What's Your Solution?

Nicool003

Russ you really never know. Ever time I see michael Jackson on t.v I can't help but shudder. I get that chill up my spine.

russ_watters

Ok, the key word in the title of the thread was SOLUTION. Ie. something that SOLVES the problem. It is *UN*reasonable to continue a course of action that for 12 years FAILED to solve the problem. If it doesn't solve the problem, its not a solution.

kyleb

like i said; apparently you have a different definition of reasonable.

russ_watters

Could you please state what yours is then? Exactly how many years of failure does it take before action is justified?

kyleb

well considering how much of his weaponry was removed, how much he could have built up were it not for the inspections, and the fact that Iraq has not started any wars sense then; i do not consider the inspections a failure.

russ_watters

Please note, the inspections only resumed after the threat of ACTION. A year ago, NOTHING was happening.

FZ+

Ah heck, I'll rattle off the list...

(a) Permanent UN weapon inspector prescence
(b) Set of absolute deadlines, a timetable to disarmament (actually suggested by both the UK and France. Both sides rejected the other)
(c) End sanctions on food and non-military supplies.
(d) Give aid to Kurdish north for greater independence. The kurds actually rebelled previously, but failed due to lack of US support.
(e) Undermine Saddam's hold on power by offering food, sponsoring dissidents, finding a reasonable case for a post-saddam administration.
(f) Publish full information to UN. If the US supposedly has additional evidence for Iraqi non-compliance, then show it.
(g) Pressurise for destruction of alleged training camps etc. Saddam has never broken a specific, unavoidable ultimatum.
(h) Apply economic pressure. Boycott oil exports, and nations trading weapons technology.
(i) Wait it out and concentrate on other, more immediate threats.

Notice that Saddam has never refused an ultimatum under military pressure. When we asked for missile destruction, he did it. If we have a concrete order that we can confirm one way or the other, with goals that cannot be moved or dodged, he would have had no choice. Saddam is ruthless but not foolish. He currently has no choice, no trust for the US. But these alternatives were not considered.

Zero

Are you possibly saying that we didn't need to rush into Iraq after all? You must be a communist or a traitor to suggest that the Bush plan isn't the only action possible at all times!

Njorl

(a)Weapons inspectors were prevented from doing their job. They were only allowed to do symbolic inspections even under threat of invasion.
(b)The French proposal insisted that all sanctions end when the timetable expired, even if no milestones on the timetable were complied with. Under no circumstances would the French allow any repercussions for even complete non-compliance.
(c)Food and medicine are routinely smuggled out of Iraq to Jordan. The profits from the smuggling go to luxuries for Baath party loyalists, and military materiel.
(d)Sounds good to me. By itself, it is not sufficient though.
(e)While Iraq is under Saddam's control, no one else can feed his people. All good comes from Saddam. All pain comes from Saddam. Sponsoring dissidents without US military presence is no longer an option since the blundering in 1991. We could have supported rebellion then. Now, because we betrayed their trust, we must lead rebellion, and let them support us.
(f)Sufficient information has been published, and corroborated by the UN.
(g)He refused two. Fully comply with resolution 1441 or the US will invade. Leave Iraq or the US and UK will invade.
(h)Economic sanctions have been in place for 12 years. They have been ineffective.
(i)Do nothing is always an alternative. I don't see how things would possibly improve though.

Njorl

russ_watters

Not bad, FZ+. You win the prize for the first person to offer a solution instead of just excuses. Follow-up questions though (related to your "b"): *IF* your proposal fails, how long do you wait before changing tactics? And would those tactics EVER include actually using force?

Most of those suggestions have been tried to one extent or another and all have failed.

Clearly I am reasoning from an opening assumption that some do not have: Saddam should be removed from power. For those of the same frame of mind, the question of course becomes "how bad do you want it?"

kyleb

so i take it the members of the UN do not count as "people to you, eh russ_watters. [s(]