If the idea of a 'no-fly zone' bothers you, would you support

[Old and In the Way]

a UN sponsored hit on a leader who is committing s form of genocide on the people in whose country he is dictating? Not being flippant here. I understand why it's dangerous to take sides and, in Libya's case, if this was a civil war between sides in a democratically ruled society, I'd be totally 'hands off". But shouldn't there be a different rules for dictators, individuals who take government by force, then use the military power of said country to suppress and keep people under a form of house arrest? It's no coincidence that most dictators come up through the ranks of military service and aren't afraid to use that same military against the population's whose government he takes as his own...certainly Hussein and Kaddafi are examples.

So, if everyone in the world recognizes that a unelected dictator of a country is committing mass slaughter and these people are in no position to defend or rid themselves of this criminal and we also agree that we shouldn't be invading countries with armed forces with more collateral damage assured...what are the options?

I say a UN General Assembly vote where a substantial majority of countries (2/3?) vote to take said offender out. Give him 48 hours to get out and, if not, put a price on his head - dead, not alive. Say a $1MM bounty. No official military action needed. Seems like there are plenty of mercenaries who might take this assignment on. Now a hit might not be successful right away...it could take years, in fact. But that person is never going to feel safe in public again.

If a majority of countries can agree that a leader is evil enough to get rid of, I'm OK with that. Leaders have a special responsibility to the people they govern and if they have to kill thousands to maintain control, I don't think they meet that definition of responsibility. And bringing them to justice is meaningless...what did we really learn from Hussein's show trial? Not nearly as much as what should have been exposed.

Seems like this would be a rather simple and effective solution and better alternative to invasion/'no fly zones'/and other war enabling actions, where innocent people pay for the transgressions of leaders that they don't elect.

I wouldn't think it would take more than 1 or 2 examples for the rest of the worlds un-elected tyrants to get the message that this kind of governing behavior won't be tolerated by the world. And it might keep future dictator wanabees from starting down that road altogether.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. The Arab League leading whatever is done...with theirs being the boots on the ground

[hardcover]

2. Agree

[readmoreoften]

4. +1

[Old and In the Way]

5. Perhaps when democracy blooms in the region, assuming it does, we'll

see more regional, multi-lateral actions to deal with these kind of problems. But most states in the region aren't democracies - can we expect that the authoritarian regimes will be willing to take on another member of the club?

[readmoreoften]

3. Absolutely. Kill him.

[provis99]

6. a hit on Qadaffi is what the rebels are calling for.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/libyan-rebel-leaders-gaddafi-benghazi

[Old and In the Way]

8. Given todays technology, satellite imaging, drones, cruise missles, etc.

Seems to me that a surgical strike could accomplish this task in short order. Give him an option - leave and live or stay and die. If Qadaffi knows he's a dead man walking, will the price of continuing a war on the people of Libya be worth the ultimate price he'll pay?

[neverforget]

15. We tried that in Iraq and we missed.

[Scuba]

7. I would support sending humanitarian aid....

...if we MUST send troops in, let them be Wall Street banksters, armed with "I hate Arabs and Muslims" signs.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. Let someone else do it. We can't afford one more bullet, not one more dead soldier.

[Old and In the Way]

10. I think that's what I'm stating in my OP.

This isn't a state-sponsored military action, just a world-sponsored call out for a free-lance mercenary assassination. Had we done that in Iraq, 100's of thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, there country infrastructure would not have been shock and awe'd, and Saddam would still be gone. We'd have saved a trillion dollars and 5000+ American lives in Bush's freedom war.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. Great. It's Sweden's turn. Let them send the snipers.

[Old and In the Way]

12. No..I disagree.

Should not be a unilateral action with any one country taking ownership of this action. The world votes and provides the financial incentive to make it happen.

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. But we should get the opportunity for once to be neutral.

Why do we have to play judge and jury in the world's affairs. Someone else can sort it for a change.

[Old and In the Way]

14. So, you're OK with dictators committing genocide on unarmed innocent populations?

Who is this someone else you speak of? I've clearly spelled this out as a UN mandated action.

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. Like I keep saying its time for the scandinavian and EU countries that claim to be

neutral to step up to the plate. If they want to see genocide happen then they're a bunch of heartless fucks. Nice that they can get their recession wrapped up, provide healthcare and education for their people and high speed trains. We're fucking Somalia compared to that. We're not a superpower. We aint shit. Let these clearly better resourced countries do the military work for a change. And let us get our economy and essential services back. See we have sorta an emergency going on here. I don't know if you heard but people are living in tents.

[Dappleganger]

16. Let's face it--if there was no oil there no country would have agreed to this.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Qaddafi wasn't a problem for Big Oil.

I really don't see how this is an ulterior motive for UN action. The oil was flowing. In fact, I'm sure this will be disruptive to the markets on that level.

[Baclava]

18. War "bothers" me.

If a sniper round can end this shit, I'm all for it.

Much less expensive than 5 years of a 'no-fly' zone stalemate.

[gratuitous]

19. Offer him a billion dollars to get out of town by sundown

Faster, cheaper, and humiliating when we stop payment on the check.

[Old and In the Way]

21. I suppose a nice 'carrot' like a bribe wouldn't hurt.

But I doubt money's a motivation, he's probably got the assets of a small country locked away in some off-shore back accounts. I'd think a limited time offer guarantee of spending it, alive and in retirement, should be all the carrot he needs.