<strong>"If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided."
And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?
Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.
I say again:
Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed
If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?
But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441.Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com"; target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>
Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.
They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441.Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com"; target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>
Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.
[quote]<strong>Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does any of that mean?
The UN has been waging war on the Iraqi people for 12 years. Some pessimistic estimates say over one million Iraqi civilians dead from economic sanctions (that do nothing to Saddam). The UN's own numbers say 500,000+ from 1991-1996.
What does France propose to do to punish Saddam? Anything at all?
I say the only real chance Iraq's people has in this is a war that ousts Hussein. I can't believe there are so many people screaming for nothing to be done, nothing at all. I can understand disliking "war". I don't like "war" either. No one does.
Powerdoc: the point of forced disarmament is to punish Saddam. If the goal was just to punish the Iraqi people we'd continue toothless inspections and economic sanctions. People die by more than bombs.
[quote]<strong>On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not interested in that and none of the UN resolutions show that they are interested in partial disarmament or even majority disarmament.
Your president says Iraq is a threat to the region, I don't think anyone really disputes that.
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote.
What france proposed to punish Saddam ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq.
For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.I speak here since the trade" food against oil". A trade where both EU and USA participate.
<strong>For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also take into account the following:
What is left for the Iraqi people in these two plans?
--France's plan would result in what realistically?--
I think we can all agree that Saddam will never fully cooperate and that as long as he is in power the UN will never fully lift the economic sanctions. To me this is reasonable (tell me where you disagree please).
Pro:
- No war
- Iraq "contained" and "mostly disarmed"
Con:
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths (by starvation and disease)
- Hussein still in power
- No self-determination for the Iraqi people
--The United States' plan would result in what realistically?--
Whether or not the US or the UN takes this action makes little real difference. It makes a lot of political difference, but it's essentially the difference of which flags fly over US tanks. The US plan is to oust Saddam Hussein and give Iraq back to the people, essentially.
Pro:
- Iraqi self-determination
- Hussein no longer in power
- "Swift removal of economic sanctions" (<- words of Dubya)
- Iraq "fully disarmed"
Con:
- War
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (by bombs) (being pessimistic)
------------------------------------------------
My opinion is that France is making a power play. Don't take this as being hostile, powerdoc, because I would certainly hope that my nation's leaders would try to make my nation more important on the world stage than they rightfully deserve. One positive in my mind is that France is at least consistent in its apathy with regard to Saddam Hussein. They were gruding in '91, have fought against sanctions and action for the last 12 years. So at the very least France sticks to her guns. As Ali G would say, "Respect."
This is the reason they are receiving the brunt of angry pro-war sentiment (and why Bush gets the brunt of the angry anti-war sentiment). Resolve in one's stance pisses the opponent off greatly.
To me, Bush's plan is the best. I have never been pro-sanctions and to be honest the US plan is the best way to free the Iraqi people from them. I am also eager to see Saddam run out on a rail and possibly brought up before a war crimes tribunal.
[quote] But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist? <hr></blockquote>
Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Powerdoc:
[quote]Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region. <hr></blockquote>
Huh? The Iraqi people are not ALLOWED to ask for a war...remember? And really Powerdoc "making war on the whole nation"...oh, how horrible. I suppose we are just going to indiscriminately attack? That's a common tactic in the anti-war movement. We will not target civilians. Yes, there will be short-term consequences for civilians...but in the the long term things will be vastly better. As goverat says, the'll be better off than they are now...even DURING a war.
And the last part on the inspections. Please, Powerdoc. you are arguing that we can prevent Saddam from having most of his weapons? This is seriously flawed. Even if you are right, and I don't thuink you are, the inspections can't go on forever. As soon as the UN turns its back, guess what Saddam is going to do? You can't cure the cancer by taking out most of the cells. As soon as you stop treating it, it will come back...stronger than ever.
[quote]Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote. <hr></blockquote>
First, anyone who "wants" war (whatever that means) isn't a hawk. Second, without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. If Saddam wishes to pursue WOMD, then he will eventually get more. What a joke this is!!! The inspectors get to run around "disarming" Iraq while he tries to build more WOMD!
You just said "he isn't going to comply completely" (I believe THAT is an exact quote )....so therefore he WILL pursue more weapons....hmmm. So, let me get this: We'll keep looking for weapons that we know he is making and isn't supposed to have. How long? Forever? This is exactly what you (and France) are proposing. It is absurd.
