Your Alternatives to War?

[SurlyPIG]

Alternatives to war. To those opposed to it; what do YOU suggest?

What do you suggest to be done about terrorism?

How do you suggest the world deals with Saddam?

All I've heard is a lot of bleeding hearts and whining in all the threads, sure some people like Nyar address important issues like civillian casualties, but to me it seems most just go off on a tanjent because of prejudicial feelings and compare the US to Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Well, lets hear your brilliant ideas then.

Name some strategies the UN could undertake that would actually WORK, and have not been tried and are not being tried right now. (diplomacy has been tried, nothing. sanctions have been tried and suddenly we're accused of starving the innocent)

Let's hear them, people. Put yourself in the spotlight. Stop complaining and post your brilliant alternatives. I sure havn't heard any. Zamboe, Edric, Earthnuker, everyone who thinks the US is after oil - this means YOU! No more dodgy sinicism. Out with it, out with it!

Failure to respond with an idea for a viable alternative will be interpreted as lack of real knowledge or care for the subject.

[zamboe]

Don't try to mix situations that are not being under consideration.

Based on UN 1441 resolution.

The issue is ONLY ONE : The existance of weapons of mass destruction.

The things you mention, Terrorism, Saddam-Dictator, HR violations, slavery, etc. Are not an issue. Therefore there is nothing to suggest about it. If you ask me what to do about them, I'd say, that is not a current UN issue, so it's not an international concern.

But when it comes to the question,

What do you suggest to be done about WMD ?

I say, that more time should be provided, specific benchmarks and objectives with dead lines should be inmediately stablished, number of inspectors should be increased.

Example : The 5000 litres of liquified Vx gases should be given to UN military forces for destruction within the next 15 days. The assembling equipment for making As-Hammud missiles must be give to UN authorities within the next 15 days. The chemical labs equipment must be given to UN authorities within the next 15 days. All the destruction should be handled by UN forces and not by Iraqi goverment. If at the 15th day there is no 100% achievment of this specific benchmarks then inmediate military ocupation will begin in a NF zone. ALL under UN Security Council approval and concensus.

[SurlyPIG]

The things you mention, Terrorism, Saddam-Dictator, HR violations, slavery, etc. Are not an issue. Therefore there is nothing to suggest about it. If you ask me what to do about them, I'd say, that is not a current UN issue, so it's not an international concern.

How are those things not relevent? The war on terror is actually the BIGGEST reason the US is pushing for war with Iraq. The search for WMDs is a concern, but more of a means to legally initiate the war. As for the other things I mentioned, totalitarianism, HR violations and slavery are all VERY important to the UN. All that they stand for is essentially summed up in the UDHR, how can it NOT be relevant? And even if they aren't things to justify a war, what do you propose be done about them.

Nothing? Do we just sit back and let the people of Iraq suffer and starve at the hands of a clinically insane sadist? Do we offer him asylum if he steps down, do we place sanctions on his country, do we continue to try diplomacy?

Your solution to a WMD program is actually what the US is pushing for - a time limit. What exactly do you mean by military occupation, though? Does that include removing Saddam's regime?

[zamboe]

How are those things not relevent? The war on terror is actually the BIGGEST reason the US is pushing for war with Iraq.

That's US war. There is not a single UN Security Council Resolution about the so called war on terror. I will not answer some domestic US issue.

The search for WMDs is a concern, but more of a means to legally initiate the war. As for the other things I mentioned, totalitarianism, HR violations and slavery are all VERY important to the UN.

Important yes. Currently under UN consideration and treatment ? NO.

There are no actions requested to Iraq about those specific issues. That is not the problem under UN Security Council resolution 1441. Then, that cannot be never a reason to start a war.

If there were a UN-SC resolution about making changes in HR, goverment regime or so, then it would be a another reason to remove Saddam, but so far the only subject under UN consideration is WMDs. That's the way it is.

All that they stand for is essentially summed up in the UDHR, how can it NOT be relevant? And even if they aren't things to justify a war, what do you propose be done about them.

Violation to HR declaration DOES NOT MEAN AUTOMATIC MILITARY ACTION against those who don't comply with it.

It is relevant, but not a reason yet.

It can be reason for a bilateral war (meaning that the US or UK decided to atack Iraq on their own), but at this present time, It cannot be a reason to begin a war based on UN SC resolutions and supported by UN, because those issues are not being considered at the UN.

