If it turns out, as it looks like, that Gulf war II is inevitable, what is the aim?
International law prevents it being the assasination of a foreign leader, or forcing a regime change.
And if the terms of surrender are the disclosure and disarming of chemical/biological weapons, then we cannot trust those terms to be honoured, since that is the justification for action in the first place.
Time to scrap or at least suspend those ridiculous laws - they date from a time when leaders were gentlemen, and Saddam certainly isn't - and should have been made to answer for his actions at the end of the first Gulf war ... war crimes aginst Kuwait, against allied prisoners, and against sections of his own people.
Better that one leader and a few henchmen be terminated as efficiently as possible, than a whole country be bombed back to the dark ages
International law prevents it being the assasination of a foreign leader, or forcing a regime change.
And if the terms of surrender are the disclosure and disarming of chemical/biological weapons, then we cannot trust those terms to be honoured, since that is the justification for action in the first place.
Time to scrap or at least suspend those ridiculous laws - they date from a time when leaders were gentlemen, and Saddam certainly isn't - and should have been made to answer for his actions at the end of the first Gulf war ... war crimes aginst Kuwait, against allied prisoners, and against sections of his own people.
Better that one leader and a few henchmen be terminated as efficiently as possible, than a whole country be bombed back to the dark ages