Send in a team of snipers... hire a hit-person (Just remember Nanny PC just in time there.. PHEW !).. RATHER THAN WASTE BILLIONS of $$$ and ££££ and even MORE IMPORTANTLY than money... LIVES ?
Just a thought... if, as the ppl believe that was his motive for invading Iraq in 2003... after all, it couldn't possibly be for oil now could it?
2007-09-21 06:16:16 · 13 answers · asked by Hello 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Re Coragryph
That's my point... IF his motive was to kill SH and his offsprings.. WHY are Coalition troops STILL there under the spin title "Mission Accomplished"?...?
2007-09-21 06:33:49 · update #1
Re Jimmy,
It's just frustrating to have to WAIT for the "truth" to come out when lives are being lost on a daily basis. Here in Uk we have the "Thirty Year Rule".. to get our hands on official documents by which time our so call political leaders are either in ther dotage or passed on.. meaning there's nowt we can do about it at that stage...
I just feel if they have nothing to hide, are secure in thier own minds that they acted in good faith, there should be no need to hide the truth, or the relevant documents to back up thier convictions.
It's NOT THIER LIVES ON THE LINE AFTER ALL.... they put OUR LIVES ON THE FRONT LINE DAILY..
I just want to KNOW... what for?
Simple as
2007-09-21 07:46:47 · update #2
Let's assume that (killing/stopping Saddam) was his primary motivation.
The actual overthrow of Saddam's govt took very little time, and resulted in very few casualties.
It has been the years of occupation AFTER "Mission Accomplished" that have resulted in all the problems.
2007-09-21 06:21:00 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Because that is an impeachable offense, his motive was to remove Saddam Hussein, per the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998 and under the authority of UN Resolution 678 and the 17 UN violations.
You are right on one count, it wasn't for oil
2007-09-21 06:24:20 · answer #2 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who would take over in your plan? "More of the same"? hehe just had to throw that in there.
nigelshiftright - We do know why. there was a policy to overthrow Saddam. The Iraq Liberation Act states all the reasons WHY. Those who remember it know that it passed 360-38 under Bill Clinton in 1998
2007-09-21 06:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hello! Will we really ever know why for sure Bush ordered troops to Iraq, It could be Destroy Armaments of mass destruction, Oil, Killing Hussein, or a number of other things, like eliminating Al Qaeda! or Bin Laden! or was Bush just a liar! Jimmy.
2007-09-21 06:51:24 · answer #4 · answered by Jimmy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
me, being a former mos 8541 in the marines during vietnam agrees with you.any great sniper can take out anyone in the world and go down as a beloved person,such as if someone whacked the iranian president at ground zero while he is in the hole.also,i think,our cia should go into the printing business of reprinting the koran and we use our act-alike,look-alike,talk-alike middle east men to replace the clerics and have installed underground safe havens with radio to station chiefs.this way all of the midd east people can read a new koran with all of the hate passages removed forever
2007-09-21 07:07:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was not simply to "kill a dictator" There were many reasons for invading Iraq. The first reason was believed by most of the world...probably you included. Even Saddam thought he had WMD according to his own scientist who was afraid to tell him otherwise.
As for the oil. If it were for oil, do you think we might have perhaps taken some by now? Perhaps at least to pay for the rebuilding effort? GET REAL!
2007-09-21 06:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Whatever rationale of the week you hear, the point was not about Saddam or weapons or democracy. It was planting the US army in the middle east to fulfill the expansionist wetdreams of PNAC. If you don't knwo what PNAC is, look it up. Should make things clearer.
2007-09-21 06:23:29 · answer #7 · answered by douglas l 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If he sent in a sniper, the world (including Americans) would be in an uproar. It would have been a lot easier and way cheaper to do it your way though.
2007-09-21 06:21:45 · answer #8 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Heads of state need be careful when ordering "hits" on other heads of state. It leaves it wide open for similar retaliatory measures,and most are just too damn cowardly to take that chance...
2007-09-21 06:23:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fact is nobody knows why we went to Iraq, least of all George Bush. This will remain a great historical mystery I predict.
2007-09-21 06:20:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