Your Alternatives to War?

[Gobalopper]

"We have them around here once in a while too."

We have them all winter though. :)

[Davidu]

LOL

Well, you're in Canada after all. ;D

[Caid Ivik]

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".

Sanctions are already on way. For about 20 years. It has fully ruined the country, but they still have enough mood to make toys like as-Samud missiles.

[Edric O]

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

I doubt it. There are plenty of reasons to believe the US has no intention of making Iraq a democratic country.

The problem with invading for liberation is, Edric, militarily enforcing Human Rights is completely against UN policy and even against HR itself.

And militarily enforcing weapons restrictions when they have no actual proof of any re-arming is NOT?

If Iraq can be invaded because top officials at the White House *know* that Saddam has invisible weapons, then what's to stop them from doing the same to any country they want?

What if they were suddenly to decide that Romania was a dictatorial regime abusing HR and invade Romania? What would stop them?

You see, that's the problem. That is the main reason why I oppose this war:

What if the US were suddenly to decide that Romania was a dictatorial regime building weapons of mass destruction and invade Romania? What would stop them?

[Caid Ivik]

If that dictator won't be you, than at least you can do so by eliminating him...

[Gobalopper]

Edric they wouldn't just decide to invade Romania. Iraq has had 12 years of "disarming" and sanctions and still nothing has been accomplished. This issue has been at the UN since September and barely anything has been accomplished.

If Romania was to be declared to have weapons of mass destruction first they would consider the stability of the gov't and the chances of misuse. Then there would be sanctions or other punishments and if Romania still didn't get the clue then something could be done militarily.

[Edric O]

And what if we did NOT, in fact, have any such weapons? How could we disarm ourselves of something we didn't have in the first place?

Then there's the "stability of the government" and the "chances of misuse"... I don't have to tell you how incredibly subjective those notions are.

[Gobalopper]

Why would they accuse you if you didn't have any?

[Edric O]

Because they needed an excuse to remove a newly elected communist government, for example.

[Gobalopper]

Communist countries like say Cuba? I don't see the US trying to attack them because they have weapons.

Edric the problem you have is that you don't seem to trust anyone. Granted thats your choice but you are unable to look beyond that. What is the point in arguing if you don't trust anyone? You will just keep coming up with even more wacky scenarios that are unlikely to ever happen.

[Edric O]

You're right. I don't trust anyone. Especially governments. But these days, paranoia is a virtue.

As for Cuba... do I have to remind you about the failed invasion attempt at the Bay of Pigs? Nowadays they don't bother to invade Cuba simply because it isn't worth the effort. But if a nation such as Romania, which is right in the middle of Europe, suddenly rejected capitalism, they would be quick to try to overthrow its government.

[Davidu]

The notion of trust is variable.

There are times when you have to trust your enemy and times when you are not allowed (by the circumstances) to trust yourself.

In politics you musn't trust anyone. That the rule of gold I may say.

In the army you can trust the others, at home you can trust your friends and family...

The politics is so dirty that if you want to survive (as a politician) you musn't trust anyone.

So, as a politician Edric is right, as a "civilian" (I couldn't find a better word) he is wrong.

[Gobalopper]

Well it depends on how they came to power. If they overthrew the old gov't then yes I could see a possible invasion but I don't think the US would get involved. If they were elected I don't see any big deal, aren't there still countries in eastern Europe that are communist?

[Davidu]

Nope.

All countries are democratic and capitalistic.

In the former USSR the number of cummunists in the parliament is larger than anywhere in Europe, but they aren't communist countries.

[SurlyPIG]

I doubt it. There are plenty of reasons to believe the US has no intention of making Iraq a democratic country.

What about the former Yugoslavia? Or Afghanistan? They didn't conquer it as a territory as you claim they will. Afghanistan is now enjoying democracy and basic HR thanks to the US-lead war. What reason do you have to believe what they do with Iraq will be any different?

