Anti-war crowd, - Assassination?

Would you accept a US backed successful assassination of Sadam Hussein as an alternative to war?

If you only had two choices, war or the assassination…
would you choose the latter?

Would you accept the assassination of George W. Bush? Afterall, he started this whole mess.

Er, this is a big topic amongst the :coff:deer hunter:coff crowd here. These boys would like to see an assassination pulled off without the world knowing it.

'course, I don’t know how it could be pulled off without the world thinking the US did it.

AND it’s like the Hydra; cut off one head, two grow in its place. Or like Aesop’s fox, with its tail caught in the briars, with a cloud of mosquitoes above him; don’t wave these away, they’ve had their fill. If you wave these away, a fresh bloodthirsty group will attack. Personally, I’m torn on the issue. I didn’t really answer you tho did I ? sorry. :frowning:

He invaded Kuwait, and gassed his own people, and controls his nation with an iron fist?


I’m afraid Saddam is too well protected from outsiders. The best thing that could happen is that he would be assassinated by one of his own people. I don’t necessarily agree with the hydra idea, NinetyWt. More likely there would be civil war in Iraq. There are many factions in that country who would like to see Saddam gone, and I doubt that they would allow another similar tyrant to take over if they knew Saddam was dead. Problem is, those who support him now might easily manipulate one of his doubles and keep things going as they are. Since Saddam’s party controls the media in Iraq, who would tell the people that the wicked one was dead?

Hey, isn’t “he tried to assassinate our president” usually in that list?

Why haven’t you included it now?

You’re right. That’s a good enough reason right there.

Yes! One thing in which the US consistently lags behind is in establishing a cycle of violence (outside of our borders, that is). Thanks for your expert advice. Up 'til now, we’ve had to make do with “piece work” mayhem; using the now perfected assassination exchange, we can work toward a more permanent and easily maintained commerce in brutality.

Oh, yay.

xenophon41, xenophon41. Why so negative? You don’t believe that wars can be won?

You guys are so cynical. The point is to kill enough enemies to stop the violence.

So, how many Palestinians will have to blow themselves up before enough of them are dead, do you think?

Yes I would.

Thanks for addressing the OP JJIMM.

Dunno. We’re still waiting. Hopefully, they’ll give up before we do.

I didnt say I supported it. We have a congressman who supposedly had a discussion with the president about this very issue. I cant find the congressmen`s name. But here is talk from the White House regarding the issue.

GWB started this whole mess?

People like Alexander the Great were lauded as great generals precisely because of the “cut the head from the snake policy” - ie, destroying the enemy command. In Alexander’s case in involved charging your cavalry to the center of the Persian army and straight at Darius’s chariot. With him gone, the army falls apart.

I really really do not understand why we still carry this ridiculous European “gentleman’s war” notion - that it’s OK to kill masses of civilians, but not to target the opposing generals and leaders.

When fighting a real war, the first objective should be the enemy commander.

In this case, target Saddam Hussein and his dozens of look-a-likes.

We should have done the same to Hitler in 1939, instead of killing hundreds of thousands of German civilians in order to preserve “gentlemanly honour”.

Assassination isa very dangerous path to go down (for example in Israel where assassination can take place on scant evidence or is sometimes used as a punitive measure or even when it is just an advatage for the Israeli government to have someone dead) and should only be used in the most exceptional ciorcumstances. However I belive that Saddam is one such exceptional circumstance.

But as has been mentioned before, Saddam is not easy to assassinate as he has several doubles and their have already been several unsucessful attempts on his life.

Ah Hitler again, isn’t he a useful fellow!
He just turns up in any debate to prove just about any old point, now doesn’t he?

How’s this one then:
The Germans should have assassinated Churchill, then the Brits would have accepted peace, London wouldn’t have been bombed,
no bloody invasion of Europe, no bombing the Reich, the war in Russia won.
Even more (live)cost effective.

Seriously, my fears for assination boil down to the following:
Political assassination is a very dangerous road.
How long before others start using it too?
How long, do you think, it will take before it becomes common practice?
Before political opponents within the same nation will start using the tool?
Before politics becomes a paranoid arena where only the most drastic and evil survive?
Anyone who dares stick his neck out will be dealt with before he becomes a threat.
It will be the sure death of democracy.
It would be the end of our civilisation.

Overly pessimistic?
You think?
It doesn’t take much to pierce that thin veneer of civilisation we have in place now.

Btw, Brian, you do know that Alexander rode at the head of that wedge of companions, right? I would surely laud Bush and Blair if they would ride at the head of the first armoured column.

Well actually the Nazis, did try to assainate/kidnap Churchill during the war. The film the Eagle Has Landed (starring Micheal Caine and Donald Sutherland 1976) was about this.

It’s no more immoral than war itself, and arguably much less immoral due to the minimized “collateral damage”. No problem here with it as such, in that context.

But it still isn’t necessarily a good idea - granted, it would provide some temporary feeling of righteousness, but the country and all of its problems will still be there, or even worse. If the purpose being pursued by the assassination isn’t clear enough or far-sighted enough, then it isn’t really a substitute.


Alessan, I’m a great respecter of intentional irony; it indicates good depth of thought. Do you mind if I grab this as a possible signature line (properly attributed, of course)?