably all just in my head. The important thing is the job is getting done effectively and efficiently. I don't see any gratuitous overkill, at all. Being "Shocked and Awed" isn't a necessity for me, at all, if the job is and can be done with much, much less. To me, that appears to be exactly what is going on right now.
...or alternately, maybe the news media is simply not properly equipped to fully show the actual scale of the assault?
A little this.
Quote:
I'm certainly not sold on the "Shock and Awe" impression. ...or maybe "Shock and Awe" was completely overhyped by the media prior to the actual operation? It was for me, at least.
And a lot of this. They've been using psychological warfare in an attempt to take the country whole, or at least, nearly whole.
"Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
Comments
Originally posted by der Kopf
Ok. My bad (anyhow, it struck me that the first impulse of anyone would be to go look at the destruction... then again, come to think of it, we are all disaster-fetishists, aren't we?).
Yes sometimes we are voyeurists (sorry for the lack of translation of this latter word).
Originally posted by stunned
This is the first time I was so glued to the TV watching the news!
I was more glued on 9/11/2001, but this has kept me glued for a longer period of time.
Mushroom clouds are somewhat amusing when thinking about the sh!t that regime has put the Iraqi people through.
I hope civilian casualties are very limited. Heard something about one of the targets being right next to a hospital; with luck it's still fairly intact.
She said that explosions next to hospitals and in and around civilians residences are in the multitudes.
Originally posted by Spart
with luck it's still fairly intact.
fairly?
Originally posted by Paul
fairly?
Fairly intact is a good thing. Fairly intact means maybe some chipped paint, or something else that really doesn't matter. Fairly intact is pretty good for having a bomb go off next door.
http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/taheri30227.htm
Plus if I were the Americans, I wouldn't get too cocky too soon. Me thinks Saddam has a surprise waiting for them in the heart of Baghdad.
Originally posted by Spart
Few people live near the places struck, much less drive near there when not absolutely necessary.
It is not clear that this is true. I just heard on the TV news (from a freelance reporter still in Iraq) that palaces and military installations that were struck are spread out across civilian areas of the city and that it would be highly unlikely that there would not have been civilian causualties.
Of course, you can't believe anything you hear on the news.
The reporter had so for been denied access to the civilian neighbourhood near the Foreign Ministry building - which was destroyed - to see the extent of any adjacent civilian damage.
We will have to wait and see.
Originally posted by satchmo
How can the U.S. be proud of their total domaninace over a defenseless opponent? Don't think it'll be the same or this easy against North Korea.
Plus if I were the Americans, I wouldn't get too cocky too soon. Me thinks Saddam has a surprise waiting for them in the heart of Baghdad.
I agree on both points. There were only two things that ever worried me about invading Iraq: Saddam using bio/chem weapons, and us really messing up the reconstruction. As much as it looks like the former isn't going to happen now, I can't shake this nagging worry in the back of my head
Originally posted by Outsider
I found this interesting from an Iraqi perspective:
http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/taheri30227.htm
Interesting read. It seems to me that much of the world is against the war. Except, of course, for the people that it is liberating.
I live in the mid-cities Whisper.
Great to see others in the Dallas area here.
Fellowship
...or alternately, maybe the news media is simply not properly equipped to fully show the actual scale of the assault? I'm certainly not sold on the "Shock and Awe" impression. ...or maybe "Shock and Awe" was completely overhyped by the media prior to the actual operation? It was for me, at least.
Of course, no one else seems to be talking about it in the manner I'm describing, so it's probably all just in my head. The important thing is the job is getting done effectively and efficiently. I don't see any gratuitous overkill, at all. Being "Shocked and Awed" isn't a necessity for me, at all, if the job is and can be done with much, much less. To me, that appears to be exactly what is going on right now.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...or alternately, maybe the news media is simply not properly equipped to fully show the actual scale of the assault?
A little this.
I'm certainly not sold on the "Shock and Awe" impression. ...or maybe "Shock and Awe" was completely overhyped by the media prior to the actual operation? It was for me, at least.
And a lot of this. They've been using psychological warfare in an attempt to take the country whole, or at least, nearly whole.
"Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."