If Not War, Then What???? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2003, 08:36 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:46 AM
If Not War, Then What????

Hello to all. After tomorrow, when Colin Powell presents the case to the United Nations, we will be trying to decide what course to take. We have had many threads here in FYM about the evils of war and President Bush.

I think, on both sides, we would all prefer to not go to war. I think we can all agree that we do not wish to see unecessary death and destruction. SO what do you think is the best course of action?

In this thread, I would prefer to keep the WAR option out of it. Here some options to choose from, you may pick your own, but please, do not turn this into a WAR thread. I think we have enough creative minds here, to come up with other solutions.

1. Rebuild Containment set in place in 1991.
2. Add more stronger sanctions.
3. Allow Saddam to build WMD and use Detterence for future aggressions.
4. Covertly remove Saddam.
5. Support opposition movement.

Thanks....

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 09:13 PM   #2
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 12:46 AM
I asked this question months ago and didnt find many great ideas. As in great i mean workable ideas. Many people believe there shouldnt be a war but give no other alternative.

I personally think the removal of Saddam would be great. Either by killing him or by making him go away from the country or the leadership but the people of Iraq seem to be againist this. This isnt Afganistan, we wont be welcomed. I really dont think giving him another chance is the way to go. He has been givin so many chances and for us to give him another one that is giving him the power.

I really couldnt tell you what other option would be plausable. I support the war if he doesnt do what the UN wants but then again this is only one man and i would think if there was another sane man in the leadership in Iraq they would see the danger of what might happen and they would change their stance.

This is such a hard question to answer. personally i dont think there is another alternative but maybe others have seen one i missed.
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 10:27 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
I consider options one and two to be the same. They are both Containment and I think this is the best option if one were to exclude the option of war. Unfortunately, it won't work, but its the best option if you were to exclude war in my opinion, and has been the option chosen since 1991 for the most part. Option 3 is to dangerous and options 4 and 5 have virtually no chance of working. In fact option 5 would only have a marginal chance of working if the USA was heavily involved with Airpower. Option 5 is basically a war option.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:37 AM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Hello,

Well, the USA is already working on the #5 option (training exiles in Hungary, financially supporting Iraqi political parties in exile and helping them design a post-Saddam Iraq).

I also see a #6: allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, searching for and eliminating Saddam's weapon arsenal. They've only been in Iraq again for 2 months, which is a very short time. Give them more time to complete their inspections. As long as they stay in Iraq, Saddam will not be able to (re)build WMD, as the chance that the inspectors will find them is then too high (IMO).

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:58 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
The USA has worked with exiles before and made attempts to impliment option 5. They have all failed and will never succeed. If Saddam is to be disarmed, only Saddam himself or the USA military can achieve that.

The UN inspectors do not have the ability to inspect area's the Iraqi military does not want them to. They do not have weapons or tanks. For the most part inspectors found things that Iraq decided to give up in the hopes they could get the sanctions lifted. The inspectors themselves never had the ability to destroy or take any of the weapons that they found if the Iraq military had decided not to give them up. More time than I can count, were weapons inspectors blocked, while the Iraqi's sneaked weapons out the other side of buildings.

When the inspectors left in 1998, Iraq still had not accounted for 30,000 Chemical/Bio munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas.

Saddam is willing to play the game of "Hide And Seek" because he knows that ultimately he can win that game. The inspectors will probably be "cold" for a long time in the sense they can't find anything, but if they ever get "hot" in the sense their about to make a major find. The Iraqi's have the ability to block them for how ever long they need to re-hide any evidence they would be about to find.

Today as we speak with "Weapons Inspectors" on the ground, Iraqi Republican Guard Troops have been engaged in training manuvers to use Chemical and Biological Weapons. The value of goods smuggled into Iraq last year was estimated at over 4 Billion dollars. This continues everyday across most of Iraq's borders. As we talk about this, goods are being smuggled into Iraq that can aid in the development of WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 03:42 AM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The USA has worked with exiles before and made attempts to impliment option 5. They have all failed and will never succeed. If Saddam is to be disarmed, only Saddam himself or the USA military can achieve that.
Those attempts have failed only because the USA didn't want them to succeed. At the end of the Gulf War there was a strong opposition in Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Most of the opposition were sji'ites, gathered around Basra in the south of Iraq. There would be an uprising, supported by the US airforce (who would prevent the Iraqi air force from attacking). Well, the uprising came, but the USA dropped out of the promised air support. Thus, the Iraqi army could suppress the uprising.
So it's not that they'll never succeed, it's just that until today there has not been enough commitment.

