Finding Solutions to the Iraq War: A Call for Alternative Approaches

  • News
  • Thread starter Alias
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses various alternatives to going to war with Saddam's regime, including waiting for him to die of old age and using unconventional methods such as airdropping boy bands and sending a photo of Michael Jackson. Some argue that Saddam poses no threat to the US or other countries and that there is no evidence linking him to terrorist organizations. Others suggest a more diplomatic approach, such as increasing inspections. However, it is ultimately agreed that war is inevitable due to the Bush administration's determination to go to war and the lack of support from France and other countries. The conversation also touches on the issue of the US's unilateral image and the myth of international cooperation in events such as the Kyoto agreement.
  • #1

Alias

If you believe that war is not the solution for destroying Saddam's WMDs and removing his brutal regime, please present an alternative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Tickle him into submission and make him reveal where he hides his bug bombs.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
Instead of threatning war, threaten to airdrop the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync over Baghdad.
 
  • #5
Didn't the CIA back the assassination attempt on a Chilean leader (I'm tempted to say Allende although I'm not sure)?
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Sting
Instead of threatning war, threaten to airdrop the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync over Baghdad.

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?!
 
  • #8
NOOOOOO! NOT MICHAEL!

Threaten to send him a picture of michael jackson
 
  • #9
He poses no threat to the US or any other country.
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.
 
  • #10
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.:wink:
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
Unilateral?!

What planet are you on, Zero?

The last time I checked, there were some 45 nations helping the war effort.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by 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.

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!
 
  • #14
Originally posted by 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!

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.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by 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.

Naw, I'm not angry..jest a li'l expressive today :wink:

You can tell when I'm angry..I pull out the good ole 4 letter words
 
  • #16
Originally posted by kat
Naw, I'm not angry..jest a li'l expressive today :wink:

You can tell when I'm angry..I pull out the good ole 4 letter words
Heh heh...
 
  • #17
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
 
  • #18
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.

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.
 
  • #19
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.
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.
 
  • #20
like i said; apparently you have a different definition of reasonable.
 
  • #21
like i said; apparently you have a different definition of reasonable.
Could you please state what yours is then? Exactly how many years of failure does it take before action is justified?
 
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
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.
Please note, the inspections only resumed after the threat of ACTION. A year ago, NOTHING was happening.
 
  • #24
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.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by FZ+

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.

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!
 
  • #26
Originally posted by 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.
(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
 
  • #27
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?"
 
Last edited:
  • #28
so i take it the members of the UN do not count as "people to you, eh russ_watters.
 

What is the Iraq War and why is it important?

The Iraq War was a military conflict that began in 2003 and lasted for almost nine years. It was sparked by the United States' invasion of Iraq under the premise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and promoting democracy. The war resulted in significant loss of life and resources, and its effects are still felt today. It is important because it has had a major impact on global politics, economy, and security.

What approaches have been taken to address the Iraq War?

Initially, the U.S. and its allies used a military approach to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a new government in Iraq. This was followed by efforts to stabilize the country through reconstruction and nation-building. However, these approaches have been criticized for their high cost and failure to achieve desired outcomes.

What are some alternative approaches to finding a solution to the Iraq War?

Some alternative approaches that have been proposed include diplomatic efforts to negotiate with all parties involved in the conflict, providing humanitarian aid and support to the people of Iraq, and involving regional and international organizations in finding a solution. Additionally, some experts suggest addressing the root causes of the war, such as political and economic instability, as a means of preventing future conflicts.

What are the potential benefits of using alternative approaches?

Using alternative approaches can potentially lead to a more sustainable and peaceful resolution of the Iraq War. Diplomatic efforts and involvement of international organizations can help address the underlying issues and promote dialogue between conflicting parties. Providing humanitarian aid can also improve the lives of those affected by the war and help rebuild the country.

What are some challenges in implementing alternative approaches to the Iraq War?

Implementing alternative approaches may face challenges such as lack of cooperation from involved parties, difficulty in finding a consensus on a solution, and limited resources. There may also be resistance to change from those who have invested in the current approaches. However, it is important to continue exploring and considering alternative approaches in order to find a sustainable solution to the Iraq War.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
755
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
98
Views
13K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
789
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
199
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
976
Back
Top