Why not Assasinate?

Really. Why go to war, endanger our troops and civilians in Iraq, piss off the world, incite terrorism, endanger the Israelis, and be looked on as a warmonger nation?

If solitary gunmen have been able to get to our presidents, I cannot believe that with all our resources and wealth we can't just kill Saddam and any other aspiring despots waiting to replace him.

Bush even repealed the law against assasinations after 9/11. Why not just drop
1000 guys on each palace on some random day and clean house?

Even if the attempt failed, wouldn't it be worth a shot, given the alternative?

 

ONLY if you're ok with other nations assassinating your leaders.

E_S

 

You ask this:

"Why go to war, endanger our troops and civilians in Iraq, piss off the world, incite terrorism, endanger the Israelis, and be looked on as a warmonger nation? "

Now think through the potential reality of an assassination or a failed assassination attempt. Think through the reaction to Hussein suddenly getting shot - both internal and international. Who's going to be number one suspect...where would the accusatory fingers point...who do the clues lead you to...who could have possibly been behind this...? Hmmm. Tricky questions.

Even with the best Patsy in the world, of the clauses in your inital question, almost all remain intact..in fact more intact, more red-hot if anything:

piss off the world...check
incite terrorism...check
endanger the Israelis...check
be looked on as a warmonger nation...check

If we thought assassination was the best way, we should have done it 10+ years ago...something tells me somebody would suspect the US, don't you think?

 

Have you ever heard the term "Honor among thieves"? ?
This is a classic example of it, a single bullet would end this war and that's obvious to anybody with half-a-mind (So that includes Saddam). Thing is, if its that simple to kill Saddam (Compared to a 70 billion dollar bombing run involving thousands of troops, mountains of paperwork, and hundreds of thousands of casualties), its just as easy to kill George Bush...probably easier, since Arabic militants are infamous for 'suicide missions', whereas American Morality would dictate that not a single American life be lost if possible.

Bush knows if he has Saddam shot, it will escalate, Israel will shoot Yassar, militants will blow up Sharon's car, Chirac will snipe Jospin ), and eventually he too will be targeted.

That said, this isn't an "Anti-Bush" thing, its a global problem spanning back hundreds, even thousands of years. If you have power, why put your own life on the line, when you can put the lives of a hundred young men, women and children on the line instead? *That* is the folly of war.

 

I think that there would be fallout and upset people if we assasinated him, but I don't think it would compare to the fallout from a full scale war and thousands of civilian deaths.

As far as the message we'd send to other nations if we did this- We are already sending the message that you can wage war without UN approval if we follow our present course. Also, Saddam already tried to assasinate Bush Senior, so it's not like we're giving him ideas.

I actually think even most Arab Nations would prefer an assasination to a US led war and occupation of an Arab land. That's what set Bin Laden off ib the first place.

Also, it prompted Tim McVeigh to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma. Have we even considered domestic terrorism as a poosible result of this war?

I'm not saying McVeigh wasn't a nut-job, because he was. But he felt like a bully being over there, seeing this backward nation getting it's ass kicked. This time, we're planning on dropping TEN TIMES the bombs we dropped last time.Really think to yourself- how many horible images will be broadcast around the world on the net and by sattelite TV? How many crazy or unbalanced people could this war inspire? How many zealots will be ready to die to avenge this war?

Shooting Saddam will undoubtedly piss off those who are already pissed. But those who think he's a bad Muslim anyway, and those who know of his oppression of his own people, or hope for his exile rather than war--if I were them, I'd prefer Saddam get assasinated rather than have a full out war.

There's also the cost issue.
War with Iraq:Estimated cost for a quick war;
60 billion dollars(not including rebuilding the place).
One bullet:.50 cents

 

Yeah, and training a wetworks guy? $12,000,000

Preparing the mission: $5,000,000

Sleek, night-sighted Accuracy International Rifle: $1,000

Becoming as bad, if not worse, than the peolpe you call evil: Priceless.

There's some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's some body who's played Splinter Cell and gotten an idea.

E_S

EDIT: And this policy of assassination would strike fear into the hearts of leaders worldwide. Who'd then fall into line with Washington's agenda.

What do we call changing the policies of a state through fear, BOBAFETTISH?

Classic terrorism!

 

Ender-Sai- I bet those numbers are accurate. You're still talking about 60 billion Vs 20 million.

Also- I don't see how killing Saddam Hussein with an assasin makes us morally reprehensible as him as compared to killing a whole bunch more people BEFORE we kill him
. I know it's probably going to come off as naive, but I would think killing less people rather than more would be a good thing. Or at least a better thing.

Also-I am a huge Clancy fan, but haven't played splinter cell yet...

 

I hear you on the fear thing you added, but how does bombing the bejesus out of the whole country not inspire as much fear as shooting Saddam?

The Moab bomb is meant to inspire more fear than someone taking a shot at Saddam!