Powerdoc again:
[quote]Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.
[quote]If Saddam wishes to pursue WOMD, then he will eventually get more. What a joke this is!!! The inspectors get to run around "disarming" Iraq while he tries to build more WOMD!<hr></blockquote>
This tired old emotionally charged WOMD mantra. On and on.
[quote] 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' <hr></blockquote>
This sounds like perfectly reasonable thinking to me. Can anyone honestly disagree that this would be a BadThing(tm)?
...without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what people call a 'sound bite'. It's meaningless drivel until it's backed up. It's an opinion stated as fact. It's not fact, and it's not even remotely true.
Well what does it "==" then. More sanctions? Saddam gets an invite to France? Saddam gets more German/Russian/French contracts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's obvious that it meant that the Security Council would cross that bridge when the time came.
Exactly. All you U.N. lovers/admirers (or those calling for more "diplomacy" or resolutions) wouldn't run your house or family in the piss-poor, idiotic way that the U.N. is handling this.
"Okay, Matthew...put the cookie jar down. I really mean it. Okay, put it down. You said you would. No, don't take a bite. Please put the cookie back into the jar, okay? I'm going to ask you once again. I'm going to give you just ONE more chance, Matthew. Please do what I ask. I'm getting really upset. Please put the cookies away. Would you please stop eating those? Okay, please? Okay, Mommy's getting mad. I'm going to count to 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Okay, I'm going to count to 10 again...and I REALLY mean it this time..."
Idiots. Won't even enforce the things they themselves AGREED to or came up with! Useless, toothless clowns. I mean, really.
Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just a nitpicking, it's about disarmanment and not punishment of Saddam.
[quote] And the last part on the inspections. Please, Powerdoc. you are arguing that we can prevent Saddam from having most of his weapons? This is seriously flawed. Even if you are right, and I don't thuink you are, the inspections can't go on forever. As soon as the UN turns its back, guess what Saddam is going to do? You can't cure the cancer by taking out most of the cells. As soon as you stop treating it, it will come back...stronger than ever. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but in that case, the UN resolution 1441 was not a good one, we should have done an other resolution asking Saddam to resign. The UN chart allow such thing.
If such vote have occured (even if i am aware that many countries will be effraid to vote for this kind of resolution), the war will be more limited, and less civilian casualties would occur.
[quote] Huh? The Iraqi people are not ALLOWED to ask for a war...remember? And really Powerdoc "making war on the whole nation"...oh, how horrible. I suppose we are just going to indiscriminately attack? That's a common tactic in the anti-war movement. We will not target civilians. Yes, there will be short-term consequences for civilians...but in the the long term things will be vastly better. As goverat says, the'll be better off than they are now...even DURING a war. <hr></blockquote>
There would not be indiscriminately attack, but a lot of collateral damages will be done according to the US military staff (at the difference of the claim of 91 and the surgical strikes)
I am not an anti-war people eithe, i fully support the 91 war and the kosovo ones. When some countrie invade an other one, i am for war.
For the starvation in Iraq, i did not hear many infos that since the trade against food there is a lot of Iraq people dying of starvation at the countrary of NK. Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation. I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it. Perhaps, things will become later after the war, but we don't know. I expect that islamist will not take the power, like in Iran.
Comments
<strong>"If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided."
And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?
Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.
I say again:
Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed
If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?
<strong>
But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com"; target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>
Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
They're in Iraq. Blix can't find them because 1) He's a boob 2) Iraq hasn't complied with 1441. Let me repeat that. Iraq has not compiled with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. Iraq has not complied with 1441. <a href="http://www.Iraqhasnotcompliedwith1441.com"; target="_blank">Iraq has not complied with 1441.</a>
Saddam is a murder, torture, rapist and ethnic cleanser. Nothing has worked on him. Except the first Gulf War. War is the only thing that works on him. Everything has been tried and not we are at the last resort.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.
What does any of that mean?
The UN has been waging war on the Iraqi people for 12 years. Some pessimistic estimates say over one million Iraqi civilians dead from economic sanctions (that do nothing to Saddam). The UN's own numbers say 500,000+ from 1991-1996.
What does France propose to do to punish Saddam? Anything at all?