Nothing? Do we just sit back and let the people of Iraq suffer and starve at the hands of a clinically insane sadist? Do we offer him asylum if he steps down, do we place sanctions on his country, do we continue to try diplomacy?

That's what the media gets, when people don't know their facts.

The US went to UN SC and got a very good resolution (1441) about disarmament and destruction of WMDs in Iraq. But when it comes to the speak to the media, the US gov only mentiones HR violations and the Iraqi dictator, when those issues were not EVEN DISCUSSED in the UN SC. US gov did that, because they needed to somehow touch the feelings of US tax payers, it's easier get support saying "poor people they are dying and ask for our help" when they only issue they care are WMDs. If they've said that the only issue under consideration at the UN is WMDs, the support in the US would have been smaller.

That's what US politics is about: It doesn't matter what actually one thing is, but what it looks like.

Your solution to a WMD program is actually what the US is pushing for - a time limit. What exactly do you mean by military occupation, though? Does that include removing Saddam's regime?

Wrong. Today in a speech, Collin Powell said that they DO NOT support dead lines and benchmarks for tracking the development of destruction in Iraq. I searched the transcrip of that speech but it will be available tomorrow at the US Department of State website. US does not push for that. France, Russia, Germany push for it.

Resolution 1441 does not include in the "consecuences" the removal of Saddam of the Iraq gov, that's what the US wants, and that's the more important thing, but the UN Resolution 1441 does not mention it.

Yes, I mean military occupation of the places where there are possible chances of existance of WMDs.

[SurlyPIG]

That's US war. There is not a single UN Security Council Resolution about the so called war on terror. I will not answer some domestic US issue.

So, in other words, you do not care about the three thousand lives lost on 9/11 and you don't care to do anything to prevent more such incidents from occurring. If that's not the case, (like this forum's intro says), get that fence post out of your arse, take a side, and post your idea on how to put those terrorists to justice.

There are no actions requested to Iraq about those specific issues. That is not the problem under UN Security Council resolution 1441. Then, that cannot be never a reason to start a war.

If there were a UN-SC resolution about making changes in HR, goverment regime or so, then it would be a another reason to remove Saddam, but so far the only subject under UN consideration is WMDs. That's the way it is.

Stop dodging the questions! No they're not part of the UN's concern, but what do YOU think should be done about Hussein's regime and how they mistreat twenty-three million innocent people? Unless of course you don't care about their suffering...

Violation to HR declaration DOES NOT MEAN AUTOMATIC MILITARY ACTION against those who don't comply with it.

It is relevant, but not a reason yet.

It can be reason for a bilateral war (meaning that the US or UK decided to atack Iraq on their own), but at this present time, It cannot be a reason to begin a war based on UN SC resolutions and supported by UN, because those issues are not being considered at the UN.

You didn't listen to me at all. I don't care what the UN-SC does or does not do about them, they're important to anyone who cares about others and I want to know what YOU would like done about them, as you act like you know everything about this issue.

That's what the media gets, when people don't know their facts.

The US went to UN SC and got a very good resolution (1441) about disarmament and destruction of WMDs in Iraq. But when it comes to the speak to the media, the US gov only mentiones HR violations and the Iraqi dictator, when those issues were not EVEN DISCUSSED in the UN SC. US gov did that, because they needed to somehow touch the feelings of US tax payers, it's easier get support saying "poor people they are dying and ask for our help" when they only issue they care are WMDs. If they've said that the only issue under consideration at the UN is WMDs, the support in the US would have been smaller.

That's what US politics is about: It doesn't matter what actually one thing is, but what it looks like.

LOL! How would you know, you live in Chile! The media doesn't even TOUCH on the things Saddam has done. They don't show the purples faces of Kurds choking on nerve gas, they don't show the bodies in the sewers, they don't show the public executions because it's all too morbid. The only time you'll see the true nature of Iraq is maybe on some sort of documentary or special where they collect all types of media to present in a long program.

Wrong. Today in a speech, Collin Powell said that they DO NOT support dead lines and benchmarks for tracking the development of destruction in Iraq. I searched the transcrip of that speech but it will be available tomorrow at the US Department of State website. US does not push for that. France, Russia, Germany push for it.

