News What's Your Solution?

  • Thread starter Alias
  • Start date

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.
 
73
0
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.
 
152
2
Instead of threatning war, threaten to airdrop the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync over Baghdad.
 
152
2
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

Science Advisor
2,546
117
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?!
 

Nicool003

NOOOOOO! NOT MICHAEL!

Threaten to send him a picture of michael jackson
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
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.
 

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.:wink:
 

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

12
0
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!
 

Zero

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.
 

kat

12
0
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
 

Zero

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...
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
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
 

Nicool003

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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
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.
 

kyleb

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

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
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?
 

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

Mentor
18,839
5,030
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.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
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

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!
 

Related Threads for: What's Your Solution?

Replies
44
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
5K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
12K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top