Lizard_King wrote:

Are you saying it is the death of the bodyguards that is upsetting you? I am not sure what you are getting at.

Lizard_King wrote:

No, I'm not. You're just missing the point of all those large scale wars. The most effective way to end them was for one side to kill or neutralize key individuals on the other side.

Lizard_King wrote:

Plenty of civilians died? Of course, given strategy and technology of whatever war, but that becomes parenthetical in the current discussion over Iraq given the relatively minor civilian casualties.

Lizard_King wrote:

Killing (relatively) few Iraqis now proportionately saves a lot of lives due to the absence of the regime, so I don't know how much of an objective standard humaneness is.

Lizard_King wrote:

Now you're just being ridiculous. There are plenty of situations where death is a humane solution in and of itself (euthanasia, etc).

Lizard_King wrote:

A lot of dead Iraqis? Jesus H. Christ, look at the last 20 years of the regime's killings; even if you don't count the Iran-Iraq war and the last decade of famine as a result of a combination of Saddam's actions leading to sanctions and what food did enter being used exclusively for military purposes. The entire death toll of this war doesn't even match the Shiite dead after their Bay Of Pigs-like uprising after Gulf War 1. There is absolutely no reason to think the pattern would have changed at all, especially when you factor in the increasing pressure that Saddam was likely to feel had the war not happened.

Lizard_King wrote:

What I said was "What I see is a subset of Middle Easterners who are simply problems; you start by killing off the worst of them, and the others will either fall into line or get their turn."

Lizard_King wrote:

In Iraq, only a cretin would infer that I meant the entire Arab race in the area.

Lizard_King wrote:

In Iraq, that pretty obviously means the remaining Baathists and their fedayeen etc allies, who must be killed, captured, or brought into line depending on what is most efficient.

Lizard_King wrote:

Genocide:The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

You brandish it like a campus activist does the OIIIIIIIL argument,

Lizard_King wrote:

but I'll play along. I am therefore advocating genocide, of the specific political group seeking to bring back by violent means the previous regime or at the very least prevent the creation of a stable polity in the postwar period.

Lizard_King wrote:

Am I supposed to be blown away by your willingness to demean important words?

Lizard_King wrote:

I am sure a million Armenians in Turkey circa WWI, or 8 million Jews in Germany WWII, or Shiites in Saddam's regime would be more than pleased to explain to you what actual genocide is all about.

Lizard_King wrote:

No doubt you think the prior regime to be the "humane" solution for Iraq.

Lizard_King wrote:

No doubt you expect the 101st Airborne to risk further casualties beyond those incurred in the first attempt to capture U and Q rather than simply take them out.

Lizard_King wrote:

You likely find it preferable that the guerrilla movement against the American occupation continue unimpeded, so you can shake your head knowledgeably and talk in hushed tones about this Vietnam-like quagmire.

Lizard_King wrote:

But some of us would just as soon see the whole thing over and done with, successfully, as soon as possible.