Quote:
Originally posted by Geezuz
Why the hell weren't Saddam, his sons, and all of his henchmen taken out in a more discreet manner in the first place? Sure... It's great that those pieces of shit were killed, but it's a repeat of Afganistan. Blow the shit out of the entire country, and spend a pile of time and money searching for the "remains" of the primary targets. Give me a Break! Instead they get to play the guessing game.....Are they still alive or not?....Are Saddam and Osama still a threat? Now another shitload of time and money must be spent on rebuilding these countries, while the people suffer more than you and I will HOPEFULLY never know! Snipers my friends, silent assault teams! I don't believe that a full on, all out war was the right way to obtain the objectives we needed. Were these wars made for T.V. ratings or what? Not only are the people of Afganistan and Iraq suffering, but the rest of the world still lives under the constant threat of more terror attacks, because we don't have 100% validation that the rest of these terrorists are gone. In the meantime, world leaders involved in this war try to communicate a false sense of security.
The entire world is now walking on eggshells. Now we have North Korea, Syria, Iran, and probably many other countries that are possible threats. One of them could end up doing something really stupid? Shit! Where does it end? Does every country in this world need to be blown to shit before we feel safe? Does that make any sense?
|
We couldn't send a special forces team to just take out the leadership of Iraq because there is a law here in the U.S. saying that we cannot assassinate the leadership of another country.
In this case it was a four-hour firefight. So they were killed in the heat of battle and the law doesn't apply to this situation.
And as far as creating more threats, North Korea, Syria, and Iran were considerded threatining nations before we went to war with Iraq.