>>>No.
>>>Alan the art of "assassination" requires an element of surprise and secrecy.
>>>Bombing the hell out of an enemy hideout is just part of war.
>
>>What if I do both - declare war and then kill the opposing leader by stealth? Being that it probably makes little difference to the assassinee, and since it was a pre-emptive strike and not a response to a declaration of war, it sounds like semantics to me.
>
>Nope.
>By declaring war, you are implying that you'll , one way or another, take down the leader. So element of surprise is gone and the leader is on the run in hiding.
>
>If you're referring to the Iraq war, remember, with Iraq, the first gulf war never ended. It was just a cease fire.

Oh, ok. I didn't realise it was just intermission. I withdraw my 'semantics' comment. ;)