And militarily enforcing weapons restrictions when they have no actual proof of any re-arming is NOT?

If Iraq can be invaded because top officials at the White House *know* that Saddam has invisible weapons, then what's to stop them from doing the same to any country they want?

The UN! That's why this war didn't start LONG ago. And though they may not have found the WMDs Iraq has, they have seen Iraq use them before, such as the slaughter of over 2000 Kurds and a missle hitting an American camp in the Gulf War, killing all inside be they soldiers, nurses, doctors, media, or civillians. So what happened to those weapons? Do you think Iraq just destroyed them on it's own? *laughs* They're hiding them, obviously. Though the UN inspectors havn't found them, they have found proof that Iraq is not cooperating. Only now, as the war draws nearer, does Iraq offer partial cooperation as a dodging tactic. The UN inspectors don't even have free access to all of Iraq, they need clearance from Iraqi officials. Don't you wonder what happens while the Iraqi army "checks the clearance" of the UN inspectors? Exactly what happened in the intercepted radio transmission; "Move the ammunition..."

You see, that's the problem. That is the main reason why I oppose this war:

What if the US were suddenly to decide that Romania was a dictatorial regime building weapons of mass destruction and invade Romania? What would stop them?

The UN. Right now the oil-grubbing greed of France, Germany and Russia and the underhandedness of France is stopping them rather effectively. The US and Britain are doing what is right. If a proposal for war is put forward, let's hope that the nations on the UN-SC have the moral capacity to do what is right for the world. Not for themselves, such af France.

[zamboe]

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.

What evidence you have that there is a killing process in Iraq, if you don't know there has being a continous growht in the Iraqi population, so ?. It's really interesting that you only care about those possible HR violation in countries that have huge oil reserves.

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.

Why do you want to focus the issue on Saddam.

You have to be able (i hope) to understand that the resolution 1441 and this whole problem is about the possible existance of WMDs. Do not try to divert the attention to "your personal" concerns. There is no point to debate about your personal concerns, or would you be ready to debate about my personal concerns ?.

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.

Iraqi people is hungry because the sanctions that US impossed to Iraq with the UN support (Canada included), not because Saddam does not want to feed them.

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.

Well that's your preferences. I don't have any media. In order to have an opinion I listen/watch/read all kinds of opinion, including the ones I don't like or I don't agree. It seems that you only see/watch/read what you like. That will keep you away from making your own opinion.

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.

Your lack of knowledge of this matter is still sourprising me.

US publically declared (Collin Powell) that is going to be the US that will control the Iraqi territory, not the UN. Besides the UN said that if the war starts without it's approval they will never send any UN peacekeepers because that would be interpreted that they support the fact that the US atacked and invaded a country without it's authorization.

Remember the ridiculous statment, that Bush made "We won't stay one more day than necessary", aka, we will control, invade, rape, explote as long as we want.

Cultural clashes will happen, it's just a matter of time.

When you said that the Kurds will have it's own state to govern, that's exactly what the US wants, they want the desintegration of Iraq, so they can control the oil resources better.

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.

I am tired of telling you that I don't hate the US or the US citizens, you go over and over again on the same issue. If you want to think so, go ahead, you seem completly unable to understand that, hate is totally different from disagreement and not believing. There are a bunch of people that I don't believe what they say, like you for example, but I don't hate you. It's beyond me that you cannot understand that difference.

Back on topic, I belive many things that the US gov says, but when it comes to foreing policy, I believe nothing, well almost.

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.

He is an expert, he can recognize that those photos mean nothing and he did it in the UN-SC, he's one of the most capable pros of WMDs. He said that those trucks mean nothing, that's a fact.

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.

Great imagination, and great fantasies too. You should go to SciFi forum. You seem to know more than anyone in this world.

[SurlyPIG]

What evidence you have that there is a killing process in Iraq, if you don't know there has being a continous growht in the Iraqi population, so ?. It's really interesting that you only care about those possible HR violation in countries that have huge oil reserves.