I say the only real chance Iraq's people has in this is a war that ousts Hussein. I can't believe there are so many people screaming for nothing to be done, nothing at all. I can understand disliking "war". I don't like "war" either. No one does.
Powerdoc: the point of forced disarmament is to punish Saddam. If the goal was just to punish the Iraqi people we'd continue toothless inspections and economic sanctions. People die by more than bombs.
[quote]<strong>On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not interested in that and none of the UN resolutions show that they are interested in partial disarmament or even majority disarmament.
Your president says Iraq is a threat to the region, I don't think anyone really disputes that.
<strong>
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote.
At least get it right, come on!
<strong>
What france proposed to punish Saddam ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq.
For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.I speak here since the trade" food against oil". A trade where both EU and USA participate.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>For the number of dead we will see, if there is more dead by sanctions than war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also take into account the following:
What is left for the Iraqi people in these two plans?
--France's plan would result in what realistically?--
I think we can all agree that Saddam will never fully cooperate and that as long as he is in power the UN will never fully lift the economic sanctions. To me this is reasonable (tell me where you disagree please).
Pro:
- No war
- Iraq "contained" and "mostly disarmed"
Con:
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths (by starvation and disease)
- Hussein still in power
- No self-determination for the Iraqi people
--The United States' plan would result in what realistically?--
Whether or not the US or the UN takes this action makes little real difference. It makes a lot of political difference, but it's essentially the difference of which flags fly over US tanks. The US plan is to oust Saddam Hussein and give Iraq back to the people, essentially.
Pro:
- Iraqi self-determination
- Hussein no longer in power
- "Swift removal of economic sanctions" (<- words of Dubya)
- Iraq "fully disarmed"
Con:
- War
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (by bombs) (being pessimistic)
------------------------------------------------
My opinion is that France is making a power play. Don't take this as being hostile, powerdoc, because I would certainly hope that my nation's leaders would try to make my nation more important on the world stage than they rightfully deserve. One positive in my mind is that France is at least consistent in its apathy with regard to Saddam Hussein. They were gruding in '91, have fought against sanctions and action for the last 12 years. So at the very least France sticks to her guns. As Ali G would say, "Respect."
This is the reason they are receiving the brunt of angry pro-war sentiment (and why Bush gets the brunt of the angry anti-war sentiment). Resolve in one's stance pisses the opponent off greatly.
To me, Bush's plan is the best. I have never been pro-sanctions and to be honest the US plan is the best way to free the Iraqi people from them. I am also eager to see Saddam run out on a rail and possibly brought up before a war crimes tribunal.
It's very clear to me.
<strong>I think my quote is "not 99.99%, but 100%".
At least get it right, come on!</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol!!!
[quote] But why does this call for war? Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist? <hr></blockquote>
Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Powerdoc:
[quote]Saddam is all this, but it's not only a war against Saddam , but a war against Iraq people. At the exception of the kurds i did not heard many Iraq's people asking for a war. Punish Saddam is great, but make a war to a whole nation is different. We should not give Saddam a last chance, but Iraq a last chance.
On a other point, I am quite nearly sure that Saddam has still some hidden WOMD, and that the inspectors will never be able to make them destroy entirely. But there is a possibility that due to the inspections, only a very few of them will still exist at a level who would not be a threat for the region. <hr></blockquote>
Huh? The Iraqi people are not ALLOWED to ask for a war...remember? And really Powerdoc "making war on the whole nation"...oh, how horrible. I suppose we are just going to indiscriminately attack? That's a common tactic in the anti-war movement. We will not target civilians. Yes, there will be short-term consequences for civilians...but in the the long term things will be vastly better. As goverat says, the'll be better off than they are now...even DURING a war.
And the last part on the inspections. Please, Powerdoc. you are arguing that we can prevent Saddam from having most of his weapons? This is seriously flawed. Even if you are right, and I don't thuink you are, the inspections can't go on forever. As soon as the UN turns its back, guess what Saddam is going to do? You can't cure the cancer by taking out most of the cells. As soon as you stop treating it, it will come back...stronger than ever.
[quote]Ah, but the hawks want a war if they can't have 100% compliance. It doesn't matter if Saddam is an actual threat or not, they want war. At least, that's what groverat said. "Not 99% compliance. It's 100% or war." I believe that's pretty close to an exact quote. <hr></blockquote>
First, anyone who "wants" war (whatever that means) isn't a hawk. Second, without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. If Saddam wishes to pursue WOMD, then he will eventually get more. What a joke this is!!! The inspectors get to run around "disarming" Iraq while he tries to build more WOMD!
