> But, if you really want a proposal for getting rid of him without > bombing the country, sending in the SAS (or Green Berets, I think you > have?) would be a good start, I'd have thought. Taking people out with > minimum collateral damage is what they train for.
Ummm, how is this NOT war? I haven't seen any "anti-war" protesters urging such action. I agree that such action would minimize collateral damage. However, it would also cost a great deal of lives of our soldiers.
Actually, it wouldn't. When you send in a Special-Ops unit, you are only sending in a handful of people. Therefore, the potential loss of lives among troops is orders of magnitude smaller than when you launch a full-scale war, which requires many thousands of troops.
By the way, is it so hard to understand having multiple reasons to do something? Eliminating a tyrant AND enforcing UN resolutions AND making the world a safer place AND encouraging democracy?
Ah yes, enforcing UN resolutions. Another example of inconsistency in America's policies...
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
