Why drop bombs at all? They are innacurate. If Bush really wanted to capture and bring to justice Saddam then he should have the guts to send in troops to hunt for him. Not blow Bagdad to smithereens and search through the pieces to see what's left. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/down.gif" alt="" />
Have to disagree with you on this point. Am I incorrect in saying that Bush has sent over 250,000 ground troops in at this point? The idea with the bombs is to remove command and support centers, and to soften up armor and troops before moving in with ground forces, in order to minimize american (and allied) losses. Standard military proceedure since WWI. As far as anyone can tell so far (there are plenty of witnesses on scene, tho I have to say I am not one of them), 90% or more of the bombing strikes have been against government buildings directly. This is not carpet bombing in any sense of the word. At least technology has allowed for SOME control in modern warfare. Iraq has reported several hundred injured, but only 1 or 2 civilians dead in Baghdad so far (EDIT: that changed big time on sun/mon. it's now up to around 200 +, so say the Iraqis). I have to say, considering that one would think that Iraq would pump up civilian casualty stats, this is pretty remarkable. However, it also seems to have completely failed to remove any significant communication or leadership infrastructure as well. In the end, it will for sure come down to ground skirmishes in Baghdad.