You just said "he isn't going to comply completely" (I believe THAT is an exact quote
Powerdoc again:
[quote]Nothing
The resolution 1441 do not speak of punishing Saddam but to disarm Iraq. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.
This tired old emotionally charged WOMD mantra. On and on.
VX gas? That's really looking doubtful.
<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html"; target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/vxclaims.html</a>;
<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cexistv"; target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cexistv</a>;
<a href="http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html"; target="_blank">http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html</a>;
And...Rumsfeld, Perle et al talking about....oil.
<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/32185"; target="_blank">http://www.sundayherald.com/32185</a>;
The Bush mafia keeps on lying.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
[quote] 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' <hr></blockquote>
This sounds like perfectly reasonable thinking to me. Can anyone honestly disagree that this would be a BadThing(tm)?
<strong>
This sounds like perfectly reasonable thinking to me. Can anyone honestly disagree that this would be a BadThing(tm)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
"If it's our oil why is it under their soil?"
<strong>
...without total cooperation the whole inspection process is pointless. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what people call a 'sound bite'. It's meaningless drivel until it's backed up. It's an opinion stated as fact. It's not fact, and it's not even remotely true.
<strong>
Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Serious consequences" /= war
<strong>
"Serious consequences" /= war</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well what does it "==" then. More sanctions? Saddam gets an invite to France? Saddam gets more German/Russian/French contracts?
<strong>
Well what does it "==" then. More sanctions? Saddam gets an invite to France? Saddam gets more German/Russian/French contracts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's obvious that it meant that the Security Council would cross that bridge when the time came.
"Okay, Matthew...put the cookie jar down. I really mean it. Okay, put it down. You said you would. No, don't take a bite. Please put the cookie back into the jar, okay? I'm going to ask you once again. I'm going to give you just ONE more chance, Matthew. Please do what I ask. I'm getting really upset. Please put the cookies away. Would you please stop eating those? Okay, please? Okay, Mommy's getting mad. I'm going to count to 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Okay, I'm going to count to 10 again...and I REALLY mean it this time..."
Idiots. Won't even enforce the things they themselves AGREED to or came up with! Useless, toothless clowns. I mean, really.
<strong>
Wrong. It says "serious consequences" will follow without disarmanment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just a nitpicking, it's about disarmanment and not punishment of Saddam.
[quote] And the last part on the inspections. Please, Powerdoc. you are arguing that we can prevent Saddam from having most of his weapons? This is seriously flawed. Even if you are right, and I don't thuink you are, the inspections can't go on forever. As soon as the UN turns its back, guess what Saddam is going to do? You can't cure the cancer by taking out most of the cells. As soon as you stop treating it, it will come back...stronger than ever. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but in that case, the UN resolution 1441 was not a good one, we should have done an other resolution asking Saddam to resign. The UN chart allow such thing.
If such vote have occured (even if i am aware that many countries will be effraid to vote for this kind of resolution), the war will be more limited, and less civilian casualties would occur.
[quote] Huh? The Iraqi people are not ALLOWED to ask for a war...remember? And really Powerdoc "making war on the whole nation"...oh, how horrible. I suppose we are just going to indiscriminately attack? That's a common tactic in the anti-war movement. We will not target civilians. Yes, there will be short-term consequences for civilians...but in the the long term things will be vastly better. As goverat says, the'll be better off than they are now...even DURING a war. <hr></blockquote>
There would not be indiscriminately attack, but a lot of collateral damages will be done according to the US military staff (at the difference of the claim of 91 and the surgical strikes)
I am not an anti-war people eithe, i fully support the 91 war and the kosovo ones. When some countrie invade an other one, i am for war.
For the starvation in Iraq, i did not hear many infos that since the trade against food there is a lot of Iraq people dying of starvation at the countrary of NK. Sure the economy suffer from the sanctions, but i have no doubt that the war will make more casualties than the starvation. I understand that there is pro-war arguments, but i have some problems to buy the humanitarian aspect of it. Perhaps, things will become later after the war, but we don't know. I expect that islamist will not take the power, like in Iran.