How about the testimony of virtually every Iraqi that leaves Iraq? How about the gassing of Halabjah where Saddam ordered his troops to murder every Kurdish man between 18 and 55 years old? You don't even KNOW anyone from Iraq! A friend of mine whose family escaped from Iraq in 1989 told me a lot about how the country is run. There's a picture of Saddam everywhere. He's always in some sort of glorified position, never used in satire like you see in the USA itself like on SNL or any other comedy show. Circulating a joke like you did (the list) in Iraq about Hussein would get you KILLED! Students in Iraq spend a portion every day "learning" about Saddam and all the great things he does. Total crap, obviously. Even some of the kids knew it. You can deny the absolute truth about life in Iraq, but you'll be snubbing out the lives of all who live under Saddam's heel.

About the oil; BS. You obviously know nothing about the oil market and global trade. If the US wanted Iraq oil and it didn't care about the HR violations, than it would have lifted its sanctions on Iraq LONG ago. They would buy the oil, Saddam would get the money. But they don't want that. Because they know that Saddam will turn right around and use the money to make weapons, kill people and tighten his grip around the throat of Iraq.

There is not a single US company that does have, has had, or is looking into Iraqi oil. In an ironic twist, there ARE some European countries that have had oil deals with Iraq, FRANCE, GERMANY, and RUSSIA to name a few. France in particular. The largest French oil company has been dealing with Iraq for years. The US never has, with the exception of the UN's oil for food program, during which the entireity of Saddam overcharched for the oil and used the extra money to make, guess what, weapons.

Why do you want to focus the issue on Saddam.

You have to be able (i hope) to understand that the resolution 1441 and this whole problem is about the possible existance of WMDs. Do not try to divert the attention to "your personal" concerns. There is no point to debate about your personal concerns, or would you be ready to debate about my personal concerns ?.

Yes. That's what I've been after all along. This is multi-sided question. This is not just about what the UN is and is not capable of doing right. This is only partially about WMDs. Im saying that, in the best case scenario, war will solve ALL of these problems. What I'm asking for is your ingenius solution for all of these that does not involve war. I mean, you must obviously have one the way you post like you're the be all and end all of worldly affairs, no?

Iraqi people is hungry because the sanctions that US impossed to Iraq with the UN support (Canada included), not because Saddam does not want to feed them.

<<laughs>>

So Saddam is the good guy now? He's just the guy that wants to feed Iraq and all the big bad westerners under the UN are stpooing him? No matter what the outside world has done and can do, Hussein has *always* taken whatever he can from the people of Iraq to arm himself. Sanctions reduce his ability to arm his regime, but there is not enough to go around. He will choose to arm himself before he'll feed his people even the minimal amount they need.

Well that's your preferences. I don't have any media. In order to have an opinion I listen/watch/read all kinds of opinion, including the ones I don't like or I don't agree. It seems that you only see/watch/read what you like. That will keep you away from making your own opinion.

WOW. You seem to know a whole lot about me, don't you? Of course I listen to opinions, but I don't form my OWN based on them. That's stupid. Opinions should be based on FACTS. Nothing else. Doing anything else will make you just one of the crowd, and though majority rules, majority is not always right. Frankly, you don't know the first thing about what I watch and what I watch and read and why.

Your lack of knowledge of this matter is still sourprising me.

US publically declared (Collin Powell) that is going to be the US that will control the Iraqi territory, not the UN.

False. Absolutely vehemenently false. Nobody in the US government let alone Colin Powell said that the US would control Iraq dictatorially after the war. Of course they'll have to control the nation until the UN can establish a new government, but a lower level official who obviously didn't have much experience with the media said that in the wrong way and the left-winged media blew it out of proportion.

Besides the UN said that if the war starts without it's approval they will never send any UN peacekeepers because that would be interpreted that they support the fact that the US atacked and invaded a country without it's authorization.