That's their position now, but it wasn't what they've been pushing for all along. They've demanded that Iraq immediately cooperate to prove they have not violated WMD agreements, the inspectors have not been recieved. Men with radios hold them back from the places they wish to inspect until they can move the materials elsewhere. Do you not remember the transmission intercepted that proved they were moving ammunition to avoid the inspectors seeing it? Didn't you see the satellite photo of the altered military chemo-lab?

Yes, I mean military occupation of the places where there are possible chances of existance of WMDs.

So, what, soldiers move in waving two fingers in the air to make sure Iraq cooperates with the UN and then when they are satisfied they leave them to do whatever they want? Doesn't sound like that would accomplish much. It would only delay it unless you remove the Hussein regime.

NOTE TO ALL : There have been thirty-six views of this thread, and only one person of the anti-war opinion has answered my post. Now, I can understand if you were busy or something, but I find it hard to believe that those thirty-four people all support the war...

C'mon you guys, get that fence-post out of your behind! It might give you hemeroids.

[zamboe]

So, in other words, you do not care about the three thousand lives lost on 9/11 and you don't care to do anything to prevent more such incidents from occurring. If that's not the case, (like this forum's intro says), get that fence post out of your arse, take a side, and post your idea on how to put those terrorists to justice.

Do not put words in my mouth. Do not make unbased conclussions of what I care or not.

I've never said that I don't care the lives lost on 9/11. That's not what we are discussing. Man, try to stay on topic. If you want to know what I think about the lives that were lost in the terrorists atacks of 9/11, ASK ME.

Take a side ?, what sides are ?, you seem to forget " not for the weak minded " ;).

Stop dodging the questions! No they're not part of the UN's concern, but what do YOU think should be done about Hussein's regime and how they mistreat twenty-three million innocent people? Unless of course you don't care about their suffering...

So, you want to know what I think should be done about your personal concerns, such as :

"What do you suggest to be done about terrorism?" : Terrorism in the world should be elminated by force if necessary. Perhaps you are thinking about terrorism in Iraq, there is no hard/undsputable proof about Iraq participating or having links with terrorist organizations, that's all US paranoia, so there is nothing to be done about it.

"How do you suggest the world deals with Saddam?" : You won't like this. I'll start saying that there is no specific UN-SC resolution about the President of Iraq, the resolutions are about Iraq WMDs. So in other words, under the UN, there is nothing to do about Saddam.

Saddam a dictator ?, Saddam violating HR ?, most likely. But wait a minute. US has supported in the past to several dictators, US did nothing about HR violations, then I do not trust anything that the US says or does about Saddam. Then if something should be done about Saddam that must under a specific UN resolution, only when the countries that are in the UN agree that some changes must happen in Iraq, then I would support some changes.

Remember that UN does not require democracy as a requisite to be a member, since there are many UN members that are non democratic countries. So about democracy in Iraq, in my opinion, if democracy will arrive someday to Iraq must be because the Iraqi people make it happen, not because some foreigner with other interest go there and imposse it. You must be thinking "Saddam will never allow it to happen", NO, there are several countries (including my own) where terrible dictators have been defeated by the desire of the democracy of the local people.

You didn't listen to me at all. I don't care what the UN-SC does or does not do about them, they're important to anyone who cares about others and I want to know what YOU would like done about them, as you act like you know everything about this issue.

I answered that in the last paragraph.

LOL! How would you know, you live in Chile! The media doesn't even TOUCH on the things Saddam has done. They don't show the purples faces of Kurds choking on nerve gas, they don't show the bodies in the sewers, they don't show the public executions because it's all too morbid. The only time you'll see the true nature of Iraq is maybe on some sort of documentary or special where they collect all types of media to present in a long program.

I live in Chile, yes. What do you mean by that ?, Are you trying to say that we don't have good media here ?. If that's so, you can't be more wrong (3K).

I can see all the media I want, Direct TV or Sky means something to you ?

About those HR violations you mention, for example, Kurds, Kurds will be under threat anyway, southern tribes or Iraq HATE Kurds, people from Turkey do not like Kurds. It will be like the former Yugoslavia, being Saddam in Iraq or not, you are living in Fantasyland if you think that Kurds will be safe once Saddam is gone.

That's their position now, but it wasn't what they've been pushing for all along. They've demanded that Iraq immediately cooperate to prove they have not violated WMD agreements, the inspectors have not been recieved. Men with radios hold them back from the places they wish to inspect until they can move the materials elsewhere. Do you not remember the transmission intercepted that proved they were moving ammunition to avoid the inspectors seeing it? Didn't you see the satellite photo of the altered military chemo-lab?

