Ari Fleischer's comments

DadaKopf

In an apparent concession to international opinion and sceptics in the US Congress, President George Bush toned down his rhetoric on Iraq, suggesting that disarmament, not regime change, was his primary goal. [...]

But whatever soothing effect the president's words might have had was rapidly undermined by his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who pointed out that the expense of an Iraqi invasion could be saved by the "cost of a bullet". Asked if he was calling for President Saddam to be assassinated, in contravention of US law, Mr Fleischer said only: "Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes."

Are we now to accept this as policy?

PH01

It works for them in South\Cental America, why not Iraq?

DiscoStu

aint it illegal(impeachment time) for a us president to order the assination of another nations leader? me thinks it was ford who brought it in after discovering a cia plot to add an extra hole to castro's head.

make no mistake war is going to happen. john bolton(Undersecretary of state for arms control and international security)made it quite clear on dateline london on bbc news24 about 3 weeks ago.

bonkey

Originally posted by DiscoStu
make no mistake war is going to happen.

Heh.

Check out if Reuters photographers have been shipped there yet. Nothing will start till they go there, and once they're there, its pretty sure to be a short countdown till the action.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by DiscoStu
aint it illegal(impeachment time) for a us president to order the assination of another nations leader? me thinks it was ford who brought it in after discovering a cia plot to add an extra hole to castro's head.

Yes however the president didn't say it.

One thing though, if Saddam is assinated it will be seen as if the US had planned it, after all they condoned it.

Victor

Originally posted by Hobbes
Yes however the president didn't say it.

I don't think this is correct. Assassination was banned by presidential decree and reintroduced by presidential decree.

mike65

Ari Fleischer was proberly hinting that an "internal
regime change" would save alot of bother but Saddam
keeps on killing his generals for that very reason.

Mike.

PH01

Originally posted by mike65
Ari Fleischer was proberly hinting that an "internal
regime change" would save alot of bother but Saddam
keeps on killing his generals for that very reason.

Mike.

Saddam, he's such a spoil sport!

Chaos-Engine

there won't be a democracy in the Middle east until the oil runs out

PH01

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
there won't be a democracy in the Middle east until the oil runs out

Probably not. When the oil runs out they'll just go back to the old ways of feudal kingdoms and the like.

DeVore

Would anyone cry if someone put a bullet in the back of Saddams head tomorrow?

I know I wouldnt. *shrug*.

DeV.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Shinji

Would anyone cry if someone put a bullet in the back of Saddams head tomorrow?

Nope.

Would anything be solved, though?

Again, no. Strike at one head and there are eight to replace it.

I wouldn't be bawling my eyes out if someone put a bullet in the back of the current resident in the White House's head tomorrow either, mind.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by daveirl
Did executing Tim McVeigh prevent further terrorism in the US????

Wondering........... would the assassinating of Herr Hitler have prevented the unnecessary extinction of 50,000,000 human beings, and as such be justified?

Easy to be wise in hindsight, tho', I s'pose.

Hobbes

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Wondering........... would the assassinating of Herr Hitler have prevented the unnecessary extinction of 50,000,000 human beings, and as such be justified?

No it wouldn't of. He just helped move along something that was boiling over for a long time. Anti-semitism was rampant pre WWII, Hitler just joined the bandwagon.

It's like saying would the US economy be in such a bad state if it wasn't for 9/11 and the answer is yes. The crash was on the cards, 9/11 just helped speed it up.

Shazbat

Originally posted by PH01
It works for them in South\Cental America, why not Iraq?

Hey! I know! why not the north of ireland too!!

Oh I forgot, violence is only acceptable in far away countries.

mike65

quote:
Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Wondering........... would the assassinating of Herr Hitler have prevented the unnecessary extinction of 50,000,000 human beings, and as such be justified?

Originally posted by Hobbes
No it wouldn't of. He just helped move along something that was boiling over for a long time. Anti-semitism was rampant pre WWII, Hitler just joined the bandwagon.

50 million dead was the death toll of WW2 and no that war would'nt have happened if Hilter had'nt been in power, thats not to say another war could'nt have happened mind, proberly at the hands of Stalin.

Mike.

Hobbes

Originally posted by mike65
quote:
50 million dead was the death toll of WW2 and no that war would'nt have happened if Hilter had'nt been in power, thats not to say another war could'nt have happened mind, proberly at the hands of Stalin.

Mike.

You just disagreed with yourself. The war was coming, it was just a matter of the sparks to start it off. If it wasn't Hitler it would of been someone else. You give Hitler too much credit.

Von

Ah counterfactual history. What if Hitler had been bumped off but someone else, who was just as insane but better at military affairs, took over? Saddam's son Uday is a bit of a nutter by all accounts. And mike, you're forgetting about the japanese.

Venom

Would anyone cry if someone put a bullet in the back of Saddams head tomorrow?

Nope.

But in all fairness how many would be upset if someone put a bullet in G.W.Bush's head either?

Marie FRANCE

Originally posted by mike65
quote:

Wondering........... would the assassinating of Herr Hitler have prevented the unnecessary extinction of 50,000,000 human beings, and as such be justified?

Nop it wouldn't

Most victims of WW2 were Russian , 10 million famalies

The Chinese Reckon WW2 Started when Japan, Germany, France England and Russia started cutting up their country.

N.Africans think it started when Italy invaded.

Europeans think it begun when Hitler invaded Poland.

And Americans think it started when Japan bombed Pearl Habour

DadaKopf

Back on topic, doesn't everyone think it's more than ironic that in America, while trying to court the international community in the interest of constructing some semblance of moral integrity to perpetrate a war, a state secretary would endorse assassination as a viable, even moral action? Talk about hypocrisy.

mike65

er note to Marie France, that quote was actually by pro_gnostic_8 not me, I was just requoting.

Mike.

Von

Dadakopf, is assassination a bad policy just cos it's hypocritical or cos it's risky and is likely to backfire in all sorts of unexpected ways?

DadaKopf

I think many people in the Western world find assassination immoral and dangerous; this is based on historical incidents like the assassinations of Kennedy and Archduke Franz Ferdinand. I find it especially odd that any American politician would endorse assassination considering the string of assassinations in American history.

Assassinations don't work because the effects are always more uncertain and, most importantly, they're covert, which means the motivations and rule of law are always to be suspected. I've never known of any 'Just Assassination Theory'.

Furthermore, it can be quite easily argued that assassination qualifies as terrorism. A state endorsing assassination is identical to a state endorsing terrorism ("we can get you, it might be when you're sleeping"). It may also breach the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter of Human Rights etc. because 1) it brings serious doubt over the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and 2) discriminates on grounds of individual civil liberties (eg. every human being's right to life).

They may be cheaper, but are much more dangerous in the long run than a unilaterally forged war.