Well, shame on them. Shame on them to refuse to help a developing nation establish its own democratic government.

Remember the ridiculous statment, that Bush made "We won't stay one more day than necessary", aka, we will control, invade, rape, explote as long as we want.

LOL! Rape??? Where the HELL are you getting this garbage from? I mean I knew the SA media was anti-American but this is just unreal. You can take whatever you want to from Bush's statement, but try not to let your hate for the US get in the way of logical interpretation. Clearly he means that they will not linger on in Iraq when they are no longer needed to keep the nation stable.

"Cultural clashes will happen, it's just a matter of time."

Well, I won't deny that, Saddam will probably pull another scorched Earth maneuver and destroy everyone and everything in sight like he did in Kuwait with the oil resevoirs and in Northern Iraq at the end of the war with Iran. That's another good reason to have the UN on board, so they can send peacekeepers or establish some kind of defense when the beast is slain, so to speak.

When you said that the Kurds will have it's own state to govern, that's exactly what the US wants, they want the desintegration of Iraq, so they can control the oil resources better.

Re-read what I said about the oil comment. And I said the Kurds MIGHT have their own state. There is little chance of there being an official Kurdistan in a post-war Iraq, mostly because of how divided the Kurds are in Iraq and in Turkey.

He is an expert, he can recognize that those photos mean nothing and he did it in the UN-SC, he's one of the most capable pros of WMDs. He said that those trucks mean nothing, that's a fact.

Funny how anything said by anyone who isn't pro-war is "a fact" yet every and any person indicating a pro-war position is paranoid and lying. Hans Blix is entitled to his opinion. As is US intelligence. They are just that - opinions. There is evidence, however, that is not open to interpretation. Like the intercepted transmission, for example.

Great imagination, and great fantasies too. You should go to SciFi forum. You seem to know more than anyone in this world.

That's from reports I've seen on TV from like seven different sources. And what do YOU think the UN inspections look like? I can guarantee you they occur exactly like I described. The inspectors have to talk to Iraqi officials for them to open every door, lower every drawbridge, unlock every building, and admit them to every room. Seeing as how you know everything about this subject, ::) would you care to show me anything that suggests differently? Or are you just making assumptions?

[zamboe]

How about the testimony of virtually every Iraqi that leaves Iraq?

That's their job, you know part of the US propaganda. They'll do otherwise they'll loose their green card. It's a matter of interest not a matter of convictions.

About that friend of yours, does she/he represents anyone besides her/him?, Was she/he elected to speak for all the Iraqi people?, NO. NO. That's her opinion, but just a single one, you know, exceptions do not break rules.

About the oil; BS. You obviously know nothing about the oil market and global trade. If the US wanted Iraq oil and it didn't care about the HR violations, than it would have lifted its sanctions on Iraq LONG ago. They would buy the oil, Saddam would get the money. But they don't want that. Because they know that Saddam will turn right around and use the money to make weapons, kill people and tighten his grip around the throat of Iraq.

There is not a single US company that does have, has had, or is looking into Iraqi oil. In an ironic twist, there ARE some European countries that have had oil deals with Iraq, FRANCE, GERMANY, and RUSSIA to name a few. France in particular. The largest French oil company has been dealing with Iraq for years. The US never has, with the exception of the UN's oil for food program, during which the entireity of Saddam overcharched for the oil and used the extra money to make, guess what, weapons.

BS. I'll explain again.

Bush wants Iraqi oil.

If WMDs are removed peacefully -> Saddam stays in power, If he stays in power in some time restrictions will be eliminated, then Iraq wiil be able to resume it's production and go back in business, who will they choose to do business with ? ANYONE BUT THE US . Got it now ?, that's why for Bush and US, the destruction of WMDs is not a good business, they need to get rid off Saddam and put a puppet government to then give full access and control to US oil companies. Simply as that.