Men with radios ?, I don't see a problem with it. UN inspectors had no delay at all in the places they went to inspect..

Intercepted transmissions ?, at this point I dont believe the proof the US presented, if the proof would have been strong enough it wouldn't have been forgotten two hours after like it really happened, no country that has presence in the UN SC gave any importance to that.

Satellite photos ? Chief inspector H. Blinx an "expert" in the area, said that it was most likely a normal and routine activity, nothing to suspect about that. I believe the expert not the US paranoia.

Remember : NOT FOR THE WEAK MINDED. LOL. ;)

[Gobalopper]

The Peacenik Top 10

(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.

(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.

(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.

(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.

(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.

(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.

(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.

(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.

(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.

[Caid Ivik]

We should call Saddam to come to one nice pub and discuss his problems with Bush, and a half-liter of ice-cold beer.

[Gobalopper]

Bush doesn't drink though. Maybe that will work to his advantage. :)

[Edric O]

Edric's great big peaceful idea: Do nothing. Yes, you heard me. Nothing. There is no reason to. As long as US bombers and cruise missiles are within minutes' striking distance of any location in Iraq, and as long as the Iraqi military remains the pathetic shadow of it's former self that it is today, Saddam will never try anything stupid.

His oppression of his own people is another matter. I would support a UN-sanctioned war to liberate the people of Iraq. But NOT a war to "disarm Saddam".

[Davidu]

The best would be to have a covert-ops strike to take ou Saddam, and then to put the next leader, or governement, under preasure in order to make the country more democratic.

More lives would be spared this way...

That's my opinion.

[SurlyPIG]

Edric, surely you are aware that the latter would be a side-effect of the former, aren't you?

And of course they wouldn't try anything with the whole world looking over their shoulder, but that would mean that the sanctions would still have to exist and the Iraqi people would still be starving and impovershed. And what's to stop them from slipping some chemical weapons to terrorists, Edric? What's to stop them from giving Osama bin Laden some of the nerve gas that hussein used to kill 2000 Kurds? No security can stop absolutely everything all the time, Edric. Customs and checks fail sometimes. And that means more and more innocent people could die at the hands of terror. Israel pretty much controls everything in Palestine, and look what happens there. Thousands of Israelis are killed by Palestinians anyway. The same would happen with the USA and Iraq. Doing nothing would not work.

The problem with invading for liberation is, Edric, militarily enforcing Human Rights is completely against UN policy and even against HR itself. It would make the UN nothing more than a fancy dictatorship. It's basically saying, "Our way, or the highway." Dictatorships would not survive. Though this would seem great, what if the UN itself becomes corrupt? You said it yourself, power corrupts. Absolute power absolutely corrupts. Making the UN an absolute power and giving it the legal ability to liberate any country it deems in violation of HR would be no better than Stalin or Hussein. Sure, sometimes I wish the UN would have a little more tact and a little less yap, but making it basically a world-dictatorship would be a direct contradiction to what it is supposed to stand for. What if they were suddenly to decide that Romania was a dictatorial regime abusing HR and invade Romania? What would stop them?

[Davidu]

It's insane to invade a country with no serious reason. That's dictature. The role of the UN is to prevent dictatures.

And if they were to invade Romania with no reason, then they'll have a masacre. We won't back up easy.

[SurlyPIG]

Excellent article Gob. I could not agree more.

The best would be to have a covert-ops strike to take ou Saddam, and then to put the next leader, or governement, under preasure in order to make the country more democratic.

More lives would be spared this way...

That's my opinion.

So you want him gone? Good. Unfortuneately, he is a smart man. Insane, but smart. He has upwards of two-dozen look-alikes and body doubles that perform tasks for him. He hides out underground in heavilly protected, heavilly guarded secret complexes. Many people have tried to assasinate him, but you can't. It is said that he changes location every four hours. It is said that he has people eat his food before he does to check for poision. He even carries around his own chair to sit on so as not to be pricked by a poision needle. How can you send in a small, non-arab, undisguised task force and expect them to find Saddam, kill him, kill his son and the other core members of his regime all without being killed themselves? The notion is ridiculous. Even if you found a mole in his regime, everyone does checks on each other and he would be found and killed immediately. If you sent in your own operative, he would never become part of the regime. Saddam selects himself the people he wants to guard his life and do his deeds. They are all Iraqis; the lower level ones are the ones who have been fed his propaganda all their lives. They had nothing. He gives them everything. He's their only ticket out of morbid starvation and poverty. All they know besides him is rotten. All of this, he blames on the US-lead sanctions. All they have that is good for them comes from him. He epitomizes control by propaganda and lies. Stalin would bow to him. He has twent-three million people under the heel of his boot. He cannot be defeated with more lies and deceptions (like a syp or undercover operative like you suggest). He is THE definitive master of dishonesty. He cannot be fooled.

