[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Animal: The US and Britain need to abide by the UN's judgements, whether in their favour or not. They chose to be a part of the UN, now they need to accept the fact that they cannot control the world's fate. Otherwise, we have total chaos.[/QB]

But the U.S. and Britain HAVE abided by the U.N. decision. It is Saddam Hussein who has NOT. He was ordered to completely disarm and destroy his WoMD in 1991. He has never complied with the resolution, even though he agreed to it at the end of the Gulf War.

In the early years, he was outright defiant to the U.N. Inspectors, completely denying them access to certain sites. In 1998 he ordered to leave Iraq completely. So...here we are 5 years later going through the same motions again. Hussein has been only as cooperative as absolutely necessary rather than offering the full disclosure of weapon locations and quantities he was required to give 12 years ago. According to Hans Blix, the Iraqi's have become MORE cooperative since the end of January. Coincedentally enough, that is the same time President Bush started assembling troops and military equipment on his borders.

The ONLY reason Saddam Hussein has been even moderately more cooperative this time around is because he seemed to realize early on that President Bush IS determined to remove him from power AND destroy his weapons....whether the U.N. agrees with him or not. Saddam knows he can't play shell games and just keep stalling for more time in this instance.

President Bush has said all along that is Saddam Husseins decision as to whether or not we go to war. All he has to do is FINALLY comply with Article 1441 (as he agreed to do) and the military offensive will be called off.

I don't believe President Bush would "lose face" at home for NOT going to war. Even those of us who support his decision hope it won't be necessary...we just realize that Saddam will NEVER cooperate any other way (in our opinion, of course).

Animal - You've mentioned your opinion that America should also comply with the U.N. decision in several threads. I respect that opinion and I agree that Bush could have definitely been more diplomatic in trying to convince his peers of the necessity of "agressive action". But your answer also points out the biggest weakness I see in the "anti-war" argument. It still does not provide a good alternative for dealing with Saddam and his stockpile of weapons.....it simply attacks the decision of the U.S. to go to war without U.N. support. Simply allowing U.N. Inspectors more time has proven ineffective in the past, and I have no doubt that Saddam will NEVER reveal the location of all his weapons and chemical and biological agents.

So, I ask again...what other course of action could the U.N. pursue? I really can't think of one that wuld be very effective...but I'm always interested in hearing other suggestions. I would dearly love it if we DID find a way to neutralize Saddam without going to war.