 

if war breaks out he's up for grabs though, isnt he?

hes probably already dead, America might have dropped in a secret agent with plastic surgery to look like one of his many doubles he keeps around, so he could take the original saddam out, replace him and play the part of an unbudging WMD loving dictator for america to war with so they can steal the oil!!!

in fact didnt one of Saddams look alikes get killed by him not long ago?

that was probably the orginal Saddam getting knocked off by the US pupper look-alike!!!!!!

Bush you diabolical fiend!!

 

Iraq discussion belongs in the proper thread.

I'll allow this, for a bit, since the rules and morality of international assassination is interesting.

On one hand, it is taboo, for very good reasons. On the other, why not kill the person responsible for problems, instead of waging war against the framework of the nation he/she hides behind, endangering civilians? And who is worthy to make such judgements?

 

Well, unless you're willing to assassinate the entire upper tier of Iraq's government, it won't work.

 

If assaniting Saddam was so easy it would have happned. Mossad have been trying for years and if they can't get the job done I doubt that anyone else will. He has extraordinary security arrangements and Iraq is one of the most efficent police states in the world.

 

Um, doesn't anyone remember Pinochet?

In the 1970s, the CIA, under the direction of the Nixon Administration, assasinated or at least, attempted to, the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, because he was a Marxist. They staged a military coup, resulting in the bloody twenty-some year reign of the ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet. They bombed Allende's estate and he either committed suicide or was murdered by CIA agents or Chile military thugs.

You know, some countries STILL want to extradict Kissenger for the part he played in the whole stunt?

After that, I believe Congress passed a bill or something outlawing assasination of foreign leaders.

 

Not only are we going to War with Iraq but we are also going to War with Iran, and North Korea. I can feel it coming. "Its just a qestion of when". I support the War on Terroism!

 

Guinastasia:

Actually, it was an Executive Order, initially signed by Ford, and replaced by one Reagan signed in 1981.

I believe that George W. Bush has altered it to allow the CIA and others to take out terrorists.

 

Well, the CIA admittedly spend decades trying to assasinate Castro. Their plots ranged from exploding seashells to poisoned pens. The nearest they came was bribing a waitress to poison Castro's chocolate milkshake (I'm not kidding!) The plot failed 'cause the pills got stuck to the ice in the freezer she stored them in.

According to Kissinger they were all droven "crazy by Castro."

 

Hussein apparently sleeps in a different place every night, picking locations at random, preparing evening meals at 20 or so different locations and letting a very restricted number of people know where he is at any one time.

And once the war starts, he will be a constantly moving target. There's no evidence that he will be easier to find this time around than he was during the first Gulf war, whether or not he was ever actually directly targeted by coalition forces.

 

If solitary gunmen have been able to get to our presidents, I cannot believe that with all our resources and wealth we can't just kill Saddam and any other aspiring despots waiting to replace him.

Because in America, the President doesn't hide out in a bunker every day.

It's much easier to move around in America than Iraq. Plus, your leaders are much more public.


Can you imagine getting a few gunmen into Iraq, past the entire Iraqi army into Baghdad, and positioning them in a strategic position to shoot?

It's damned near impossibe.

 

True, Presidents in democratic countries are really out there exposed. It is demanded of them that they make themselves available to the public (shaking babies and kissing hands ) It is remarkable that there aren't that many attempts.

 

You're referring to Executive Order 12333, which was signed by Reagan and rescinded by Bush.

Assassination is a tool of terrorism; if you want to use it then freely admit that America will be engaging in state-sponsored terrorism, especially if it's tied to "regime change".

But as I said, is it OK if anyone assassinates Bush?

E_S

 

Didn't they also try to get the Mafia after Castro?

It's insane. Crud.

 

Ender Sai, I see what you are saying but the fact remains:

I would rather have them assasinate Bush then kill thousands of our troops and civilians.


Assisination is a directed and focused war. It means no longer killing the guys in the trenches but taking up the fight with the guys that are making the policy.

 

Assassination only looks good on the surface, I think people tend to forget the huge power vaccum that can accompany assassination. An assassination is alot harder to control than a war, as silly as that sounds, and can ultimatley lead to more lost lives than a war can ever bring, not to mention more unstability.

 

"a single bullet would end this war "

Could you ensure that the one bullet would kill the right Sadam? He has at least 6 body doubles. Plus there is a chance that his oldest son would take the throne. by all accounts he is worse than his father.

Plus whoever suggested dropping 1000 men on the place should take in to consideration thats twice the number of U.S. dead in the first Gulf War.

"On one hand, it is taboo, for very good reasons. On the other, why not kill the person responsible for problems, instead of waging war against the framework of the nation he/she hides behind, endangering civilians? And who is worthy to make such judgements?"

Red seven are you refering to the "Ryan Doctrine? Good idea but only really applies during war.


" I believe Congress passed a bill or something outlawing assasination of foreign leaders"

It was an Executive order. Made by one president which means it can be retracted by another.

Saddam also has two CIA's that spy on everyone and each other.

 

I would rather have them assasinate Bush then kill thousands of our troops and civilians.

So you want Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Ashcroft in office?