OK I have a question about Iraq - Democratic Underground

Maraya1969

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 01:37 AM
Original message

OK I have a question about Iraq

Why couldn't they just have sent some snippers in to kill Saddam and his ilk? Why did they have to blow up the entire country to get rid of a dictator?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 01:41 AM
Response to Original message

1. getting rid of Saddam was only a minor objective...

...probably meant to stroke the shrubs ego.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 01:42 AM
Response to Original message

2. That's what happens when "your guy" isn't on the inside

The plan was for King Chalabi to go in and take over. They also had to get rid of Uday and Qusay. And they really thought they'd be able to pound the shit out of the Republican guard and the conscripts--gotta have a "war" if you are gonna go to war. They didn't count on the "melting into the environment" strategy. They should have--it was a feature in Vietnam.

It's what happens when civilians do not listen to military planners who have experience in these sorts of evolutions. The suits thought they knew it all, and way too many of our citizens in uniform are dead because of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

4MoreYearsOfHell

(943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 01:53 AM
Response to Original message

3. Read the neo-con bible

Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 02:03 AM by 4MoreYearsOfHell

at www.newamericancentury.org...

PNAC - control the Middle East in order to guarantee the US a stable supply of oil...

Check out "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which calls for "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to galvanize the American people to give a reason to go into Iraq...

PNAC - Project for a New American Century...

In other words, keep the oil flowing instead of looking at conservation or alternative fuel methods...

Which is what you get when you (s)elect two assholes from Texas oil backgrounds to run the f***ing country...

But that's me...

On edit - bad spelling

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

radfringe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 04:27 AM
Response to Original message

4. just killing Sadam wouldn't have done it

power would have just gone to one of his sons

the real objective was not to get rid of Saddam - Saddam was just one of the "roadblocks" to getting control of the country and the oil

with Nixon - the mantra was "follow the money" -- with this mis-administration it's "Follow the oil"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JawJaw

(574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 04:40 AM
Response to Original message

5. Why not a quick assassination?

Because WAR and BOGUS PATRIOTISM makes MONEY for the arms companies and TV networks (who, after all are the same corporations)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

auburngrad82

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-18-05 07:09 AM
Response to Original message

6. I think that snippers would only have succeeded in cutting his hair.

:evilgrin:

We could have sent snipers in but it would have been a tough job and they would probably have failed. He was very well protected at all times. Besides, there were several lookalikes running around to act as decoys. How would you know you had assasinated the real Hussein?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:32 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.