Is Saddam allowed to target the Bush family?

What is sauce for the goose.....

if you try to kill someone you should expect them to try to kill you.

it's a pretty simple concept to grasp.

However, this is also the Hatfields and McCoys thing - really, despite my flippant comment above, I think the argument is the broad one of whether or not it is right to target heads of state - not whether tit for tat is right.

If such targetting is deemed wrong, then it remains wrong, whether it is an act of revenge or not - and we are all better served if countries remain ethical and lawful in their dealings with each other, despite provocation.

I started a thread about this very subject - because I find it blindly difficult to argue the ethics of killing, when killing is wrong, in my view!

Really hate to break this to you, but war is about killing. If Saddam and his gang of killers is removed from office, the amount of killing and dying will be greatly reduced. Are you against keeping the casualties down? Who better to kill than the architect of this sad day? The deaths of a small number of top Iraqi leaders would certainly help bring this affair to a speedy conclusion.

You ask if it would be O.K. for Saddam to target the President. He has in the past targeted an American President who had returned to private life. I'm sure that he would like to kill President Bush and our NCA. If he were successful, would that stop the war and the loss of innocent life?

I'd rather leaders made war upon each other than upon each other's citizens, if it's going to come down to it. A violation of international law? It depends on how you read it. But I'd rather Saddam and family die than a quarter million innocent folks who happen to live in Baghdad.

Patio,

Though Saddam might like to take a lot of Iraqi citizens with him to hell, I doubt that he could kill off a quarter million before we took him down.

So, Asherman - your argument is that Saddam or any other enemy of the USA is quite right to try to kill the President and his/her family, plus, presumably all cabinet people - especially those to do with the military, and their families?

Is this only in declared wars, in your view, or in all conflicts?

Yes, war is about killing - that is why it seems so odd to argue about whom it is right and wrong to target.

I wonder what international law and the Geneva convention have to say about this...

Ash -

I'm not talking about Saddam.

PD - heehee

Ah, If only these were the days of the duel.

Patio,

You think then that the Iraqi People will commit mass suicide? Surely, you don't seriously believe that there will be a quarter million casualties as a result of accident. If you mean to say that the United States military would deliberately target civilians, then you had best have some very strong proof at hand. To make that sort of charge is unfair, and is an insult to every man and woman who have ever served in the armed forces of this country.

Bunny,

Saddam and his sons are legitimate military targets during hostile action. If they surround themselves with innocents, including wives and children, they are guilty of war crimes and are responsible for the deaths that result. This isn't anything new. During WWII every military force targeted the leadership of their enemies. U.S. Intelligence identified a time and place where Admiral Yamamoto would be, and they sent a squadron of fighters to kill him. That was legitimate and may have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the Japanese. The legitimacy of targeting national and military leadership is confined to periods of war. In the current situation, and the historical example, the effort is carried out by regular formations of the military.

This war is a continuation of the Gulf War sanctioned by the U.N. and left to fester. That hostilities are renewed, legitimizes targeting Saddam and his top leadership. Declared Wars are obsolete. No declaration is required of a nation acting in self defense, and aggressive war is outlawed by various treaties and international organizations comprising legitimate states. Saddam committed aggressive war against Iran, Kuwait, and arguably against Israel. The UN sanctioned war against Saddam, and it is that sanction that now legitimizes this action. If the UN had specifically passed a resolution forbidding military action, the U.S. would have had a more difficult time waging legitimate war. BTW, the same background applies to the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean War is still in existence, and military action taken against the DPRK has already been sanctioned over fifty years ago.

Asherman
Stop playing dumb, we already know you have a "Saddam is bad, we are good" mentality and you don't need to preach. The question is simple, you are saying it is right for us to try to kill him in hostile situations and the question is being asked of you if it is right for Saddam to try to kill Bush. It's painfully obvious that Saddam is more threatened by Bush than Bush is by Saddam. So does Saddam have more of a right to kill Bush? Equal? Or are you going to play dumb again with the "but he is bad" line.

Dreamer,

If saddam managed to kill George Bush, the President of the United States, tomorrow that would not be a war crime. Neither would it have the effect of shortening the war. The effect would be to further harden American support of its government and military, and it would strengthen our resolve to do away with the saddam regime. On the other hand, if saddam and his henchmen were removed "with extreme prejudice", the war would be shortened considerably and the number of lives lost would be much less. Which of the two possible deaths would be perforable?

Thanks for answering the question my answer to your question is that I prefer that Bush die because I consider him a greater threat but I agree that it would not do anything but make Americans more dangerous.

Yes, indeed littleK! Leave the rest of us out of this!
Or, as one elderly Australian man said on radio from Iraq yesterday:
Most of the population of Iraq is under 16 years of age. We are sending children to kill children. Why can't these old men fight their own wars?

This from a man in his 70s, whose in Iraq as an act of solidarity with the people. He's not a "human shield", but made a moral & religious decision to be with the Iraqi people at this terrible time for them.

So distressing. He's a good man, crazy, but a good man. I like the idea of sending SUV drivers to fight in Iraq.

He didn't sound at all crazy when he spoke. Definitely not a fanatic, but deeply religious. I fully agreed with his belief that his life was no more important that an ordinary, innocent Iraqi's.

Asherman
First let me say that turnabout is fair play. As for which of the two possible deaths would be perforable? I plead the fifth. I would ask however, would the loss of Bush's agile brain and quick wit be tragic?

hm, imagine saddam and george in a mud ring, suv drivers vs. camel drivers race across some mountains (i'd like to see if those cars can climb over anything for real), congress vs. whatsittheyhave in a slingshot fight. all televised across the planet for our pleasure and entertainment.
no, but really. don't you find it somewhat unnecessary and well, twisted, to try to figure out who has a greater right to kill whom? right? war is not about rights, never was. does not mean it is never necessary, but that's when rights get disregarded and broken. i think philosophically this comparison is quite futile.