What's Your Solution?

Alias

If you believe that war is not the solution for destroying Saddam's WMDs and removing his brutal regime, please present an alternative.

N_Quire

Tickle him into submission and make him reveal where he hides his bug bombs.

Laser Eyes

Well first of all why is it necessary to do anything about Saddam's regime or his WMD (if he has any). He poses no threat to the US or any other country. There has never been any proven link between Saddam and terrorist organisations. The scumbag only mistreats his own people. That makes it the internal affairs of another country.

Assuming that something has to be done about him we can wait for him to die of old age. Just look at him. The guy does not have long to live.

Sting

Instead of threatning war, threaten to airdrop the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync over Baghdad.

Sting

Didn't the CIA back the assassination attempt on a Chilean leader (I'm tempted to say Allende although I'm not sure)?

damgo

There's a coup/assassination attempt on Saddam virtually every other week. The most famous CIA-backed coup failed in 1996 after being infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence; hundreds of plotters were killed in the following purge.

LURCH

NO! We would lose the moral high-ground and the global comunity would look on us with (even more) contempt. I mean, nerve gas and biologicals are one thing, but good grief man, have you no soul?!

Nicool003

Threaten to send him a picture of michael jackson

russ_watters

1990.

Alias, ironic this thread quickly turned to sarcasm. Clearly no one (damgo's suggestion notwithstanding) has a reasonable alternative other than doing nothing and HOPING we don't get burned for it again.

kyleb

sure we do, so did the UN; but apparently you have a different definition of reasonable so it is not really worth our time to keep banging our heads against the brick wall you have built.[;)]

Zero

The idea that Bush's 'unilateral war right now' or no action at all is what I have a problem with. There are all sorts of ways to conduct a war, and surely there are more types of recovery plans than what Bush will execute.

Alias

Unilateral?!?!?!

What planet are you on, Zero?

The last time I checked, there were some 45 nations helping the war effort.

kat

You and I must have a different definition of "unilateral" yours appears to mean "not U.N. endorsed" mine would mean uni-as in singular, one country. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I know that we were expecting Saddam to unilaterally disarm..meaning only him..I'm not sure where unilateral applies in a war with several other countries taking part?

At any rate..on to the meat of the issue..it's a question I would certainly like to see answered..please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!..explain the workings of one of these so called alternatives that really is realistic and workable? Because I keep hearing they exist..over and over..but I have yet to see anyone explain what these existing alternative solutions are!

Zero

Are you angry, Kat? Take a deep breath, hun, and have a seat.

First off, any sopport or lack of support would have made no difference to the Bush administration, who were going to have this war no matter what. Secondly, the current execution of the 'war' is closer to what I would have suggested than what Bush's cabal advertised. It leads me to believe that the posturing had other goals...Frankly, though, more inspections, in conjunction with a military presence, would have worked.

kat

Naw, I'm not angry..jest a li'l expressive today [;)]

You can tell when I'm angry..I pull out the good ole 4 letter words

Zero

Heh heh...

Njorl

I don't think any method short of war would have worked. The one chance would have been a UN ultimatum. As soon as France declared that war could never be an option, war became a certainty. Hussein believed the French would protect him.

Going back to the beginning of the Bush administration:

US should not have projected such a unilateral image. I say image because that is all it was. In reality, we were as global as ever. Kyoto was always just a feel-good myth. While many industrialized countries signed it, none were going to ratify it. It would have been a harmless fiction to maintain. The steel tariff was of little importance. Steel isn't the industry it once was. The ABM treaty was no longer applicable, and we didn't need to make a scene about abandoning it. Missile defence is of little to no importance anyway. We threw away a lot of good will pointlessly.

We should not have openly come out for regime change. Privately, we should have informed our allies that we were willing to go to war over disarmament, and that war would result in regime change. But our official policy should have been from the beginning that we would be satisfied with disarmament.

We should have come out with a timetable with milestones and explicit consequences for a UN resolution, instead of 1441. The timetable should have contained a provision for complete Iraqi cooperation as the first milestone. If that wasn't met, invasion as it is now should happen. The other milestones would be spread over the hot summer months, giving sufficient time for accomplishment. If they were not met by then, invasion and regime change would be the result.

I don't know that any skill in diplomacy could have produced a meaningful UN resolution. Even if it did, most likely Saddam Hussein would have refused. I think he realizes that those weapons, or at least the credible threat of those weapons, are necessary to his vision of Iraq. Iran is a essentially a more powerful nation. It is slowly losing its collective insanity and will soon surpass Iraq again as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. I think he believes he needs those weapons to deter Iran from attacking 5-10 years down the road.

Njorl