We used to see sadam in his palace overlooking his army shooting a rifle in the air. Why didn't we put a cruise missle up his butt then & spare our soldiers.Are we ever gonna put our sub force to use?
2007-01-12 02:58:44 · 5 answers · asked by astro 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Colatteral damage, whats happening now!!
2007-01-12 03:42:36 · update #1
We did fire cruise missiles from subs at the beginning of the war. Anyway, just taking out Saddam and his sons would have led to the same sort of situation we have now with the different factions over there fighting for control. We'd have sent troops in then to try and stabilize the situation that we'd have created, so your point about sparing the soldiers is moot. As for using the sub force now, it's pretty much an impossibility. We hardly know who the targets are, let alone where they're at, so cruise missiles are out of the question, not to mention the collateral damage.
2007-01-12 03:38:24 · answer #1 · answered by Paul P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A cruise missile into a highly populated area would be an absolute Public Relations nightmare for the United States. That would simply be too much collateral damage to be written off and ignored (as hard as that is to believe).
2007-01-12 11:07:33 · answer #2 · answered by trer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By having Saddam undergo the trial process, it showed the world that he was getting a chance to defend himself, even if the majority felt that he should have been killed instantly after he was discovered. Since the trial was conducted and completed, it showed democracy in action and neither he nor his supporters could say it was unfair.
2007-01-12 11:10:14 · answer #3 · answered by younggrandma 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because he didnt think about the innocent citizens that would be killed in the war ???????
2007-01-12 11:01:25 · answer #4 · answered by Kathy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
question expired
2007-01-12 11:06:30 · answer #5 · answered by naresh 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