assasination

fig

I was getting a taxi home last night and the conversation turned to the impeding Iraq/America war. The taxi driver was advocting that Saddam should be assassinated to save lives.

I had no real objection to this other than its internationally illegal. Anyone with any other ideas why this would be a good/bad idea?

Well, if it failed i can see Saddam using it as a way to get the other Arab Nations to support him. As it stands the Iraqi people are supporting him, under the threat of war by America. An Attempted assassination would just give him more power.

On the other hand, if the assassination did indeed work, just another dictator would take his place. Probably a general of his military, and it wouldn't change anything. Indeed, it would probably be worse from a US standpoint, since they're using Saddam for an excuse for this war. The person that takes over from Saddam, would also, probably have to stage a bloodbath just to kill off all rivals in the country, which would cause even more instability in the region.

Clintons Cat

On the Dr Evil Scale Of Evil

War very Evil
Assasination just a little bit Evil

If Staffanberg had suceeded in blowing hitlers brains in the co-conspiritors in the werhmact were prepared to offer their terms of surrender to the allies.
That would have saved hiundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

GenocidePenguin

Well also bear in mind that Saddam is probably one of the most paranoid, well guarded men in the world.

the only person harder to pin down is Ossama Bin laden (whom if I remember correctly moved about daily and slept in caves in the arse of no-where)

If its actually possible to pull off with out it being a complete suicide mission, then i think america would have taken that route a long time ago.
Which suggests one of two things

A) its not worth the risk
or
america wants a decisive victory over sadam, having him die in a conveniant manner wouldn't suit....

As for the future... who knows.
I'd think another tyrant would take saddams place, if and to what degree he's play ball with the US and the UN is a different story

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
If Staffanberg had suceeded in blowing hitlers brains in the co-conspiritors in the werhmact were prepared to offer their terms of surrender to the allies.
That would have saved hiundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

Exactly. Therefore, assassination can be considered as a cleaner alternative to war. If war is "inevitable", this would appear to be a cheaper and more civilian-friendly way of fighting a war.

The West want to depose Saddam, and in doing so have a hand in who replaces them. Assassination gives them no physical lasting presence to achieve their longterm goals - the only leverage they have is another assassination....which simply leads to a cold-war situation.

So..nice way to avoid war in the simple view, bad long-term ramifications in the more detailed view.

Leastways, thats my thought.

jc

Clintons Cat

Its not like The Forces Of Democracy and Goodness tm havent tried it before...Say Tripoli

all i am saying is that its "better" than a War,or encouraging a covert Coup,or public insurrection/civil war none of which would guaruntee sucess in any case.And i am assuming that if "the state" went to the trouble of implementing an assasination they would make some effort to shape the future government through "state" friendly elements within the existing army/government or through talking to opposition groups.

After all if Karzi and the Northern Alliance fail to deliver whats asked of them,whats to stop a situation developing along the lines of your "Failed assasination" scenario above?

Yesterdays heroic freedom fighter is tomorrows vile despot and sometimes vis versa.

half of the original mess Afganistan was due to winning the war (against the soviets),but losing/failing to secure the peace (to the mujahadeen/UIF)