Yes. That's what I've been after all along. This is multi-sided question. This is not just about what the UN is and is not capable of doing right. This is only partially about WMDs.

Wrong. This is only about WMDs. There is nothing more.

There can be million of concerns, millions, but at this present moment, the only common issue is WMDs, do not try to divert the topic, using HR and so as an excuse.

So Saddam is the good guy now? He's just the guy that wants to feed Iraq and all the big bad westerners under the UN are stpooing him?

No, he certanly is not a good guy. He's invaded a country, that's pretty much as bad as a president can be.

Your lack of knowledge of this matter is still sourprising me.

US publically declared (Collin Powell) that is going to be the US that will control the Iraqi territory, not the UN.

False. Absolutely vehemenently false. Nobody in the US government let alone Colin Powell said that the US would control Iraq dictatorially after the war. Of course they'll have to control the nation until the UN can establish a new government, but a lower level official who obviously didn't have much experience with the media said that in the wrong way and the left-winged media blew it out of proportion.

Lower level official ?, ROFL. That was Collin Powell himself, and I have the proof.

So now you are able to judge other people's opinion, your arrogance is just beyond my understanding.

RIGTH. Absolutely vehemenently RIGHT. Read the quote :

Collin Powell: "If Saddam leaves us no choice but to disarm him by force, the United States and our coalition partners will do our utmost to do it quickly, do it in a way that minimizes the loss of civilian life or destruction of property. We will do our utmost in such circumstances, should they be forced upon us, to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. And we would take responsibility for the post-war stabilization of that country. We would be responsible for establishing and maintaining order, destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all."

We = US + UK

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03030505.htm

Well, shame on them. Shame on them to refuse to help a developing nation establish its own democratic government.

Help a developing nation ? ROFL, that would be helping a invander, a country (USA) that broke international law.

LOL! Rape??? Where the HELL are you getting this garbage from? I mean I knew the SA media was anti-American but this is just unreal.

Didn't you hear what the US soldiers (among others) that served as UN peacekeepers did in the former Yugoslavia. They raped. As they did in Panama and in Vietnam. It's war, tell me just one war where soldiers of both sides didn't violate HR as they pleased.

There is evidence, however, that is not open to interpretation. Like the intercepted transmission, for example.

You still believing that's the thruth or you are just kidding?

If the Iraq threat would be as BIG as you say, tell me why all the Arab countries (but Kuwait) in two summits have proclamed that they DO NOT WANT WAR. They know Saddam more than anyone, it's their neighbordhood.

[Gobalopper]

zamboe why not remove the sanctions to get the oil? You keep saying Bush wants oil but have shown no proof of this. There are lots of other ways to get oil and many of them do not involved thousands of US troops, billions of dollars, and lots of anti-American protests. If Bush wants oil he sure isn't going about it the easy way.

[Anathema]

It also may be to secure the regional oil industry, and the capability to put pressure on oil producing countries.

Anyway, human rights are not the point of this war. The situation in Iraq is apalling, but that doesn't give the US the right to invade. Bush recently said that he doesn't need UN permission to ensure the safety of his country. But Sadams missiles can't reach the USA. If it's about terrorism, there is no link between Sadam and the 9/11 attacks.

[zamboe]

zamboe why not remove the sanctions to get the oil? You keep saying Bush wants oil but have shown no proof of this. There are lots of other ways to get oil and many of them do not involved thousands of US troops, billions of dollars, and lots of anti-American protests. If Bush wants oil he sure isn't going about it the easy way.

"Why not remove the sanctions to get the oil ?" Simply, because in that case Saddam would still be the president of Iraq, and he has already set up business deals with European companies, such as (the most important one) TotalFinaElf from France, however those business cannot start until the sanctions are eliminated. As I said before, there are not contracts with US companies with the oil of Iraq, not because US companies don't want, simply because Saddam banned US related companies to do business inside Iraq. After this skirmish I wonder if BP (British Petroleum) would still keep it's contracts for future projects in Iraq.

