Is Saddam allowed to target the Bush family?

The Bombing of Dresden in World War II by the Allies remains controversial after more than 50 years. Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was fire-bombed by Allied air forces (the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) over three days (February 13-15, 1945) near the end of World War II. Air Marshall Arthur Harris, inventor of area bombing, ordered the action. He was never held accountable for breaches of Geneva convention or war crimes.

Dys
What breaches of the Geneva convention? In a war that saw the Germans Bombing London night after night, Buzz bombs, bombing of open cities by the German Air force, gas chambers and crematoriums, Pearl Harbor, Bataan death march, the rape of Nanking and so many unspeakable atrocities committed by the Axis powers you talk about the Geneva convention. I know I will get a world of criticism for this statement but after what the Germans did I can have no sympathy. And neither did any of the people at the time. When happenings are taken out of there historical settings they are often very hard to understand and justify.

i can only think of All Quiet in the Western Front - the ancient black and white version -with the dream/nightmare of the commanders battling it out in the ring. I always thought that was the right way to go - put the stupid old men in the ring, let them kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.

Is Saddam allowed to target the Bush family? I think it's a dreadful question, but my answer has to be yes, if we're suggesting that Bush is allowed to target the Saddam family. I'd first argue strenuously that Bush doesn't have the right to target anyone.

AU, yes, you will surely get criticism. Or are you also a defender of 'collective guilt'? what did the people in Dresden ever do to anyone? 10 millions of Germans and hundreds of thousands of Hungarians were stripped of all citizenship rights right after the war in the countries of Central Europe and forcibly transferred to Germany and Hungary. Also justified? I don't think so. Now the current German government has officially apologized to the Holocaust survivors and came up with a retribution program. Sure it won't do, it's a gesture, that Germany is a very different country these days. Did anyone ever apologize to those people who happened to be born as German and were killed, tortured, kicked out, harassed for the actions of their government? nope. Of course the war brings horrendous acts. But if you want to present yourself as one of the'good guys', you can't really claim that 'eye for an eye' is fair and just, because that brings you to the same level as those you fight against. that makes you a murderer (you of course not meaning you personally). Geneva Conventions was set up to prevent exactly such mass anihilations possible in warfare. To have some basic humanitarian rights in the chaos and tragedy of the war. So was the bombing of Dresden justified considering all the horrors of the war and Holocaust caused by the Axis? I still can't see how.

Dreamer,

Do I understand you to say, that you would rather see the President of the United States dead than Saddam Hussein? If that is so, isn't it reasonable to believe that you would rather have a long, bitter and costly war that would claim many lives, than a short conflict with mimimal casualties.

You folks over on the pacifist side have some mighty strange notions. I am horrified and dismayed to hear Americans who seem to prefer long casualty lists and massive destruction to the simple support of this nation's policies and military forces.

Asherman - Where does Dreamweaver say that s/he is a pacifist?

Dagmar -I am not sure that it is a "futile" comparison - since US forces DO appear to have attempted to kill Saddam - and it is possible that the crashed aircraft on September 11th was aimed at Bush.

Asherman, you said: "Saddam and his sons are legitimate military targets during hostile action. If they surround themselves with innocents, including wives and children, they are guilty of war crimes and are responsible for the deaths that result."

Is this suggesting that leaders ought at all times, once war is in process, eschew the company of their families or be considered guilty of war crimes if they are attacked and a family member - or friend, presumably, is killed?

Bunny,

Quite correct. I've improperly assumed that Dreamer's apparent aversion to this conflict is the result of a considered philosophical dedication to peace at all costs. I rather got the impression that Dreamer regards Bush to be so dangerous that he should die, and that isn't really a very pacifistic stances, is it? Killing the "bad" guys is wrong, but killing the "good" guys is acceptable. Of course, some have the strange notion that the President of the United States is worse than a man who has murdered thousands, initiated aggressive wars repeatedly on his neighbors, financed and encouraged terrorists, and who has built an arsenal of weapons which have no other purpose than the murder of innocents.

Without effective military force the Saddams, Kims, Stalins and Hitlers of the world would dominate everyone. The Free World has made many mistakes, has too often avoided necessary conflict and on occassion directed it's military into inappropriate situations. This action is not a mistake, but a necessary response to a dictator who is a clear and present danger to us all. Other dictators and terrorists are learning that there are still folks in the world willing to oppose them, even at some cost.

As to your question immediately above. I was referring to Saddam's practice of utilizing human shields to protect himself and his military assets. Anyone close to a legitimate military target in time of war is at risk of being killed. That's war, and the killing can not be confined only to uniformed combatants. Saddam has repeatedly placed civilians in danger zones so that he can later wave the bloody shirt, even if he can not prevent the destruction of his assets.

Ashbrain,
I never said anything about wanting a long costly war. I said I prefer that Bush die than Saddam. If you want to inject stupidity in someone's posts I suggest you use your own.
You call support for your nation's policies simple. That comments makes me want to use that word to describe certain mentalities that reduce this topic to a "simple" matter of agreeing with you about your nation's brand of lunacy.
I'm glad you backed off your next assumption but not making stupid assumptions in batches would be the fence at the top of the cliff to your hospital at the bottom.
I also never said I have an aversion to this war, keep those assumptions coming it makes discussions with you so simple. Next you decide that you are the authority on who is good and who is bad. How big of you. I'll let that stand because you look funny with that crown you gave yourself.
Once again, I never said I think that Bush is a worse person than Saddam, but like I already said, keep grasping at straws one day you will have a point. I said I prefer that Bush die than Saddam because I consider Bush a greater threat. Bush has more power at his disposal and is more likely than Saddam to adopt policy that is sweeping.
I am happy to know that your arsenal is entirely earmarked for the guilty while Saddam's is dedicated specifically for the innocent. Neat little setups like that make thinking so simple.