Quote:
The UN inspectors do not have the ability to inspect area's the Iraqi military does not want them to. They do not have weapons or tanks. For the most part inspectors found things that Iraq decided to give up in the hopes they could get the sanctions lifted. The inspectors themselves never had the ability to destroy or take any of the weapons that they found if the Iraq military had decided not to give them up. More time than I can count, were weapons inspectors blocked, while the Iraqi's sneaked weapons out the other side of buildings.
The inspectors have the ability to immediately report to the Security Council that Saddam is not cooperating. Strong enough evidence of that is enough for a second UN resolution enabling the use of military force against Saddam.

Quote:
Saddam is willing to play the game of "Hide And Seek" because he knows that ultimately he can win that game. The inspectors will probably be "cold" for a long time in the sense they can't find anything, but if they ever get "hot" in the sense their about to make a major find. The Iraqi's have the ability to block them for how ever long they need to re-hide any evidence they would be about to find.
See my statement above. Any blocking of the inspectors will be reported to the Security Council. As for 'hide and seek', yes, Saddam may play that game. But as long as they are hidden and the inspectors are searching for them he cannot use them/show them. And he may think he can win that game, but ultimately he'll lose. Either any concealed weapons will be revealed, or he will not be in power anymore (what's his age again? Past 60?).

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 04:04 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Popmartian,

These days being over 60 is not old anymore. As for reporting Iraqi blockage to the Security Council this happened all the time in the 1990s, but action was only occasionally taken and had little to no effect in accomplishing the objective. "Cheat And Retreat" it was called. There has already been tons of Iraqi obstruction which is illegal, but steps to stop this or correct it were never taken.

Iraqi Self Propelled Artillery can move anywhere in Iraq. A single one of these Self Propelled Artillery vehicles could hold 60 Artillery shells filled or that could be filled with Chemical and Biological weapons. At any point inspectors want to inspect something the of the Republican Guard they can, but the Iraqi's will simply transfer what they need to hide to other units. Because Iraq's much of Iraq's WMD program can be mounted on mobile trailers or in Iraqi military vehicles and need be, be transfered to other units not being searched, the Iraqi's can continue to both hide and hold on to the capability to use WMD weapons. The only thing that is going to make Saddam comply if he does not want to is the USA military.

As for attempts to use only the US Airforce to support Iraqi opposition after the Gulf War, such an effort probably would have failed. While the USA Airforce has great capabilities it cannot make up for the lack of strenth that the 12,000 Shiat forces and the 50,000 Kurds in the North had. Such forces were weak, had no tanks, and would not be able to overthrow the Iraqi regime if only the US airforce was involved. Bringing down the Iraqi regime would take the use of USA ground forces just as it had taken USA ground forces to liberate Kuwait and temporarily occupy southern Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq lost most of its tanks, and Armored Vehicles during the 100 hour ground war rather than the 40 day airwar. The Airforce is great and can accomplish many goals but it can do everything. Iraq still had over 300,000 troops at the end of the Gulf War vs. at most 70,000 lightly armed resistance fighters, they did not have the capability, equipment, training and years of experienced like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan did. For the 1991 revolt to succeed would require large numbers of US ground troops.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 04:23 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Then why did the USA make a promise to support the opposition in the first place, if they knew they could/would not hold up to their promise?

Oh, and you're talking about reporting incidents to the Security Council in the '90s. This is 2003 and there is a new, harsher resolution. The circumstances have changed.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 09:36 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
The opposition get little of the support the USA promised them. There was a lot of dispute in the Clinton administration at the time about whether or not to use them. An invasion at the time was not on the table. Many in light of that considered this to be the best option short of invasion. But just as many saw it as laughable that it would ever work. As time and events have shown, they were right. Especially after the debacle the 1996 Coup attempt was in the Kurdish Northern part of Iraq.

"Oh, and you're talking about reporting incidents to the Security Council in the '90s. This is 2003 and there is a new, harsher resolution. The circumstances have changed."

Thats true. But realize also that Iraq has had four years to hide and develop ways of concealing weapons of mass destruction in addition to being experience and enlightened from its previous UN inspection experience. Indeed, the circumstances have changed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 12:51 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Dreadsox:
That's the best question i've read on the iraq subject!