His only weakness is his weakness. He is militarily weak. Only a greater force can oust him. He has done his best to prevent that, but I hope it has become inevitable. He has placed his military camps next two schools and hospitals, he has built a giant human-shield called Baghdad around his head of state, he has places imagages of himself on every streetcorner, and through propaganda, has the control of a humanly significant military force that is loyal to him.

[zamboe]

Bush doesn't drink though. Maybe that will work to his advantage. :)

I think Bush had serious issues about his drinking problems that backfired him while in campaing against Al Gore. Something about Bush driving while being drunk. I am not sure, but that's what I remember so far.

[zamboe]

aceletal I thought you were going to aswer the last post I make to specifically answer the Q's you said I dodge. Anyway if you don't I'll consider this thread over about the alternatives you give and I give.

[Davidu]

You said that a task force would never survive in Iraq if they were to kill Saddam. Does it matter if they live or die as long as they have done their duty??

The soldiers in the commando ( a veritable kamikaze) should not be picked by the commanders, but they should offer themselves as volonteers. People who would die to make the world better.

And, BTW, any commando member has to realise that the next mission could be the last for him. The most important is to carry out him mission. The mission's succes is above all.

[Gobalopper]

When he was younger he drank, he hasn't since he turned 40 or maybe it was 30?

[Davidu]

So what if he drank???

I don't care what that person does in its private life as long as he/she is a professional.

[SurlyPIG]

You said that a task force would never survive in Iraq if they were to kill Saddam. Does it matter if they live or die as long as they have done their duty??

Let me rephrase that; They would never, ever ever ever ever ever survive long enough to actually accomplish their mission. And should they somehow succeed through an absolute miracle, if they are dead, Saddam's son would simply take is place, and he is said to be just as cunning and even more brutal.

Do not put words in my mouth. Do not make unbased conclussions of what I care or not.

I've never said that I don't care the lives lost on 9/11. That's not what we are discussing. Man, try to stay on topic. If you want to know what I think about the lives that were lost in the terrorists atacks of 9/11, ASK ME.

I DID! I did ask you. In the very first post of this topic. Im asking about all critical issues that a war with Iraq would solve. I want to hear YOUR solutions to ALL of them.

So, you want to know what I think should be done about your personal concerns, such as :

"What do you suggest to be done about terrorism?" : Terrorism in the world should be elminated by force if necessary. Perhaps you are thinking about terrorism in Iraq, there is no hard/undsputable proof about Iraq participating or having links with terrorist organizations, that's all US paranoia, so there is nothing to be done about it.

Paranoia? PARANOIA? Tell THAT to the families and friends of the 3000 people killed in the WTC and the Pentagon, and the 300 in indonesia, the several to anthrax, the hundred in the Russian theatre etc.

"How do you suggest the world deals with Saddam?" : You won't like this. I'll start saying that there is no specific UN-SC resolution about the President of Iraq, the resolutions are about Iraq WMDs. So in other words, under the UN, there is nothing to do about Saddam.

So in other words, let them go on. Continue letting him kill people in the streats, steal from the country and starve them to death. Fair enough. If you don't care about them, obviously you wouldn't want to go out of your way to help them.

Saddam a dictator ?, Saddam violating HR ?, most likely. But wait a minute. US has supported in the past to several dictators, US did nothing about HR violations, then I do not trust anything that the US says or does about Saddam. Then if something should be done about Saddam that must under a specific UN resolution, only when the countries that are in the UN agree that some changes must happen in Iraq, then I would support some changes.

