Save thousands of lives, and once and for all show who the true alpha male/guy with the biggest penis is.
If Bush won, problem solved
If Saddam won, maybe he’d feel he’d accomplished something and then leave everyone alone.
If Bush had balls, he’d agree to it with the stipulation that, win or lose, completely unrestriced access would be given to inspectors and/or Saddam would step down.
What is the life of our president compared to those of our men and women in the armed forces likely to get involved in this conflict, or the thousands of Iraqi citizens likely to die?
I think they need to stick to pure hand to hand combat. Forget the weapons, let them fight it out like men. After 20 or so minutes of jabbing around, I can see Bush finally getting the upper hand on Saddam due to his impressive fitness and lung capacity. Eventually Saddam falters and goes down to one knee.
Bush turns to the cameras and proclaims a victory for the freedom loving people of the world.
All of a sudden, Saddam comes up from behind with a steel chair and waylays Bush. Bush goes down and Saddam wins while the unconscious Bush lies prone beneath his feet.
If they have a drinking contest, we should make sure that 'lil bush gets a couple of weeks of good old Yale cheerleader-type partying to recondition the old liver and build his tolerance back up. Does anybody know if Saddam drinks? Regardless, I’ll have to say advantage Bush in that scenario.
How about the old thing where the duelists have their left arms lashed together with a belt and knives in their right hand. Is there a name for that kind of fight? Did anybody ever do that outside of the movies?
I’m sure W’s self-image would be a Western-style shootout at noon on Main St. in front of the saloon. But personally, I’m not betting on our guy’s quick draw skills.
The romantic in me wants to see good, old fashioned gladiatorial combat in the arena. Saddam with the trident and net, W with the gladus and buckler. George is in pretty good shape, and several years younger. But Saddam’s got that killer instinct, and W couldn’t even hack the Air Guard. Too close to call.
The Star Trek solution is to strand them on a planet and W. has to try and figure out how to make gunpowder out of the yellow crap laying around. Once again, our guy is at a distinct disadvantage here. How much you wanna bet W. snoozed through chemistry? Then again, Saddam’s no Gorn. Still, I say advantage Iraq on this one.
The Next Generation solution is to strand them both on a planet with an invisible, predator-like beast and see if they can learn to communicate and work together. Georgie’s chances here? “Nixon, when the walls fell.” That would be a good way to get rid of both of them.
Can they make a rudimentary lathe?
How about they fight Bloodsport style where they tape up their fists, coat them in resin and dip them in broken glass?
Well, if Saddam was undergoing Ponn farr, then he and Bush would fight until McCoy slipped Bush a Mickey and Saddam thought he won. I’d pay to see that on Pay Per View.
Problem is, Saddam outweighs Bush considerably. Perhaps skill could make up for that, but I don’t know much about Saddam’s military background. Has he always been an armchair general, or does he have military training? If so, Bush would be screwed: his training was meager, and he deserted from even that.
Also, as far as I know, Saddam has never been incapacitated by a pretzel.
Wait wait: great debates!
Basically, it seems like a good idea in theory to have leaders put their own asses on the line instead of those of their citizens-cum-slaves. It might help get the incentives right: the leaders actually have something to lose beyond popularity when they make decisions to go to war over something. But in reality, the fact of the matter is that the people don’t matter quite as much as the ultimate objective, and if two countries are willing to go to war over something, they’re not going to abide by the outcomes of one fight. The whole point of modern war is that countries get to throw the full weight of their resources against the other: you aren’t going to stop fighting to eliminate WMD just because you lost at a ceremonial game of backgammon, or because one citizen was killed in a cage match with one of their citizens. You are going to throw all your weapons and manpower at the situation until you win or are crushed.
If Saddam is an observant Muslim, alcohol is forbidden to him. Granted, that’s a big “if” – I’d be willing to bet the Qu’ran frowns on gassing your own people – but there you go. At any rate, I’d bet he was never a party-hardy frat boy. And, unlike Bush, I’d bet drinking would completely destroy Saddam’s ability to drive. Advantage Bush.
Apos brings up a good point, namely the pretzel factor. If the duel is to be binge drinking at dawn, it had better be hard liquor that’s served. With beer comes pretzels, and, well, a huge advantage to Saddam.
International law has failed to negotiate the competing claims of sovereignty and whatever-the-hell we are claiming. The purpose of a civil duel is to relieve law of the responsibility of settling a claim and leave it in the hands of the claimants alone. By adhering to the strict rules of the duel, the participants lend the outcome its legitimacy.
It’s not like there isn’t any precedent for this.
Aside from weapons, there are other rule considerations.
Should the duel be mortal?
Should it adhere to traditional western academic dueling rules?
Since both claimants are (presumably) religious, do they agree that God will select the winner?
Because, as Apos suggested, nobody would actually take this seriously, whether they should or not - not the governments, and not the people. Say that Saddam decided, under these rules, that he’d like to conquer the US. He fights Saddam, he wins. Saddam takes control, abolishes the constitution, and sets up his own government, establishing his own rules. How many people do you think would stand for that? Would you? I sure wouldn’t. The people of the US would kick him out faster than you can say “sandy little butthole”.
And this completely ignores the fact that the idea that politics are decided based on who has the best sucker punch (or best game of chess, or best whatever you use to determine “winners”) is ludicrous. Would you want to elect someone from UFC as our leader?