A complete iraq blocade would be my favourite.
So that the UN can ensure that no military stuff can be imported in the Iraq. Food and medicine should be allowed to pass this blocade of course.
Of course this blocade has to be more than just noble words.
We would need military to enforce it (ships patroling in the sea and ground troups at the borders of Turkey, Iran, ...)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 01:50 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:46 AM
I would like to see Saddam removed, as I would like to see every cruel leader removed. I think, though, that the Iraqi folks have to do that themselves. If they are the ones who were kept "in order", and their brothers the ones who were killed, they have to get up and try a revolution. If CIA or Mossad or whoever does this, it will not earn them respect, but the contrary by a majority of Iraqis, I think, for mixing into Iraq´s affairs.

I think the blockade is quite a strong one economically (Oil for food). To ensure that no military stuff is imported, there would have to be controls all around, especially illegal weapon traders (but also official ones, France f.e., a country that always likes to make big bucks with arms trade) worldwide should be be watched closely. The Pentagon and the NSA have the power and the necessary technique to do so.

Plus, the opposition movement has to be strengthened. Civil society has to be strengthened. With this, democracy strenghtens itself.

Plus, there has to be pressure and control from the UN. The controls of the IAEA could be continued.

Plus, solve the problem with Palestine! Give them an own state and the rest of the Arabic world will not support Saddam as a strong Arabian leader anymore - not to that extent. Make deals with people who are known to intelligence. With King Hussein from Jordania, for example, or with Arafat? Don´t support Sharon anymore, support someone who keeps Israel being the "U.S. base in the Arab region", if you want, but with less extreme policies towards Palestine.

Get less extreme, and the "enemy´s" power will crumble. Saddam will lose his allies, by not having support from his own folks, no more support from other Arabic states.

And chase the Al Quaeda for real.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 01:55 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,952
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Keep sanctions and inspectors in Iraq. International exchange of intelligence info to help them work effectively, if necessary, add military backup troops (sort of "peacekeeping" kind of troops) if they should be stopped.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 02:12 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Dreadsox:
That's the best question i've read on the iraq subject!

A complete iraq blocade would be my favourite.
So that the UN can ensure that no military stuff can be imported in the Iraq. Food and medicine should be allowed to pass this blocade of course.
Of course this blocade has to be more than just noble words.
We would need military to enforce it (ships patroling in the sea and ground troups at the borders of Turkey, Iran, ...)

Klaus

ok, saddam has been allowed food and medicine since the gulf war. guess what? he sold it so he could buy more military supplies, materials for weapons programs, etc.
his people's suffering won't stop until he's out of power. if that can be accomplished without spilling a drop of blood, that's perfect.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 02:16 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Keep sanctions and inspectors in Iraq. International exchange of intelligence info to help them work effectively, if necessary, add military backup troops (sort of "peacekeeping" kind of troops) if they should be stopped.
yep, and we had this for the last 12 years. guess what? it didn't work. he's still got his weapons and treats the u.n. like some bunch of idiots he's got on the end of a fishing pole.
saddam must be removed. be it on his own accord with a suitcase in his hand, or not on his own accord, with a cruise missle up his ass. the inspections ARE NOT WORKING.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 03:03 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
The biggest problem with containment, is that most of the governments around Iraq do not support it. Saddam made 4 Billion dollars from smuggling last year. Countries like Turkey, Jordon, Syria and even Iran facilitated this smuggling and even made a profit from it. Saddam has illegally sold oil to these countries at prices well below the market price in return to look the other way when it comes to sanctions. Attempts to re-energize containment and sanctions have failed and the hole system has been crumbling for the past 5 years.

The only reason inspectors are on the ground today is because of the real threat of war. But this is a thread that does not put this as an option. Take that option and out, and the inspectors will have to come out as well.

Deterence, Containment, Covert Action, and Supporting an Iraqi based revolt are all options and have all been acted on and or considered in the past. Deterence by itself is to much of a gamble. Containment is nearly gone, and will be enormously expensive to re-energize if there is really even a chance that it can be, covert action has been tried multiple times and has not ever come close to succeeding, and Iraqi opposition forces will never be strong enough or well equipped and trained enough to defeat the Republican Guards in battle.

Time is a factor that must be considered. Even by the most optimistic estimates, Saddam will probably have a Nuclear Weapon by 2010 if the current situation does not change. Some estimates say he could have a nuclear weapon as early as 2004.

But barring a war invasion option, the best option is containment which is nearly gone. Re-energizing this will require tens of Billions of dollars per year, maybe even more to get nations like Syria to close off the smuggling. But if Syria decides it can have the best of both worlds, US funding but still secretely continue to profit from smuggling over its border with Iraq, containment will never work.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com