Well the simplest and least costly way, in the way of civilian casualties, would have been to continue the '91 campaign into Baghdad right down the "highway of death", but no one had the stomach for it. The world thought that approach wouldn't be right, especially those in the Middle East. The UN thought a peaceful solution could be forced on Saddam Hussein, so Iraq agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Terms which they have not, even today, submitted to. Remember, Saddam told his people after the Gulf War that Iraq had WON! ;)

The world community thought it would try the kinder, gentler approach which has failed regularly in the face of dictators over the centuries, which has cause immeasurable suffering amongst the Iraqi people (only in part due to sanctions), which has NOT resulted in disarmament, and which has not deterred Saddam from pursuing illegal weapons.

Sometimes the kindler gentler approach only let's the bad guy drag out and increase the death and destruction everyone is so worried about preventing. If Saddam intended to cooperate with the UN, he's had 12 years to do it.

If we'd continued the march to Baghdad in '91, or if Saddam had completely cooperated 12 years ago, none of this would have been an issue because it would be history. Will we learn from our history with Iraq or will we continue to re-live that history with unending inspections that are only possible because of an enormous military buildup?

Saddam has NOTHING to lose by cooperating just enough to keep those who oppose action happy because if he can't fool the world, his power is gone, but as long as he can lead the UN by the nose with any little sniff of cooperation, he stays in power.

PS. This is not about America getting Iraq's oil! You don't get oil buy spending billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars to go to war unless you plan on claiming the oil rich territory as your own, and even that is an inefficent method. You get oil by buying it as the US has done, does, and will continue to do.

Now, you do go to war to ensure the free flow of something as vital as oil, but even that isn't the case here. Everyone in the Middle East who hates America is still more than happy to fill those barrels and send them to us for some American $$$. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thank you Ronn, The easiest, Cheapest and Most COST effective way to get Iraqi OIL is to lift the sactions. Allow the free flow of Iraqi oil on the world markets. No expense of moving troops calling up reserves, traveling around the world on diplomatic missions, no having to buy weapons to replace the ones that were used in a war, just a simple nod of OK and you have lots of cheap oil! That's what a greedy country would do call for the lifting of sactions.

<font color="#ffccff"> I can't believe that no one yet has answered the title question of this thread......it is a simple and easily grasped answer and no one has pointed it out.....

You asked "Why?"
I answer "Because!"

How easy is that? sheesh.

now for the rest of this discussion
waiting 12 or 13 years is not sudden.
It is easy to say keep enforcing sanctions when you don't have to pay that bill.
It is easy to say, keep patrolling the area, when you don't have to supply the ships and men...and don't have to explain the deaths that happen each and every day to men and women of the armed forces while deployed to patrol this region.

All this is quite adaquately addressed in other threads, increase your patience and read some...after all you say the US and UK are impatient after waiting 12 years.....</font>

He said in that interview he gave that Iraq has never lost because the war had never ended. Because of all the bombings that have been going on since then. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Magik - I meant pushing for the war to start in March. Some say it's all because of the heat. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
But if you look at it in a different way, this debate started not long ago. The whole WoMD thing. In that way it is quick. At least in the scale that it is now. [img]smile.gif[/img] And to me it seems it's all because of terrorism, and as I expressed before, I'm not convinced this would help. And I also think it's weird that we are accusing Saddam that he has WoMD and then we want to go at him with WoMD. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="#ffccff">Spelca, it costs a FORTUNE to keep an army in the field even when they are not doing anything, the heat is another issue, Only a fool attacks Moscow in the winter and the same fool would try to wage war in a desert in the summer.</font>

So then it is about money? [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

And I also think it's weird that we are accusing Saddam that he has WoMD and then we want to go at him with WoMD. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't? </font>

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?

He said in that interview he gave that Iraq has never lost because the war had never ended. Because of all the bombings that have been going on since then. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

</font>[/QUOTE]Or perhaps, in the Dan Rather interview, he meant the war never ended because he never complied to the terms of the ceasefire. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

And actually, I was talking about what Saddam said to the Iraqi public in '91. ;)

[ 03-05-2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ffccff">If you use the right logic you can trace any human activity in the world back to "money" [img]smile.gif[/img] It is also aobut the troops having to fight in the heat and or cold..did you not see the other 2/3rds of my post? </font>