No country is without accusation of HR abuse from Amnesty International. HR abuse is not a legitimate reason to start a war under the UN. Disobeying agreements, however, is. Removing saddam will be a great side effect of this coming war, if it occurs. And the history of the US is irrelevant to this matter. I'll tell you one thing, there's no way in hell they did one hundredth as much and as bad to any people anywhere in the world directly in the last century as Saddam has done to his people in the last year alone. You are correct that they have allowed HR violations before. As has the UN. It is the UN's policy not to invervene. Enforcing HR is not one of their reasons for engaging in war, but it will be one of the side effects. Can you name any other way to be rid of Saddam and/or force his regime to respect their rights as people.

Remember that UN does not require democracy as a requisite to be a member, since there are many UN members that are non democratic countries. So about democracy in Iraq, in my opinion, if democracy will arrive someday to Iraq must be because the Iraqi people make it happen, not because some foreigner with other interest go there and imposse it. You must be thinking "Saddam will never allow it to happen", NO, there are several countries (including my own) where terrible dictators have been defeated by the desire of the democracy of the local people.

It will not happen unless Saddam wants it to happen. He has a chokehold thousands of times tighter on his people than virtually any other dictator has had in the past. His people are hungry, they've been lied to, and murdered. They are in no position or condition to liberate so much as a square kilometre of Iraq let alone the whole country.

I live in Chile, yes. What do you mean by that ?, Are you trying to say that we don't have good media here ?. If that's so, you can't be more wrong (3K).

I can see all the media I want, Direct TV or Sky means something to you ?

No, I meant that you don't have access to the media in the North America so you can't possibly know what they do or don't say. Even with satellite, you only see the network TV, and let me tell you, network media SUCKS. I hate network media. They exaggerate everything and disproportionately cover all their stories for ratings. The only thing I watch networked media for is live coverage of actual events.

About those HR violations you mention, for example, Kurds, Kurds will be under threat anyway, southern tribes or Iraq HATE Kurds, people from Turkey do not like Kurds. It will be like the former Yugoslavia, being Saddam in Iraq or not, you are living in Fantasyland if you think that Kurds will be safe once Saddam is gone.

They WILL be safe, because UN peacekeepers will be there to prevent cultural clashes from taking place. That is not even possible under Saddam. After Hussein, the Kurds may even recieve their own state to govern.

Men with radios ?, I don't see a problem with it. UN inspectors had no delay at all in the places they went to inspect..

Yes they did. The frequently had to wait for Iraqi officials to open gates, unlock doors, etc. Nearly all of the inspections were publically planned anyway, so Iraq knew about them long in advance.

Intercepted transmissions ?, at this point I dont believe the proof the US presented, if the proof would have been strong enough it wouldn't have been forgotten two hours after like it really happened, no country that has presence in the UN SC gave any importance to that.

So you would believe Saddam over the US? WOW. That's amazing. I didn't think ANYONE hated the US that much. Do you believe anything any American says? France, Germany and Russia only deny it because it is THEY who have oil interests in Iraq. Read Gob's post that came right after yours, you might learn something.

Satellite photos ? Chief inspector H. Blinx an "expert" in the area, said that it was most likely a normal and routine activity, nothing to suspect about that. I believe the expert not the US paranoia.

Expert? Hardly. It should definately be in quotes. An expert in incompetance, maybe. I would sooner rely on top-level intelligence personnel than the impotent Hans Blix who is only now recieving partial cooperation from Iraq. The way the UN inspections are run is SSSOOO utterly incompetant.

Ie, a UN truck full of four inspectors arrive to a small palace in Baghdad. They are greeted by two guards and demand to be let inside. The guards say, "I'll have to check your clearance internally." The other guard yaps on a radio for a little while and is very apologetic that he his normal superior has to track down his boss in order to check the clearance. After ten minutes or so, the inspectors are let inside. It's like this for EVERY inspection. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they're doing in this time.

Actual cooperation would look something like this:

The truck arrives, the two guards see the giant UN letters and the blue hats the men wear and immediately let them inside and anywhere they wish to go. Anywhere. The ladies washroom, Saddam's bedroom, the holiest of mosques, anywhere.

[Davidu]

Man! you have patience to write all that!

[SurlyPIG]

I don't think it's so much patience as it is too much spare time...I'm home sick with the flu but I can still type a decent 70 words per minute.

[Davidu]

Sorry to hear that! :(

[SurlyPIG]

I'm not! It's -23 degrees out there. -33 with the wind chill!

[Davidu]

So, I see...

I'm used to temperatures like that... We have them around here once in a while too.