i asked "do u really think that il zarkawy is a terroist ?"and he said Yup. He was a terrorist. Unfortunately, wars are often used as an excuse to make decisions based on 'profit/loss' data, so whatever means that are available are used, and gross mistakes can be made. Zarquawi was known, his location was found out, and the ongoing destruction supposedly justified the collateral damage cost. Supposedly, this is why we have a civilian leader in charge of the military: so that they know when to stop being at war, and when to call the police to take care of a problem. This situation might have been handled by the Iraqi police, but the military probably didn't want to lose the opportunity to strike while the iron was hot. Looking back at it critically is important to knowing what to do the next time.
2006-06-09 14:35:01 · 4 answers · asked by lola 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No not good answer.
2006-06-15 04:16:29 · answer #1 · answered by CottonPatch 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what collateral damage cost? no American troops lost their lives and only six people were killed.
2006-06-09 14:59:45 · answer #2 · answered by Bobbie Joe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nop
2006-06-09 14:38:47 · answer #3 · answered by maia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
?
2006-06-09 14:39:56 · answer #4 · answered by PlasticTrees 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