If it were as simple as that than don't you think that someone would have done that already? If the collation were just to take out one man (Saddam) and leave everything in place it would still be a mess. Even with Saddam gone the power would have gone to one of his sons and they believe are not were worse than he was. This was more than taking out one man, it was about removing a regime. If the regime's chain of command were to stay in tact than we would accomplish nothing and the terror would continue. [/b][/quote]Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+1 April 2004 - 03:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 1 April 2004 - 03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by {I}{K}{E}@31 March 2004 - 16:34
<!--QuoteBegin-Marius24@31 March 2004 - 22:22
jesus christ! the two of the little boys are really bad
still it now makes me look at the war from a different perspective
thats what I thought some time ago...
If they were only after Saddam they could also send a sniper to take him out..
but no America prefers some giant tanks...
No, the new leader would have spent all Iraq's money removing the statues and pictures of Saddam and replacing them with his own.
Saddam WAS Iraq. When a dictator dies the country falls apart. There is no successor who can talk over because the whole regime is based around that one person.
Stalin died and the USSR spent the next few years trying get their shit together.
Hitler died and we all know what happend to the Nazi regime afterwards.
We could go on with all the African and Asian dictators since them, but history shows us that it is too hard to maintain a regime once the despot who created it dies.
Bookmarks