An Alternative to War

[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?

[Azred]

Although most people might indeed wish for some sort of non-agressive solution to the problem of Hussein, there will unfortunately be no possible non-agressive solution. Hussein will never disarm himself voluntarily, nor will he ever surrender contol over Iraq. Like the saying, we can have his guns when we pry them from his cold dead hands.

Coalitions, even if every other nation in the world were working together diplomatically, will not work because the coaltion will be playing chess while Hussein is playing checkers.

[Stratos]

Everyone can agree that Saddam Hussein have to go one way or the other, I can only think of one person that want to keep him in power and that´s himself. I don´t think that Russia, France and Germany want him in power more than anyone else, but they wan´t to solve it trough diplomatic means.

The problem for the anti-war camp is that they don´t have a good alternative to get rid of him ( none that I know of at least.) The UN talks only about disarming Saddam, and I believe that the UN can´t order the assassination of a national leader. It´s against their role as peace-keeper.

I still don´t really like the idea that the only remaining super-power in the world can just go to war ( relatively unprovoken) with a nation whose army don´t stand a chance against US and UK. All this because they don´t like Saddam as a person or that he is generally a pain in the ol´butt.

Still believes that Bush & co will start a war soon, he has putted too much prestige into this. The pro-war home opinion wouldn´t be forgiving if he "chickened out". Besides the economy will need some kind of solution sooner or later.

IF the US-UK coalition go to war I really hope they have some kind of plan how to deal with Iraq afterwards. Otherwise the different factions in Iraq may start a civli war, and that would hurt the entire region as well as killing perhaps thousands of people.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Stratos: (snip) I still don´t really like the idea that the only remaining super-power in the world can just go to war ( relatively unprovoken) with a nation whose army don´t stand a chance against US and UK. All this because they don´t like Saddam as a person or that he is generally a pain in the ol´butt.

And you'd like the idea of the US/UK going to war with a country that's stronger militarily? War ain't beanbags. I'm glad that we can kick Saddam's a$$ straight to hell.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call Saddam simply a "pain in the butt". The man is a mass murderer. The only acceptable solution to this problem must include Saddam pushing up daisies.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Magness: Quote: Originally posted by Stratos: (snip) I still don´t really like the idea that the only remaining super-power in the world can just go to war ( relatively unprovoken) with a nation whose army don´t stand a chance against US and UK. All this because they don´t like Saddam as a person or that he is generally a pain in the ol´butt.

And you'd like the idea of the US/UK going to war with a country that's stronger militarily? War ain't beanbags. I'm glad that we can kick Saddam's a$$ straight to hell.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call Saddam simply a "pain in the butt". The man is a mass murderer. The only acceptable solution to this problem must include Saddam pushing up daisies.[/QUOTE]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.

[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.

[Rikard_OHF]

Cerek the problem is
although Bush did go to the UN security counsil after Powell repeatetly asked him to do so, he also said that the US can and will attack Iraq on it's own without UN support

and that is very very scary
because who knows who's next to be deemed evil by Bush
Iran? North Korea?
and then what?
France maybe?
or China?

There are enough rulers that started out as good leaders and then turned out to be tirans

[Rikard_OHF]

On-topic
what i think the UN needs to do is that which Blix recommended
arm the troops at home and give Saddam a few months to fully disarm
with all the UN troops so near, if saddam does not comply, they can attack the same day as Blix make his last report

if Saddam does comply then Iraq needs to keep the Weapon inspectors patrolling on their property
also it's up to the council of arab countries to force saddam out of it's chair

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Magness: Quote: Originally posted by Stratos: (snip) I still don´t really like the idea that the only remaining super-power in the world can just go to war ( relatively unprovoken) with a nation whose army don´t stand a chance against US and UK. All this because they don´t like Saddam as a person or that he is generally a pain in the ol´butt.

And you'd like the idea of the US/UK going to war with a country that's stronger militarily? War ain't beanbags. I'm glad that we can kick Saddam's a$$ straight to hell.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call Saddam simply a "pain in the butt". The man is a mass murderer. The only acceptable solution to this problem must include Saddam pushing up daisies.[/QUOTE]US/UK probably wouldn´t go to war with Iraq if it was equal to them in military might, that would cause a Third World War. The US didn´t attack the Soviet Union during the Cold War because that would cause more harm than good, despite the fact that Stalin sended people to Gulag. IIRC Stalin caused the deaths of 20 million people.

[ 03-10-2003, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Cerek the problem is although Bush did go to the UN security counsil after Powell repeatetly asked him to do so, he also said that the US can and will attack Iraq on it's own without UN support and that is very very scary because who knows who's next to be deemed evil by Bush Iran? North Korea? and then what? France maybe? or China? There are enough rulers that started out as good leaders and then turned out to be tirans

I agree that Bush committed a diplomatic faux pas with his attitude towards the members of the U.N. While most Americans agree with his decision to go to war (according to the polls), he certainly could have expended a little more effort to gain this same support among the U.N. members. I believe France and Germany would still have disagreed, but he certainly could have persuaded several others to support him if he had tried. I linked to an article that highlights this weakness in my thread about Bush's Reasoning and Logic.

AFA who's next? This is an overly exaggerated argument. We HAD an "international incident" with China just a year or so ago when one of thier fighter pilots tried to "buzz" one of our spyplanes (that was flying in international airspace). The pilot - one of China's best - had conducted this manuever many times before, but this time he miscalculated and came to close. Both planes were damaged, causing him to crash and the spy plane to make an emergency landing at the nearest airstrip - which was inside China's territory. Despite their pilot being at fault, they tried to lay all the blame on America (big surprise). They took the crew of the plane prisoner. They released them within a week or so, but refused to allow America to recover their plane. They kept it for several months, stripping it of everything inside (the crew had destroyed as much as they could - standard procedure). As tense as that whole incident was for BOTH sides, there was never any real danger of us going to war over it.

I also don't think there will be a war with North Korea (although thier leader is just crazy enough to keep pushing until we have no choice). North Korea doesn't want a war....they want money. They always have. They did this exact same "political sabre rattling" in 1993 with President Clinton. They threatened to withdraw from the nuclear agreement back then too...so Clinton sent them the aid they requested. George Bush refused to "give in" to thier tactics, so Kim has had to resort to bolder measures (firing the missile into the ocean near Japan). President Bush wasn't fazed by their threat to withdraw from the treaty, so they had to "prove they were serious" and "test fire" a missile. Despite all their posturing, the world wouldn't be hearing anything else from Kim if President Bush would send them the multi-million dollar check he wants. As distasteful as that action may be....it might be one that needs to be considered. Kim DOES have nuclear weapons and North Korea doesn't have any other "exports" to bring money into thier country. If President Bush refuses to negotiate with them, Kim is VERY likely to sell these weapons to terrorists.

As for the other countries you mentioned, America is NOT going to go to war with France or Germany or any other country just for disagreeing with us about Iraq.

Also keep in mind that George Bush can only serve as our President for a maximum of 6 more years (and could be gone after just two more years). After that, we will have a new administration in place with a new diplomatic policy.