Saddam

[BruceZ]

I think Saddam may well be dead. That guy on TV didn't look like Saddam. Saddam never wears glasses on TV, and there was a mole missing from his cheek. It is known that he uses many doubles. Full analysis that he was in fact Saddam are not final yet. We knew there were Sr. Iraqi officials in that building we bombed last night, and Saddam was one of them. We wouldn't have bombed it if they weren't still there. Now the Iraqi military is falling apart and soldiers are surrendering by the thousands. We are waiting to start the shock and awe campaign. Rumsfeld had a long meeting with congress tonight, and he was about to say something to reporters when he got out and thought the better of it. I think he knows, and we are waiting to see if the Iraq military will capitulate. If we didn't get Saddam, we got so many senior leaders that the Iraqi military is rudderless right now.

[Jimbo]

It looks like Clarkmeisters' concerns over preemption of the the NCAA tourney may be unfounded, /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[adios]

I saw that speech last night and I didn't think it was Hussein. Lot's of buzz today that the features of the man on TV did not match Hussein. The reports I'm reading and hearing are saying that Iraqi army including the Republican Guard is crumbling. Also the USA is showing restraint in their actions. Let's hope that this war ends quickly without a lot of blood spilled. It's looking more positive by the hour that this outcome might be realized.

[Dynasty]

I don't understand the logic of having a Hussein double give a speech to the country. Why would it be done?

I certainly understand the need for a doubles for security reasons.

[Jimbo]

Dynasty when you rule by fear if it becomes public knowledge that you are incapacitated your power is drastically diminished.

[Dynasty]

My point was there is no reason for Hussein to allow a double to give a motivational speech to the Iraqi public rather than just pre-recording one (or several) himself.

[andyfox]

The guy looked like Richard Dreyfus to me.

[BruceZ]

Well, US officials are saying they have seen pictures of Saddam being loaded into an ambulance on a stretcher, so they seem confident that he was at least injured. This may sound gruesome, but would we save lives in the long run by bombing all the hospitals? I'm assuming they don't have a special secret facility capable of advanced treatment. If they do, why didn't they follow/bomb the ambulance?

[Billy LTL]

This may sound gruesome, but would we save lives in the long run by bombing all the hospitals?

Yes, that sounds pretty gruesome to me. About as bad as driving planes into New York buildings. But even more cowardly.

If the inhumanity of such a suggestion wouldn't deter that act it might be worthwhile to consider the consequences.

If it were ever to become known that the U.S. intentionally bombed a hospital for any reason, innocent American blood would be spilled again and again around the world for the next, oh, 50 years or so. Another consequence -- you think the demonstrations around the world are something now? Child's play compared to what would happen if your idea was followed.

Well, US officials are saying they have seen pictures of Saddam being loaded into an ambulance on a stretcher

It should be remembered that misinformation can be a more powerful a weapon than a cruise missile. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just like I'm not saying a whole division didn't surrender (15,000 men? Hope it's true). I am saying that not everything released by the government to the press may be 100% accurate during a war, and perhaps it shouldn't be.

[BruceZ]

It was a thought experiment.

"All's fair in love and..."

"...it does not seem that most wars are worth entering into. (On the other hand, those that are worth fighting are total struggles for survival - not games. It is ridiculous to have rules for war like the Geneva Convention rules. I believe that if you are forced to enter a war, you do whatever is necessary to keep your men from being killed, except possibly [emphasis added] hurting enemy civilians)."

- David Sklansky, Poker Gaming and Life


This would seem to ignore the case where you can win the war and lose other things, or win the war without losing those other things. The rules place agreed upon values on things, and help protect us as well.