Was the first assault an assassination attempt??

[phrodeau]

I draw your attention to the first assault on Baghdad by Cruise missiles and EGBU-27 "bunker buster" bombs on Thursday, 3/20/03.

Every news report I read says the military's intention was to kill Saddam Hussein.

When did it become US government policy to attempt to assassinate world leaders? I believed that the US didn't do that sort of thing. Am I naive?

If it was not an assassination attempt, what was it exactly?

 

[Cerberus666]

an assassination attempt. they all but admitted it.

 

[Sillyman]

The idea is to destroy the Iraqi government, of which Saddam is a part. Assasination is something that can lead to a lot of chaos really quickly if it gets out of hand since no one really wants to play government roulette, but it would be the quickest way to destabalize Iraq since Saddam I believe is head of the army as well as head of state.

Although I know they blew up the home of one of his wives. I don't know what that's supposed to do. Maybe if they can limit his supply of pussy he'll give up early.

 

[TWB]

Yes.

 

[SuprSalor]

It was that, and his sons as well(they being the 'heir apparant') and others at the top of the Ba'ath party.

Does seem strange now that we actually publicly go after heads of state now ( even if they are totally rat bastards who deserve it!).
I remember when it was all hush-hush about us going after Adm. Yamamoto in WWII, and he was a "legitimate military target".
Wonder when this changed?

 

[patient1]

As I understand the International Lawyer I heard yesterday, in a war, the supreme commander & his staff become legitimate targets as part of the chain of command & control.

A head of state would not be a lawful target during Peacetime.
A head of state would not be a lawful target if he had no authority over the military.

It is a US policy not to assasinate heads of state, but that's by executive order, which can be rescinded by another executive order at any time.

I think it's called "Military Decapitation", so that the enemy can no longer coordinate a defense.

 

[TWB]

We have not declared war.

 

[SuprSalor]

............ but it would be the quickest way to destabalize Iraq since Saddam I believe is head of the army as well as head of state........................

Don't know of any country where the haed of state isn't the 'commander in chief' of the military.

Still, this country has yet to target a Head of state.

Not that I mind.

 

[Lancecastor]

Yes, of course it was!

Americans are being subjected to the biggest propoganda lie of our lifetime.

The USA should be leading the world through innovation and freedom.

Instead, you've sold yourselves short with fear and violence.

Hopefully, like the Iraqis, you'll see the light and boot your tinpot greedhead out of power... before it's too late.

God Bless America.

 

[Sillyman]

Don't know of any country where the haed of state isn't the 'commander in chief' of the military.

Still, this country has yet to target a Head of state.

Not that I mind.

I think there are a few.

 

[patient1]

There were some in South America in the 70's, but A lot of the governments & constitutions have changed.

When seperated, the head of state runs the risk of becoming a puppet.

 

[Sillyman]

The founding fathers originally had the idea that we wouldn't keep a standing army around since they noticed that armies tend to take over after a while. Lucky for us that didn't happen huh?