Saddam Says NO! to BLIX

[Dreadsox]

Saddam is as of tonight refusing to begin destroying the missiles that Hans Blix has ordered Iraq to destroy because they are in violation of the banned weapons listed in Security Council Resolution 687 (Cease-Fire Agreement).

If he does not destroy the missles what do you think should happen?

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

more sanctions means more suffering, sanctions dont work, saddam is just as healthy in every way as he used to be. his people on the other hand, are not.

and just how are you going to rally a country to rise up against your "president" if your the ones who have trade sanctions slapped on them?

 

[The Wanderer]

well everything with the UN is optional, so it's up to Saddam to disarm in good faith if and when he feels like it, I mean after all, it's self defense!

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

thats just it.

with the states on their door, and with everyone in the world knowing theyre about to attack, would it make ANY sense for them to disarm those missiles NOW? ofcourse not! it would be absurd if he disarmed anything like that now, knowing he will need whatever he can muster to thwart an imminent american attack.

now dont get me wrong. i believe those missiles should be gone, but a garauntee of peace will be needed.

 

[STING2]

I think you should have redone the options. I picked the US/UN should go to war if Saddam violates UN obligations, but I would support the US going to war if UN did not approve the action. Also, even if the UN does not vote for military action, there are already tens of thousands of British troops in Kuwait or on the way to Kuwait in addition to several thousand Australian troops, so its not just the USA. There will be a coalition without the UN if they do not vote for military action.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sting, I hate making polls. I hate making quizes for my students. THe Coalition of the Willing will be led by the US. Let's not kid ourselves. There is no war without the US.

I picked US/UN as well. I was waiting for you to point out the flaws with the Sanctions hurting the Iraqi people. You want to enlighten the thread or shall I?

LOL

 

[Dreadsox]

Come on people....answer the poll. Yes I know there are more choices we would all like to add. In my humble opinion, these are the three that are most likely to happen.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hmmm...awful quiet today.

 

[Screaming Flower]

i voted for the first option.

sanctions are worthless.

 

[Scarletwine]

I can't ever vote in polls. But I don't like any of the answers. Sanctions are only strengthening his position as people are so dependant on the Gov't.
I suppose #1 is the best of the bunch. Definitely against the third.

 

[anitram]

Come on people....answer the poll. Yes I know there are more choices we would all like to add. In my humble opinion, these are the three that are most likely to happen.

Well in that case, your question should have been: "What do you think WILL happen?" not "What do you think SHOULD happen?"

Maybe it's picky, but there's certainly a difference, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Beefeater]

I'd be interested in hearing any alternative punitive measures to be imposed on Saddam rather than sanctions?..

Beefeater

 

[Beefeater]

Sanctions are only worthless as Saddam cares not one bit what happens to his people, However the people suffer as much as they do because Saddam takes the money from his Oil Sales et al, and uses them to finance his desires for WMD.

It is confusing to see that people miss that Saddam is the great evil here.



Beefeater

 

[nbcrusader]

If sanctions are worthless (and I believe they are as Saddam stays insulated from their effect), how will continued inspections motivate him?????

 

[Klaus]

Iraq says they havent decided yet wether to destroy these rockets or not. They are still talking with UN and Blix.
They are a little confused, because exactly these rockets were confirmed to not violate the UN resolutions in February.
The difference might be that in February they calculated the distance of the Rockets including a warhead and this time without.

This is not my Opinion, just a press release translated to english.

A comment to the poll:

No matter if we think a war is the answer or not:
If military action is the answer it should be under control of the UN. Preferably with some troops of Arab countries in control. That would increase the chances for success (not of the war, it should be easy for the US to win against a country which has been internationally boycotted for 10-15 years and had no chance to buy big weapon systems). But for the aftet war phase. Problems won't be solved and Democracy only works if the people like that idea. Look at Pakistan that just starting democracy dosn't work.

It would also be helpful to convince the other big european contries if US and Britain don't want to do Nation Building (aprox. 10.000.000.000 $ ?) alone.

Klaus

 

[verte76]

Tough call. This is a complex problem with (possibly) no real "solutions". I don't like sanctions. They are hurting the Iraqi people, but I'll be damned if they're hurting Saddam. How many blasted palaces does the guy have?? If someone stuck a gun at me and forced me to pick I suppose it'd be #1.

 

[STING2]

Even if the USA goes in with a coalition of the willing rather than the UN blessing, the UN will be there in the aftermath. Thats what happened in Kosovo. In terms of nation building, I can't think of another third world country that is in a better position long term for economic development than Iraq. The Worlds second largest oil reserves in addition to two very large rivers provide lots of natural resources that people in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan can only dream about.

