War? What about assassination as an option? Here me out.

United States
May 24, 2010 6:10pm CST
Some would argue it is against the Geneva convention that it is an act of terrorism and so on but think of all the lives that could have been saved if we would have just killed Saddam Hussein without an invasion. Of course that means we wouldn't have control of it like we supposedly do now. Now here we are again and we are being told its time to pick up a third war with North Korea. Why can't we just take this guy out? It seems it is alright to torture the foot soldiers but the real culprits we have to sacrifice thousands of lives for just so we can see them hang like Saddam did? That is not right. The only reason I see why we don't is because politicians fear a back lash against them personally. Maybe its time for the politicians to take the burden instead of forcing the masses to be pawns in their games. Death by hanging at the cost of thousands of lives or death by assassination and only a few lives are lost, what do you think is a better option?
2 people like this
7 responses
@spalladino (17926)
• United States
25 May 10
So, if Saddam had simply been killed, who would have filled the void...another Saddam? This is why it's not wise to simply kill a leader who is perceived as "bad"...the one who jumps in to fill his shoes may be worse.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 May 10
Kind of like how the CIA helped Saddam rise to power in the first place? It wouldn't be the first time.
@spalladino (17926)
• United States
25 May 10
Exactly.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
25 May 10
Bush 41, left Saddam in place for a reason. "The devil you know", he wrote in his book that we could not ever take Iraq and control it and Saddam, for good or bad, is the only leader they have ever had that controled the split population. Unfortunatly his son never read his book (his own admission) so he did not have a clue what they were getting into when they envaded Iraq. Bush 41 could have removed Saddam several times but chose not to. Clinton left him in place for exactly the same reason, he had opertunity's to have him removed also. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Saddam, his bad policy's, WMD's, or oil. So assasination was not an option. When you violate the Geneva Convention then you lose the respect of your allies and your enemy's.
• United States
25 May 10
We have already violated the Geneva convention with the treatment of prisoners and even our own constitution, but its not right to do it to leaders who cause the problems? It wouldn't be the first time that the U.S. has backed assassinations how do you think Saddam got in power to begin with?
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
25 May 10
Yes we have but only under the last presidents and the world is looking for us to do better. Assasination of leaders of country's and operatives is a little different, god knows why. I think if we really wanted to get rid of Saddam that's what we would have done but that was not in the interest of our leaders. We have done this in the past and every time we do covert government manipulations we end up having little problems years latter. The list is endless when it comes to us meddling in others affairs and then it coming back on us. You have to wonder if we would be better off without any covert organizations. I am sure the CIA has done things that has helped our country but all evidence suggest otherwise.
@Teyjattt (126)
• United States
28 May 10
I love your idea. But there is more at risk that just personal backlash against politicians. If we assassinated Kim Jong-Il (sp?) then I could see a few things happening. 1) He'd be replaced by someone just like him, if not worse. 2) North Korea would likely become completely united against us. 3) North Korea would attract any country who has a grudge against us on their side. 4) A country like Iran could use this to show the world how 'evil' we truly are, and if we have no problems with just killing a man without even a trial, how can he feel safe that the U.S. just won't attack his country, and so now he must change their nuclear program from one of energy to one of defense. If we had done that to Saddam, who knows... we could have united all those muslim countries against us. In the end I think it would cost more lives than it initially saved. Of course if we had done something like that successfully to Hitler, we might have been declared saviors of the world.
• United States
28 May 10
You know what I watched a documentary yesterday about North Korea and I don't think an invasion or assassination would be a good idea after seeing it. Wow is all I could say. These people believe him and his dad have supernatural powers and that they are like the living Buddha. I am not sure how much of their tears and devotion was fear of political state and how much was real but even if a third of the population really feels the way they acted than either idea would be bad. The only way out of this one is to bring political pressure through allies and I cant believe I am saying this but also through China to get them to reform and become more modern. The other two options are nightmare scenarios.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 May 10
President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 in 1976 that stated that US Policy was not to assassinate Foreign Leaders. Every President since then has signed a similar Order.
• United States
25 May 10
Seems to me a remember a certain officer in the special forces getting in trouble years back because it had been leaked to the press he was training rebels in Honduras to assassinate leaders. As I already stated above, I could give multiple examples where the CIA has done this multiple times, look up "Family Jewels," CIA Assassination Plots.
@o0jopak0o (6408)
• Philippines
25 May 10
there is a saying: all is fair in love and war. they have tried assasinating saddam hussein before the invasion but it failed. i really don't agree with the invasion of iraq even if i agree that saddam should be ousted. I somewhat approve of the iraqi people of using ieds. If a foreign power suddenly invades my country and it is bleak then i will also use them. it is the duty of every citizen of any country to defend his homeland against invasion.
@peavey (16300)
• United States
24 May 10
I have thought the same thing and wondered why we didn't assassinate Hussein while we had the chance. I'm sure there were those who would have undertaken the assignment happily. But... realize that "wars" and "police actions" are often more political than anything. If Kim Il-sung gets killed, there will be war for sure. His followers will point their finger right at us. I don't know if the Gulf war would have ended if Hussein was killed. It might have escalated it to include Syria and perhaps other small nations. No one knows, but I suspect the politicians and militia considered it.
@laglen (19782)
• United States
24 May 10
I am with you. Think of the lives, money and resources saved.