laudablepuss wrote:

CrackerBarrel wrote:

Zebco Fuckface wrote:

Mischief Shai-hulud wrote:

Not if the pentagon uses its Completely and utterly decimate Iraq with 800 cruise missiles in two days plan.

Not that Sadam isn't a very bad man

Here's an accompanying cartoon

I don't want to sully up this forum with an argument, but note that the military uses cruise missiles on military targets.

Even so, striking military targets does not exempt civilian people/structures from residual damage. And it's not like these buildings are bristling with evil bad guys in special forces uniform. Even if it is possible to hit a target over the horizon without residual civilian damage or casualties (or if it is possible for intelligence to be 100% correct on whether a target is militar or not), it still has a lasting psychological effect on the populace, especially considering the faceless nature of cruise missiles.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that having every single millitary installation, power plant, etc. for miles around blow up overnight causes the Iraqi army to just call it quits, any civillian suffering ought to be minimal since we'll be moving in right away to (supposedly) rebuild the country. My problem is that I'm not convinced this tactic will work any better than bombing the fuck out of civillian populations in WWII. The Iraqi army might just dig in and try to slug it out even as living conditions deteriorate all around them.

I just love the first frame of that cartoon. Why does the GI look like he's 100 years old?