[Righter-than-Rush]

We couldnt get Saddam last time... what makes anyone think our goals will be different this time, with respect to killing the guy?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Well, my understanding is that we (= the coalition) wanted to leave him in power last time, ostensibly as a means of preventing an islamist takeover of Iraq. Methinks that post 9-11, the risk of allowing SWaddam Insane in power, in a position of unleashing chemical/biological/nuclear weapons against the West (through proxy fighters), is too great. I agree with the current proposition. He should be "replaced", the sooner the better. He could have been killed the last time. He will be killed this time. This is of course only my opinion.

[kayak]

Last time the mission was to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait ..... that's what the coalition signed on for and was all that we could do. Had we gone on to Baghdad, the coalition would have splintered and heaven only knows what would have happened ..... the whole Middle-East may have gone up in flames, including Israel.

This time a stated goal is a change in power in the Iraqi government. It's been said publicly and the whole world knows it. Anyone signing on with us will know that's what we're going to accomplish.

The two situations are vastly different.