If you believe that war is not the solution for destroying Saddam's WMDs and removing his brutal regime, please present an alternative.
Originally posted by Sting
Instead of threatning war, threaten to airdrop the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync over Baghdad.
1990.He poses no threat to the US or any other country.
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.
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!
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.
Heh heh...Originally posted by 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
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.
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.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.
Could you please state what yours is then? Exactly how many years of failure does it take before action is justified?like i said; apparently you have a different definition of reasonable.
Please note, the inspections only resumed after the threat of ACTION. A year ago, NOTHING was happening.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.
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.