For example would it be a better use of time and money to just go after the world leaders such as the leader of IRAN? Instead of invading Iraq should we have paid people to attempt to kill Sadam and/or just keep bombing places we thought he was?
2006-08-22 00:37:20 · 11 answers · asked by CTM 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think your right, they should right with there own first.
2006-08-22 00:52:40 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Hex Vision 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this was/is exactly the US/CIA policy when they originally paid, trained and armed people like Sadam, osama bin Laden, et al.
was it a good idea? or has it just made things worse?
If the US just invested as much on peace as it does on war then extreem leaders at home & abroard will not have any popular support. eg how much did it cost US to drop bombs on sothern lebanon? how much would it cost to listen to and learn to respect other cultures?
PS there are no World leaders, only national leaders. 'Though many in the US seem to think they are a world apart.
2006-08-22 01:05:44 · answer #2 · answered by fred 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not unless we are willing to accept that any world leaders are fair game for any country in the assassination department. Such a policy would force diplomatic relations of almost all types to grind to a halt.
2006-08-22 01:03:28 · answer #3 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then US and other countries time and money would be better spent reforming the UN from a wasteful do-nothing group to a group that will intervene in situations around the world before they become a crisis.
If the US starts killing leaders, then that will just make people angry and increase the number of people who want to become terrorists.
2006-08-22 00:52:06 · answer #4 · answered by P L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethics aside, most nations are lead by a system of government and not a single individual. In Iran, for example, killing two or three of the top leaders would be meaningless because there are dozens if not hundreds of like minded people trained, educated, and in position to step into their place.
Killing their leaders would only make them more angry with us.
If a foreign nation assassinated our President (regardless of which one) wouldn't that only serve to bring the full power of the US military down upon the attacker? Regardless of who succeeded the late President?
If you are going to make war on a nation you have to be prepared to attack its entire structure of government, not just its leader.
2006-08-22 03:21:25 · answer #5 · answered by Will B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We paid tribal agents in February 1998 to hold Omama bin Laden in a cave in southern Afghanistan, and we (CIA) would clandestinely take him away. The tribal agents took our money, and money from bin Laden, and lead the CIA Operatives into an Al Queda ambush.
We paid "Black September" to leave American citizens alone, knowing that they were going to kill Israeli athletes in Munich in the 1972 Olympics.....after we changed our policy, Americans were getting killed.
Yes, I believe in political assassination of any one supporting terrorism. But this has to be done by us, and not paying someone to do it for us.
2006-08-22 02:21:39 · answer #6 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No...I don't think it would really solve anything, except in the case of a real cult of personality type leader such as Hitler.
2006-08-22 06:25:20 · answer #7 · answered by machine_head_327 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't the USA do this now? Anyway, no. Who then could argue against others killing ours?
2006-08-22 02:24:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. And I for one would be the first to volunteer; then maybe I wouldn't have had to do 5 crappy deployments.
2006-08-22 03:22:17 · answer #9 · answered by Nick 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
killing itself is wrong under any pretext!
mind your own business and stop assessing others with your own standard
the world will be better off, don't you think so?
2006-08-22 00:52:06 · answer #10 · answered by Yew Guan T 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