Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Considering a comprehensive U.N. consensus that Iraq should be invaded militarily to acheive successful disarmament, I think we should then cut all power to civilized Iraq, shutting down water treatment and hospital care and drop tons of explosive ordinance on the country and then send the marines in to kill anyone who is loyal or just merely conscripted to serving Saddam Hussien. Lets kill thousands of soldiers and a few civilians, not to mention the millions we displace, in our destructive "liberation" effort cloaked in the guise it is the right thing to do. Don't worry we can build everything back when its over except the dead and maimed.
Oh, wait the coalition of the willing are planning to do that anyway with-out giving the U.N a realistic chance. Is removing Saddam the lessor of the two evils when compared to the carnage of war?
|
A very amusing and over-the-top reaction Chewbacca.
Now that you have that out of your system, could you provide a serious answer to the question I asked?
If the U.N. inspectors DID find unequivocable evidence that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, what action should be taken against him as punishment?[/QUOTE]My answer is serious. War.
It is not an over-the-top description, that is what will likely happen. I caution against glossing over the evils of war in order to fufill an agenda.
If alternatives exist to disarm Saddam and avoid the evil carnage of war, then we should pursue those.
Now back to my unanswered question:
Is removing Saddam the lessor of the two evils when compared to the carnage of war?