OK let's assume that America's problems all began with Saddam, as the Busheviks claim: Saddam is psychicly supporting anti-American Terrorists. OK now:

Proposition 1- Saddam and key Ba'athists quietly taken out, some Kurdish group takes credit, Powell winks to camera as UNSC convenes on massive multilateral peacekeeping force

Proposition 2- We kick the front door in, blitzkrieg takes down 150-300,000 Iraqi men, women, and children, Saddam not located until 2 weeks of massive destruction. As the sound of heavy rounds dies away, the first attack in a series, planned to last generations if necessary, kills several hundred American teenage boys, "imperialist infidels" in their sleep.

IMHO covert assassination is far preferable. I say the lies involved in setting up a $50 billion hit are far less harmful to American credibility than the ones being told to sell this war as profitable and just.

There are even smarter ways American leadership could be doing their job besides knocking off "evil" in the world- but comparing mass-murder with assassination is an interesting way to examine the justifiability of the Bushevik Baghdad Blitz. Of course, leaders don't like the "A" word: Makes them feel accountable themselves- they get feeling all insecure, get that physical attraction for walking close with lotsa SS men. For the misery he is bringing, I think W should a feel little chilly insecurity down the back of his pencil neck every public minute.

Yes but this is not as "Profitable" as the "Vision" they current administration has in mind.
I think what we need to do is get some cash together and arrange someone to go in and steal their rose coloured spectacles.

...and the little toy oil well they use to keep dubbya busy when they are talking business as well...just to piss him off...

if only it was as easy as that...take out the topguys....with who and what?...if you suggest assasins or hitmen...dont be sill as soon as one of them got killed america would feel the need for a war any way!

"you kill one of our men....we kill onehundred thousand of yours, its ok,its fair wer americair"

oh and propersition 1...that would just provoke iraqis, to go and fuck up all the kurds that ever lived....not to mention the turks would be fairly pissed off i can imagine!

"if only it was as easy as that...take out the topguys....with who and what?..."
How many Iraqis close to Saddam would set up $1-billion money-shot?

"dont be sill[y] as soon as one of them got killed america would feel the need for a war any way!"
Much less loss of credibility than unilateral invasion/occupation. Deniable too. Remember, I'm using this example for comparitive ethics.

"that would just provoke iraqis, to go and fuck up all the kurds that ever lived"
Actually, send Powell to the UN, lay out "intelligence" that Iraq is about to have a coup, get a multilateral peacekeeping force ready in weeks to deter Turkey and Iraq. America becomes the great international peacekeepiong hero. Even work in some sweet deals behind the scenes for Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon-Mobil, and others.

There are many solutions to every problem. The Busheviks are just utterly lacking in creativity.

...and brains.

hehe brilliant lets start poping politikle leader we dont like, everything would be so much better.
freedom for everyone. as long a you do thing our way, if not no problem pop.

Y'all keep missing the point: If war is a last resort, why not assassination penultimate? I did not rule out more reasonable responses than killing. I just want to understand why killing thousands in an invasion is generally held to be more intelligent or "moral" than surgically taking down a mafia cartel in Baghdad. This does not make sense to me.

IMO when you start assasinating people, you take the first steps down the road of being a dictator, and if you can wack 1, why not 2 or 3 more.

i dont think it would work as a last resort, it would proberly anger the population even more, or someone would take power and be even more hostile.

:eek:anger them more than unilateral invasion and foreign occupation?

with war the population is "supdued", or thats the general idea, in any event you would need the population to support you 1 way or another

Money talks, though. His protectors have a price- after all, nobody serves Saddam out of deep conviction. It's all about survival and money. Give me 1/100th of the Defense Budget and I could buy the right ones, ma'Salaameh ya Saddam, and I'd then retire comfortably.

Maybe you could solve it much cheaper, but I think it's more profitable for the industrials to solve it the expensive way, all those used JDAMS must be replaced etc.....

I would rather have one man dead, then 30,000 people.

we could discuss this option and that option, but we all know that its gonna happen only one way... if the US is gonna take out someone, they're gonna go full out... it sends a loud n clear message to everyone about messin with them...

assumin the US decided to assassinate Saddam, what would the post-assassination situation be? how would they deal with it?
u got different ppl fightin over the oil and power... it would be a chaotic situation... im not sayin that a war will provide any better solutions, but when the larger picture is considered, assassination is not economically viable for the invading allies..

The point I was trying to make is US has no international mandate to occupy Iraq. Pre-Bush-Doctrine SOP, covert overthrow of the Baathists, followed by "peacekeeping" initiative through the UN would have allowed US more ability to be in country, in force, considerably less obtrusively, and drawing less insurgency/terrorism heat.

Thank you for chosing the doves and Imagine. It gave me hope to see that most of you chose that.

The chick at pinkeye is hot. I mean damn....

Thanks.

I think the U.S. did planning on assassinating Saddam back in the mid '90s but the team sent to Baghdad couldn't even FIND the dude. Assassination of someone like that isn't all that easy.

I vote Saddam on the electric chair. As a last request he can have some french fries and shake hands with Paul Wolvowitz when they pull the switch....

Alternatively: release 1000 black crowes carrying Deadly Chinese Pneumonia while singing "It's raining again"

Getting Saddam isn't easy? How about invading and then presiding over the breakup of the Mideast's Yugoslavia? Is that easy?