He might be your uncle but he isn't mine.

I'm assuming that many of you didn't read the link I provided. They went out of their way to point out that aside from the technical viability of the tactic, there were certain social issues that needed to be looked at. But how can one criticize a tactic that wants to reduce fighting?

Kinda makes me think of the people that hated the US for entering the Bosnia confict (which, by the way, we did NOT even bother seeking U.N. approval under Pres. Clinton) even though the genocide was happening. Or the people that said that we should use sanctions instead of bombs in the Gulf War but then turned around and complained when the Oil for Food procedes were not going to the Iraqi people.

But I admit, Iraq did at least seek UN approval when it overran Kuwait and assualted the Kurds. In all seriousness, the UN is great at international relief efforts but is entirely worthless when it comes to political (or even human rights) issues.

But, I posted this link for pure information purposes. This "shock and awe" term is being thrown around so much that I figured many of you would appreciate knowing the background and philosophy behind it. The concept was conceived over half a decade before this conflict - it has nothing to do with it. I just found it interesting from a technical and tactical perspective.