War? What about assassination as an option? Here me out.

So, if Saddam had simply been killed, who would have filled the void...another Saddam? This is why it's not wise to simply kill a leader who is perceived as "bad"...the one who jumps in to fill his shoes may be worse.

Bush 41, left Saddam in place for a reason. "The devil you know", he wrote in his book that we could not ever take Iraq and control it and Saddam, for good or bad, is the only leader they have ever had that controled the split population. Unfortunatly his son never read his book (his own admission) so he did not have a clue what they were getting into when they envaded Iraq. Bush 41 could have removed Saddam several times but chose not to. Clinton left him in place for exactly the same reason, he had opertunity's to have him removed also. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Saddam, his bad policy's, WMD's, or oil. So assasination was not an option. When you violate the Geneva Convention then you lose the respect of your allies and your enemy's.

I have thought the same thing and wondered why we didn't assassinate Hussein while we had the chance. I'm sure there were those who would have undertaken the assignment happily. But... realize that "wars" and "police actions" are often more political than anything. If Kim Il-sung gets killed, there will be war for sure. His followers will point their finger right at us. I don't know if the Gulf war would have ended if Hussein was killed. It might have escalated it to include Syria and perhaps other small nations. No one knows, but I suspect the politicians and militia considered it.

President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 in 1976 that stated that US Policy was not to assassinate Foreign Leaders. Every President since then has signed a similar Order.

I love your idea. But there is more at risk that just personal backlash against politicians. If we assassinated Kim Jong-Il (sp?) then I could see a few things happening. 1) He'd be replaced by someone just like him, if not worse. 2) North Korea would likely become completely united against us. 3) North Korea would attract any country who has a grudge against us on their side. 4) A country like Iran could use this to show the world how 'evil' we truly are, and if we have no problems with just killing a man without even a trial, how can he feel safe that the U.S. just won't attack his country, and so now he must change their nuclear program from one of energy to one of defense. If we had done that to Saddam, who knows... we could have united all those muslim countries against us. In the end I think it would cost more lives than it initially saved. Of course if we had done something like that successfully to Hitler, we might have been declared saviors of the world.

there is a saying: all is fair in love and war. they have tried assasinating saddam hussein before the invasion but it failed. i really don't agree with the invasion of iraq even if i agree that saddam should be ousted. I somewhat approve of the iraqi people of using ieds. If a foreign power suddenly invades my country and it is bleak then i will also use them. it is the duty of every citizen of any country to defend his homeland against invasion.

I am with you. Think of the lives, money and resources saved.