"Your reworking of my little analogy is flawed. To be numerically consistent, you have to assume this hypothetical guy has been killing dozens of kids a year for many years, and shows no signs of stopping for years to come. And when the cops finally bust in, guns blazing, one or two kids got killed in the crossfire. Regrettable? Certainly. But does it mean that nothing should have been done? Ever?"

This is so absurd. Not only is this analogy getting thinner than an anorexic super-model on diet pills, but now we are talking about moral implications of possible potential lives lost vs the actual dead people we killed.

Really dumb.

"We have not yet demonstrated that an asteroid won't hit Iraq tomorrow, either. At least now they have a finite chance at a free future. Before, they had zero."

Yes, and we were not sure that Saddam wouldn't pass away next year and that a popular revolution would castrate his sons. Its all speculative. Its all arguments from unporvable potentials.

"May he have much joy of it, for the little time it lasts. At least he isn't in power any more."

Yes, so he is still alive and free and your absurd analogy does not hold. QED

"Oh really? I suggest, you poor excuse for a Star Wars geek ;), that you check the scene in the original Star Wars Episode 4. The unaltered one on the first VHS. Greedo has a pistol trained at Han's head through the whole conversation, until Han Solo takes preemptive action. "

Umm, yeah- but if you want to make Iraq greedo, then in THIS edit of the absurd analogy, greedo wern't holdin no pistol.

BTW. How can Iraq be both Greedo and a bunch of dead little boys

Man, this is about as meaningful as a beer belch at this point.

Davin