[Cerek the Barbaric]

After browsing through this forum and listening to the news, it seems that most everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant and should be removed from power (or at least have his power restricted). Even France, Germany, and Russia agree that Saddam is evil and probably should not be in power. The big dividing line occurs over how to accomplish this. One side believes it will take a war to accomplish this....the other side favors allowing the U.N. Inspectors more time to complete their investigations.

Since the pros and cons of a war have been thoroughly debated, I'm interested in hearing what solutions the other side proposes.

So here is my question.

If the U.N. Inspectors were to find undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein does indeed have a large stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction, then what action(s) should be taken to ensure these weapons are destroyed and to have Saddam removed from power (if that is deemed necessary)?

While considering your answer, keep in mind Saddam's history of open defiance towards the U.N. weapons inspectors (and the U.N. itself) and the brutal elimination of anybody he considers to be a threat to his seat of power.

I personally don't believe Saddam can be removed without excessive force, but I am sincerely interested in hearing alternative proposals.

What "non-agressive" solution would you recommend if irrefutable proof were found of WoMD in Iraq?