That's why the Bush will not accept a peacefull disarmament, because that would mean that Saddam would still be the president of Iraq, and as a consecuence the ban to US oil companies would continue.

Proof ?. Interesting Q. Proof can be showed when the event has ocurred, when the event hasn't happened yet, there is no possible proof, all is speculation. You might accept it or not, it's up to anyone. It's the same if I'd ask proof of US not being interested in Iraq's oil.

As Earthnuker correctly said, and implied, the point is to secure the oil stock.

What would be the value of an oil company (such as Chevron-Texaco) from the US that would have few reserves of oil ? , an oil company worths as big as their reserves are, that's why the point is to secure and control the oil, not for inmediate use, but as an strategic move to secure it's participation in the business.

[stefanhendriks]

I am against war, just to point that out. However, lets say the US does attack Iraq because:

- Saddam is a dictator

- Saddam has been killing people

- Iraq has weapons of mass-destructions (although not proved)

- Iraq has the chance to disarm for 12 years but did not

I wonder, where is the line? Would that mean , after Iraq, the US should invade Korea? (dictator, PROVEN nuclear weapons, even threated US with it in a way). Oh, and China? It has a dictatorship aswell, probably nuclear weapons aswell. So why the hell don't we get them too? Sure in that dictatorship people get killed when not agreeing with the 'great leader'?

The reasons i have heared so far are to general; they do not convince me that Iraq must be attacked. If the US claims that this is not 'starting' a war but 'finishing' it, why the hell does it take so long? The US had the chance, but choose to let Saddam rule the country.

Ever heared of a 'soft curer makes dirty wounds?' I think that this is simply 'it'.

Anyhow, the US may have over 40 countries supporting it, it has even more countries AGAINST it. Just the way you look at it i suppose. Does the fact that 40 countries 'agree' (well, thats a big word, countries suddendly agree when money is on the table.. look at Pakistan) mean that its right?

I wonder why the whole commotion around Iraq is even there, there is no evidence that Saddam wants to attack the US. Hence, it does not even have the power to it. And helping Bin Laden, prove it!

I have had this discussion with many people, on different boards for to long. I better stop posting before i get RSI. :)

[Anathema]

Plus almost half of the Americans are against a non UN aproved war. Bush doesn't know, or doesn't care, what he's getting himself into.

[Gobalopper]

Earthnuker Saddam sponsors terrorists. He pays $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who regularly attack a close US ally. Just because Saddam doesn't have a missile that can reach the US does not mean he can't attack the US. 9/11 is a prime example of this. Just because there are no direct links between Saddam and 9/11 does not mean he isn't developing weapons that could be used to attack. Examples being the air drones found by the inspectors in the latest report.

59% of the US is for invading while 37% oppose. So yes almost half are against but more then half are for.

zamboe Saddam does control about 11% of the oil reserves but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries. Just read this article, having Saddam in control of oil is a bad thing. His weapons, which he is unwilling to disarm are a big factor. The problem is twofold, one Saddam controls or could control a large portion of the middle east oil and two he has shown in the past he is willing to attack other countries to do that. The UN resolutions are a way of limiting his power, if he doesn't comply something has to be done. More sanctions don't work, we've had 12 years to prove that.

Read this taken from the latest UN report:

The decision by Dr Blix to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. "Unmovic has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax," it says.

The report says there is "credible information" indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed.

Saddam is not disarming.

The whole point of these inspections is not to find Saddam's weapons it is for Saddam to prove to the inspectors that he is disarming. The UN already knows Saddam has/had these weapons from the past inspection team. It is up to the inspectors to document the destruction of all illegal weapons Saddam has. Now there has been some destruction of the al-Sammud missiles but that is only a small number of the weapons he has been known to have. Saddam has still not shown he has destroyed the weapons he is known to have and there is even evidence now that he has new weapons that weren't even reported previously. Eventually something has to be done. Sanctions and inspectors don't seem to work, what else is there?

