Replies

Work it out, Einstein. We had them on the run. Instead of taking prisoners of war, we murdered conscripts. Instead of overthrowing the dictator, something we could have done with contemptuous ease, we inflicted a embargo on the country, murdering civilians. Most of the victims have been children.

The embargo hasn't even served the purpose it was supposed to. It's not even clear what that was. But it obviously hasn't succeeded.

Work it out, Einstein. We had them on the run. Instead of taking prisoners of war, we murdered conscripts. Instead of overthrowing the dictator, something we could have done with contemptuous ease, we inflicted a embargo on the country, murdering civilians. Most of the victims have been children.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to answer your question for you. I want to know exactly how far we should have gone in overthrowing Saddam, all WITHOUT killing anyone, of course, not killing "conscripts" or civilians, just taking prisoners of war (and detaining them in what your ilk would immediately term "concentration camps"...) No, I want to hear you say HOW we should have overthrown Saddam. What would have been acceptable? No killing, no refugees obviously (considering your support of Palestinians), so also explain how we could have done that without his supporters (and yes he has plenty) immediately re-ensconcing him. I want to hear YOUR military strategy for the bloodless coup that America should have imposed upon a sovereign country. Come on. You're the "Architect." Let's see your blueprint. Can you do anything besides criticize?

Now what I really want to know is:

1.) Are you saying we should have killed Saddam?

2.) Are you saying we should now lift the embargo and let Saddam regain his strength?

If 1 then surely not 2. If 2 then surely not 1. So let's hear it: KILL SADDAM or HELP SADDAM? Pick a lane and drive.