sookster
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,838
- Reaction score
- 452
- Location
- In my own world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I believe Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with, he was being very uncooperative with UN weapon inspectors. However we decided to bring far more force and destruction into play than I believe was necessary. I personally believe we should have given him an ultimatum to either cooperate fully and immediately or be taken out. If he continued to be uncooperative we should have gathered intelligence (even if it took months) and made a strategic strike by bomb or a small team of commandos directly on him leaving the rest of the country alone. We should never have moved forces into the country.
Once he was killed and his successor was in place we give the same ultimatum and consequences to them, eventually whomever was in power would comply to UN weapon inspections the way they should.
I believe the Geneva Convention outlawed assassinations. Could be wrong though. I really think there is a rule of engagement on an international level to not take out leaders of country. Could be wrong though lol.