[SurlyPIG]

That's their job, you know part of the US propaganda. They'll do otherwise they'll loose their green card. It's a matter of interest not a matter of convictions.

About that friend of yours, does she/he represents anyone besides her/him?, Was she/he elected to speak for all the Iraqi people?, NO. NO. That's her opinion, but just a single one, you know, exceptions do not break rules.

Your claim is laughable. There ARE Iraq anti-war activists in the US and they are public about their resentment for war. Some are pacifists, some have family in Iraq, some think that Saddam will use the Russian Scorched Earth tactic and basically destroy the whole country. They are a definate minority among Iraqi-Americans but they exist and they have not been deported for it. EVER. Show me a single example of an Iraqi war activist in the US being arbitrarily deporte. ONE. Let's see the proof behind this ridiculous sweeping claim.

BS. I'll explain again.

Bush wants Iraqi oil.

If WMDs are removed peacefully -> Saddam stays in power, If he stays in power in some time restrictions will be eliminated, then Iraq wiil be able to resume it's production and go back in business, who will they choose to do business with ? ANYONE BUT THE US . Got it now ?, that's why for Bush and US, the destruction of WMDs is not a good business, they need to get rid off Saddam and put a puppet government to then give full access and control to US oil companies. Simply as that.

That's an unbased prediction. An unbased prediction from a single kid without any education about the oil industry or world trade. A prediction that is blatantly contradicted by history and common sense.

Basic fact of trade number one: The product goes to the person who will pay the highest. France's oil companies are puny. I'm willing to bet you've never even heard of TFE before I'd mentioned it, no? But I'll bet that names like Conoco-Phillips, British Petrolium, and Husky Oil are more familiar, right? Look in the stock market for the value and quantities of TFE, then compare that to the top three American oil and energy companies. The disparity is absolutely humungous. France, Germany, and Russia COMBINED could NEVER buy and use Iraq's oil in anything less than centuries. Hell, TFE lucked out and got a taste of Iraqi oil and it rocked TFE to the top of the French market. Besides, France is nuclear. Europe doesn't consume very much oil anyway, with the exception maybe of Russia, but their per capita consumption of products like gasoline or diesel pails in comparison to the likes of the USA, Canada, or even Australia because of the geographic differences.

Saddam was practically BEGGING the US to buy his oil through the UN's Oil for Food Program. And what did he do when they did? He overcharged and kept the money for himself. And guess what he did with that? Bought weapons from selfish, underhanded nations like France. This might be news to you, but it takes MONEY and DEMAND for a nation to buy a raw material like crude oil. France has little demand for oil. This may also be news to you, but they're 90% nuclear. Russia is too poor to buy Iraq's oil. And Germany's a combonation of the lack of the two.

This war is going to cost bush BILLIONS, just like Gob said. It's cost him virtually all the international popularity that he DID have, and even some support in the US. Why in the name of sanity would he start a war instead of lifting the sanctions that HIS country pushed for and simply buying the oil? That whole oil argument is so, so stupid, and it's just an indicator of the level of competance of all these war protesters around the world. People are too quick to offer their opinion on things that they know nothing about. It is best to keep your mouth shut and SEEM like an idiot rather than open it and remove any doubt.

You're not a stupid person, Zamboe. I don't know why you keep clinging to such an erroneous argument. Don't believe everything you hear from the media. Just because there's a large chunk of people that think this is a war for oil doesn't mean that they're right.

Wrong. This is only about WMDs. There is nothing more.

There can be million of concerns, millions, but at this present moment, the only common issue is WMDs, do not try to divert the topic, using HR and so as an excuse.

