In response to:

The Secret Kill List

Brandon156 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:13 PM
We gained short-term benefits in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither war should have gone on as long as they did. In Iraq we took out Saddam who was bent on regaining nuclear capabilities that he lost in the early 1980s due to Israeli intervention. This is hardly every reported in US news circles, but it is a well-known fact that Saddam regretted invading Kuwait when he did; since he did not have nuclear capabilities at the time. If he had, we wouldn't have dared going in against him....
Brandon156 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:20 PM
....also, in Iraq we scared the daylights out of Kaddafi, such that he ended his quest for nukes.

In Afghanistan we temporarily restrained the Taliban, but drove Al Quida elsewhere (Iraq, Pakistan and the hills).

We need to rethink strategy and goals in foreign wars. We should determine what "winning" means ahead of time, and once we've "won," get out. I think we should have left Iraq after taking out Saddam. He was the threat, we got him out. Afghanistan? That was the worst of the two conflicts in my estimation. We didn't accomplish much there, other than temporary restraint and the re-organization elsewhere of a terrorist organization.

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom...