Why does it matter?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: It also has not been proven that the current U.N. inspection efforts will fail in determining Saddam's womd capabilities.

And if the current U.N. Inspection efforts successfully determine that Saddam DOES have extensive WoMD capability, what solution would you propose to remedy the situation?

Saddam has already proven he will NOT comply with requests - or even demands - that these weapons be completely destroyed. After 1991, Hussein openly defied the U.N. Inspectors. They were granted very limited access to certain buildings and were completely denied access to others (presumably because Saddam hadn't had a chance to move and/or hide his weapons that quickly after the war). He continually stonewalled, side-tracked, and stymied their efforts to find his stockpile of weapons. Then, in 1998, Hussein ordered them to leave his country.

Hans Blix did note that the Iraq has "increased it's cooperation" with U.N. inspectors since the end of January...but he admitted there were still some "issues" that required further discussion with Iraq in order to be cleared up. Interestingly enough, the "increased cooperation" of the Iraqi's seems to occur very shortly after the U.S. buildup of military troops and equipment along their borders.

So, even if the inspectors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein does have a cache' of WoMd....what difference will that really make? Saddam won't step down from power, nor will he just "hand over" his weapons.

I ask again....what "non-agressive" methods could be taken to remove Saddam from power and to destroy his WoMD?[/QUOTE]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?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

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?

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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?

If he refused to give them up - it'll be war - and most likely with the blessing of the UN.

[The Hierophant]

Why does it matter?
It doesn't.

No matter to what degree us insignificant schmos on this message board debate the why's, if's and wheretofores about this issue the fact is that none of our opinions matter.
The decision of war will be made by a handful of humans at the top of the American hierarchy.
UN vetos, global protest and weapons inspections mean nothing to a government who has no intention of following democratic principles when it comes the Iraqi War. And perhaps they are right not to listen to the majority voice (I think the last figures I read say that 52% of Americans (not to speak for the rest of the world) would prefer Bush to wait for UN approval). Perhaps they need to make 'unpopular' decisions.
The fact of the matter is this is still a gang-mentality game. For Americans this is still very much a 'Republicans vs. Democrats' issue. For the world at large it is a 'pro-American vs. anti-American issue'. Why can't people put aside their differences and agree? Because then someone has to bite a bullet and surrender their stance on the issue. It doesn't matter what line you take, so long as you take a line. Argue for arguments sake.

Pathetic.
I'm sick of humanity.

[skywalker]

Originally posted by skywalker: I just heard on NPR that Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary)says that the goal of the United Kingdom was for Iraq to disarm-not regime change. He said that the UK has no problem if Saddam stays in power after a possible war, as long as he has no WOMD. I did not know this. Mark

Sorry, it was Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's permanent representative to the U.N. who said that Tony Blair is not seeking regime change in Iraq, just disarmament.

You can hear the interview here . (It the last story on the bottom titled: Analysis: British Diplomacy on Iraq)

Mark

[Davros]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Whats wrose, hundereds of guranteed deaths, or thousands of poetential ones? Tough question isnt it? And isnt that the question we face.

While I am in the "go in and kick ass" camp, I can't help thinking that you got your wires crossed with these statistics. If the Iraq military uses some of those WOMD and stands up in the tradition of martyrs then I think that war is gauranteeing thousands (not hundreds) of deaths, and even with what we think Sadman has up his sleeves, I think that potential mischief he can cause is likely to be more in the hundreds (not thousands).

But hey - that is my belief - where would we be without opinions.

In answer to your other question, I think you are free to think whatever you want to about Chirac and Schroeder, but what they are doing is working actively to prevent a war - not to promote and stabilise Sadman. They both would wish he was not in power right now, and at least one of them has expressed this on more than one occasion.

And see Cerek's post on alternatives to war to see that he has said much the same think about France and Germany in his first paragraph

[ 03-08-2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Heirophant - for once I agree with the core of what you're saying. President Bush honostly and sincerely believes he is making the right decision in dealing with Saddam Hussein. He is fully aware of the opposition to his decision and he hasn't made it lightly (see more about this in my thread about Bush's Reasoning and Logic).

President Bush is also willing to accept the criticism of his decision and still stick to it - despite the unpopularity of it. I admire his conviction and I'm glad we DO have a President that will stand by his convictions regardless of whether it is popular or not.

The one criticism I have is that - because he does believe he is right - he has not bothered to deal with the opposition from his international peers in a diplomatic fashion. Diplomacy will NOT work with Iraq...so there is no reason to waste our time there....but he definitely should have pursued a more diplomatic approach in trying to convince others to support his decision.

France and Germany probably wouldn't support him either way...but it would still be worth the effort to avoid alienating them (and other countries) further. I included two links in the thread I mentioned above. One details exactly WHY George Bush feels his decision is right and the other points out why this attitude is a diplomatic faux pas.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Heh, you know Cerek, I kept meaning to ask that question at the end of all my posts, but I keep forgetting among typing out all the other things. Animal- By doing that you are demanding a tradgey to happen amongst the US, Canada or Britian. Maybe I am a war monger, but I would much rather remove Saddam before a terroist attack rather then after. You said it your self, Saddam is Saddam. He has done it in the past, and you know the saying, history repeats its self. Whos to say he wont do it again? Would yo instead rather wait for him too use nerve gas on Toronto then remove him now? Doesnt it basily boil down to- Whats wrose, hundereds of guranteed deaths, or thousands of poetential ones? Tough question isnt it? And isnt that the question we face. Of course thats ignoring the deaths that have already been caused by Saddam Hussien. And ignoring the several UN resolutions he has ignored.

But why would he use nerve gas on Toronto? Okay maybe to do something about the Leafs, but ....

Basing a war on something that MIGHT happen is just plain wrong. It's akin to being guilty until proven innocent. Based upon something he's done in the past isn't justifable in my opinion, as every country has done grievous and horrible things to their own people as well as every other, but we don't wage war because of it. Slavery, Native Americans, the First Nations in Canada, the internment camps for Japanese in WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...we've all done it. What do we do about ourselves for these crimes we commited?

[Animal]

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]What actions should be taken against the US, Britain, China, France, Germany etc... for posessing weapons of mass destruction. Just because he has them, doesn't mean he is going to use them. You can't wage a war based upon what might happen.
It's a good thing that this "preventative maintenance" strategy wasn't implemented during the cold war.

[Chewbacca]

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?