WTF are you talking about? I MADE this topic. And it's about ALL the issues I raised. You've posted your ideas about what to do about WMDs, why do refuse to post your ideas about how to best deal with Saddam? I mean, surely you must have some, the way you walk around saying that everyone else is full of BS.

Lower level official ?, ROFL. That was Collin Powell himself, and I have the proof.

So now you are able to judge other people's opinion, your arrogance is just beyond my understanding.

RIGTH. Absolutely vehemenently RIGHT. Read the quote :

<Followed by quote>

HAH! All he talked about was stabalizing the nation when the war is over and establishing peace. And he's certainly right that it WILL primarily be their responsibility because most of the other countries in the world are too impotent or self-serving to get on board and do what is obviously right. Did he say a single thing about the US dictating the future of Iraq? NO. Did he even allude that they wouldn't help form a democracy in Iraq? NO. You only interpret that he did because you hate people like him so much. Read it for what it is, not for what YOU think it COULD be.

Help a developing nation ? ROFL, that would be helping a invander, a country (USA) that broke international law.

HELL no. It would be helping Iraq elect leaders for themselves. That's the kind of stuff the UN is supposed to stand for. They're basically saying, "No we won't help this unstable nation form a democratic government." I guess the US and the UK might have to do it themselves. I don't want that, but if it's necessary, they are capable of it.

Didn't you hear what the US soldiers (among others) that served as UN peacekeepers did in the former Yugoslavia. They raped. As they did in Panama and in Vietnam. It's war, tell me just one war where soldiers of both sides didn't violate HR as they pleased.

Among others such as CHILE, Canada and every single country that has ever participated in a peacekeeping mission. And they are isolated incidents driven by decay into insanity. What do you think happens when you tell soldiers they're going to stop people from fighting but then tell them they're not allowed to use force? They go nuts! The death, the slaughter, the inhumanity has its toll. The leader of the UN mission in the Rwanda genocide, a Canadian named Romeo Dollaire was institutionalized after what he saw. A group of Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia killed a sixteen-year-old Somalian male that snuck into their compound. They are islated incidents, Zamboe. And they are NOT restricted to the US soldiers as you have undoubtedly been inclined to think.

You still believing that's the thruth or you are just kidding?

If the Iraq threat would be as BIG as you say, tell me why all the Arab countries (but Kuwait) in two summits have proclamed that they DO NOT WANT WAR. They know Saddam more than anyone, it's their neighbordhood.

Because they're not much better dude. In most of those nations, Blasphemy is punishible by DEATH. They repress women as much as Saddam, and some of them do similar things to their citizens. They've had summits to try and show unity, but have failed miserably as the leaders of these 'civilized countries' get into shouting matches and start throwing insults like children. Iraq is just the worst of them. It's their scapegoat. If Iraq is reformed, they might think they're next. Or their people might be motivated to revolution. Kuwait wants war. Look what happened to it in the Gulf War. Israel wants war, same thing. They KNOW saddam is a threat. Israel is actually a civilized place and they support the war, even though Iraq will probably attack them again like they did in the Gulf War to try and provoke them into joining so the Arab world will join him. The entire friggin' region is a basket case of rotten fruit. Saddam is just the most rotten, the most decayed and the most vile.

Earthnuker, you epitomize the average war protester. You come in here and have no reservations about bashing Bush, calling this a war for oil and spewing other falsehoods, yet you ignore my demand that you actually post YOUR ideas and YOUR alternatives to war (hence the title of this thread). How do YOU think the US should go about stopping terrorism? How are they to stop Saddam from slipping weapons to terrorists? What do you think should be done about Saddam, his HR violations, the Iraqi people starving, etc. War would solve all these problems. Sure it'd create a couple temporary ones, but do you have any better ideas? ::)

So far only two (2) people of the anti-war opinion have actually posted their ideas on what should be done; Zamboe and Edric. And Edric is the only one who has actually answered ALL the questions (Zamboe keeps dodging what to do or not do about Saddam)