I cannot answer for Dreamweaver - but it is a matter for argument as to whether Bush is a "good" guy. I believe Dream was referring to dangerousness - not goodness or badness - and were I attempting to weigh up relative "dangerousness" I would be considering Saddam as a vicious and dangerous man - but locally and for here and now. Bush, however, and his cronies, I consider as doing serious damage for many years to come - damage to the very perilous structure of civilised conduct between nations and to the structures that attempt, however ineptly, to support this - and to the notion that with great power comes the need to exercise extreme caution and care and thought before using it.

Nobody has given me an answer. Why target the children an grandchildren of Saddam? Why do they have to die? And does that mean the Bush Twin is a ligitimate target for Iraqi secret agents?

Dreamer,

I'm sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood you. I also apologize if being labeled a pacifist offended your sensibilities. Apparently that was a bad assumption. I do have strong convictions, at least as strong as any of those who oppose the use of military force in Iraq at this time. Is mass murder, torture, and oppression "good"? Is the use of force against a dictator who threatens world peace "bad"? I tend to think that dictatorships like Saddam's, or Kim's is BAD. I also think to close our eyes to their threat is BAD, because bullies only get worse if unopposed. Though you don't like Bush what has he done that is so "bad"? Indeed, American military might has been utilized repeatedly to shield the victims of aggression, to defend the Free World against totalitarian regimes and ideologies. Americans have spilt their blood that others might enjoy the benefits of liberty. We might have crushed Germany and Japan under foot after WWII, afterall that is what those regimes intended for the citizens of France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Korea, China, Australia, and on and on. Of course, it was in our interest to defeat the Nazi and Communist menace, but didn't you also benefit -- just a little?

Examine Saddam's arsenal and how it has been used. Aggressive unprovoked war initiated first against Iran, and then Kuwait -- both Arab neighbors. In the first he used chemical weapons in a deadly rerun of WWI trench warfare. When unable to continue his war on borrowed money, he turned on the little country who had lent him billions. He invaded that country thinking that no one would oppose him. The United States led a coalition with UN sanctions to eject him from Kuwait where his troops were looting and murdering people every single day. He fired missiles into Arabia and into Israel, a non-combatant state. Those missile attacks had no other purpose than to kill innocent civilians, and to provoke a wider war. Saddam's effort to produce nuclear weapons was frustrated by an Israeli pre-emptive attack, but he has been building a huge arsenal of chemicals, nerve agents, and biological toxins for decades. He promised as a condition of the Gulf War ceasefire to destroy his terror weapons and long range missiles. He lied and concealed an aggressive program of increasing his weapons for nearly a decade with hundreds of UN inspectors roaming the country. When caught in his lies, he expelled the inspectors and spent the next four years rebuilding that which had earlier been destroyed. Forced by the credible threat of military action, Saddam permitted a small group of UN inspectors back into the country. He then did his best to conceal his forbidden weapons. Some long range scuds have already been fired into Kuwait by Iraqi forces.

Do you really equate the United States with Iraq?

Didn't you say above that you would prefer the death of President Bush, even though it would mean a longer war? The alternative was for Saddam's death, which would almost certainly result in a short war with limited destruction and minimal casualties. You seemed to agree with the results of the two alternatives. Probably, we are just miscommunicating. Lets try again:

A. President Bush is killed, resulting in a long bitter war with great destruction and loss of life.

B. Saddam Hussein is killed, and the war is brought to a swift conclusion with a minum destruction and loss of life.

Now, which alternative do you prefer?

BTW, a little civility is expected of the participants here.

Frolic,

Saddam's grown sons are military leaders, and legitimate targets. Our forces have not targeted innocent children, or grandchildren. Frankly, I wish that the attack had killed Saddam, his two sons and as many other of his leadership cadre as possible. I want this war to come to a swift conclusion with minimal destruction and loss of life. The end of Saddam will greatly facilitate that end, and I doubt many will mourn his passing.

>Is Saddam allowed to target the Bush family?

Even if a military man was targeted, there is no reason for a civil man to be targeted..

I'm not talking about Saddam. The private houses of his sons were targetted. What does the US army think? That those sons of Saddam live their alone? Without their Children?

Seems to me=> Born a Hoessein=Born Dead!

I supposed the sons were military men. Was I wrong?

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/08/14/34525.html

But does that give the US the right to kill the wives and children of Saddam's son? If you say yes. Is it right to kill the wives and children of the generals in the US army?

Wives?
Could you confirm the intelligence? Could you deny that was a propaganda?

The press that didn't leave after the threats of the US army and that are still in Bagdad confirm palaces and private houses of the Iraqi leaders were bombed. Even if those sons had a military rank in the Iraqi army. I bet Prince Charles has a military rank in het British army. Does that give Iraqi secret agents the right to kill prince William?

bookmark.