![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deathpixieWatching the SBS News tonight, and experiencing a sense of "I've heard this before".
"Saddam Hussein's whereabouts are no longer the focus of coalition forces."
Maybe he's in a bunker with Osama Bin Laden. Two men, villified as Satan Incarnate, but strangely not important enough to actually find and make sure they're no longer a threat. After all, that's why this bloody war was fought in the first place, wasn't it? To remove Saddam for once and for all?
Maybe Hussein and Bin Laden need better PR people - they're about as memorable as the Australian PM at an international conference.
And still no sign of the smoking gun, I see. Seems to me the same result could've been achieved by a couple of cr ack assassins with a map of Saddam's headquarters. Would have resulted in a lot less death and destruction.
Oh, and I found it blackly amusing yesterday that for the first time the conservative Aussie media (channels 7, 9, and 10, and the Herald Sun) men tioned one of the US's 'friendly fire' accidents in detail. Why? Because the hotel housing the journalist contingent in Bahgdad was bombed yesterday, killing two cameramen from Rueters and injuring several other journos. Iraqi civilians and British and US troops being killed are all part of collateral damage, but when journalists get fired upon? Shock horror!
Sorry, the news makes me cranky.
But don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the Iraqi people liberated from Hussein's rule - it puts a smile on my face to see the statues fall. I'm just concerned about the motives of the liberating forces, is all. If it wasn't about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction (neither of which has turned up), then what was it about? I'm horribly afraid I already know. And I can see another Afghanistan happening - they're already talking about sending Iraqi refugees (who have been here for ten-fifteen years and have businesses and lives and families here) back to Iraq once the dust settles. And with news today of another "accident" with a laser-guided missle in Afghanistan killing ten women and children, I'm not feelling particularly hopeful.
l
"Saddam Hussein's whereabouts are no longer the focus of coalition forces."
Maybe he's in a bunker with Osama Bin Laden. Two men, villified as Satan Incarnate, but strangely not important enough to actually find and make sure they're no longer a threat. After all, that's why this bloody war was fought in the first place, wasn't it? To remove Saddam for once and for all?
Maybe Hussein and Bin Laden need better PR people - they're about as memorable as the Australian PM at an international conference.
And still no sign of the smoking gun, I see. Seems to me the same result could've been achieved by a couple of cr ack assassins with a map of Saddam's headquarters. Would have resulted in a lot less death and destruction.
Oh, and I found it blackly amusing yesterday that for the first time the conservative Aussie media (channels 7, 9, and 10, and the Herald Sun) men tioned one of the US's 'friendly fire' accidents in detail. Why? Because the hotel housing the journalist contingent in Bahgdad was bombed yesterday, killing two cameramen from Rueters and injuring several other journos. Iraqi civilians and British and US troops being killed are all part of collateral damage, but when journalists get fired upon? Shock horror!
Sorry, the news makes me cranky.
But don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the Iraqi people liberated from Hussein's rule - it puts a smile on my face to see the statues fall. I'm just concerned about the motives of the liberating forces, is all. If it wasn't about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction (neither of which has turned up), then what was it about? I'm horribly afraid I already know. And I can see another Afghanistan happening - they're already talking about sending Iraqi refugees (who have been here for ten-fifteen years and have businesses and lives and families here) back to Iraq once the dust settles. And with news today of another "accident" with a laser-guided missle in Afghanistan killing ten women and children, I'm not feelling particularly hopeful.
l
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 07:12 am (UTC)Personally, though, I'm for this idea. I'm sure there are lots of good ethical reasons why the world doesn't or shouldn't work this way but I can't think of them right now. There are reasons why Tom Clancy books are popular; the bad guys die and are killed by special ops people.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 04:55 pm (UTC)I would be willing to bet it has something to do with the U.S. President. I say this because the only legal way to kill a head of state right now is to be at war with them first... A condition that few would survive if they tried it against the US
Executive Orders
Date: 2003-04-10 05:46 pm (UTC)Just as well, when you think about it. Assassination when directed by government agencies is by and large useless. Most effective assassinations are by an individual, acting alone, without support of any kind. For every additional person you add, you square the chances of failure.
Re: Executive Orders
Date: 2003-04-10 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 05:34 pm (UTC)Actually, was war ever formally declared against Iraq? I think I missed that. But yeah, some would say bombing a country without first declaring war against it was a terrorist action.
Hmm.