posted
Wow, 11 nuclear facilities bombed? The only other one I remember is the Iraqi Osirak reactor the Israelis bombed in 1981. And we bombed it again in Gulf War I.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: the humanitarian cost of airstrikes is much lower than that of invasion. The US used to know this (eg Bosnia).
I'm not sure the Bosnians would agree. Certainly we caused fewer direct civilian deaths, but it's plausible that a more sufficient force could have prevented many of the Serbian atrocities.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: the humanitarian cost of airstrikes is much lower than that of invasion. The US used to know this (eg Bosnia).
Did you mean Kosovo? NATO had ground troops in Bosnia but bombed Serbia to stop atrocities in Kosovo before any NATO ground troops were deployed there.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QB] There is an election coming up. They could be looking at trying to play up the threats again.
That could be it, but this seems way too early for a move like this to be of much value for McCain. I'd think that they'd wait until October before trying something like this.
Here is ArmsControlWonk's post on the subject, with some decent (and some idiotic) commentary posted by readers.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That could be it, but this seems way too early for a move like this to be of much value for McCain. I'd think that they'd wait until October before trying something like this.
Agreed. Voters have mayfly memories. It'd have to be pretty big for it to still change the election six months from now. A blip on the news that most people won't remember by May doesn't count.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