 

[Klaus]

STING2: youre right, Iraq is financialy in a great shape, my comparision to Pakistan wasn't because of the money, but how long democracy "survived" there - petty fast the military got the power there - then UN -> put it back to democracy, then they voted for the military dictator .

All i'm going to say is:
Be careful you can only teach democracy by living it, and get the people to a point where they really want it.
The end of the iraq war might be the begining of the real problems.

Klaus

 

[verte76]

Perhaps we can help the Iraqi people use their resources to make their country prosperous. I admit that this is probably impossible as long as Saddam is in control. The people are screwed because he doesn't give a damn about his people. One question is, though, can military action take Saddam out? Not necessarily. Desert Storm obviously didn't take him out. Two wars didn't take Slobodan Milosevic out of the former Yugoslavia. I despised Milosevic, and I despise Saddam. These guys are both jerks. The Great Dictator Quandry continues.

 

[Klaus]

verte: right - and also it's nice that the taliban don't rule afghanistan anymore Ossama is still a free man. We have no clue where he lives, if he lives and what his next plans are.
Maybee that's too scary for our people, so we entertain them with a war against Saddam?

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Verte76,

The only way US or other countries could take Milosovic out of power would be by a conventional military invasion of Serbia to take Belgrade. In both wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, this was never done. In Desert Storm, only a military invasion of Iraq to take Baghdad would have unseated Saddam Hussien. Again this was not done in Desert Storm. But, in this war, there will be an invasion to take Baghdad.

The Taliban are out of power in Afghanistan and Al Quada are on the run. Bin Ladin may still be alive, but how effective has he really been since 9/11? Seems the most he has been able to do is make little movie's and do a bit of talk radio.

 

[verte76]

Klaus--I think that the politicians should just plain admit that the search for Osama is tough, but he's the guy I want to get more than Saddam. Saddam is indeed a , but what about the who masterminded the attacks on the WTC??? I want to kick his . Do they just want to throw in the towel on him? I'm concerned about Afghanistan, too. Remember, that's where the Taliban is still centered. I think the Taliban is a bunch of jerks, too. Remember them??? They support terrorists, too, big time!

 

[verte76]

Verte76,

The only way US or other countries could take Milosovic out of power would be by a conventional military invasion of Serbia to take Belgrade. In both wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, this was never done. In Desert Storm, only a military invasion of Iraq to take Baghdad would have unseated Saddam Hussien. Again this was not done in Desert Storm. But, in this war, there will be an invasion to take Baghdad.

The Taliban are out of power in Afghanistan and Al Quada are on the run. Bin Ladin may still be alive, but how effective has he really been since 9/11? Seems the most he has been able to do is make little movie's and do a bit of talk radio.

OK. True, there was never an invasion of Belgrade. I only remember stuff like the coalition taking out every bridge in Novi Sad. I remember hoping to hell they could take out Milosevic but they screwed that up.
We'll see what happens and hope it's for the best for the Iraqi people. I'm tired of them suffering. I can only imagine how they must feel. Stuff like this makes me very nervous. I can't help it. I'm an autistic and have a high anxiety level to begin with. War stuff is unbelievably stressful and scary for me.

 

[JOFO]

I think if saddam refuses to destroy the missles we should just say "oh, ok, very sorry to trouble you; we don't know what we were thinking" and then just bury our heads in the sand.

but if we really want to be harsh we sould just hit him with a feathered pilow and say "please be nice".

 

[verte76]

I think if saddam refuses to destroy the missles we should just say "oh, ok, very sorry to trouble you; we don't know what we were thinking" and then just bury our heads in the sand.

but if we really want to be harsh we sould just hit him with a feathered pilow and say "please be nice".

Maybe he's allergic to feathers.

 

[U2Bama]

I think if saddam refuses to destroy the missles we should just say "oh, ok, very sorry to trouble you; we don't know what we were thinking" and then just bury our heads in the sand.

but if we really want to be harsh we sould just hit him with a feathered pilow and say "please be nice".

But, JOFO, we must do more than apologize and bury our heads in the sand. We will owe him greatly for the inconvenience and embarassment we have caused him. And I have never heard anything us cruel, inhumane and dispicable as your suggestion to hit him with a pillow. He is a human being, for heaven's sake. Have you ever heard of international war crimes?

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

interesting results pictured here.

 

[deep]

So, lets bash the French.

 

[nbcrusader]

but if we really want to be harsh we sould just hit him with a feathered pilow and say "please be nice".

Carefull! Use a feathered pillow and the animal right activists will be protesting!!

 

[verte76]

Re: So, lets bash the French.