Alternatives To Iraq War?

[castille]

What alternatives would you have taken, in the Iraqi issue?


1) Maintain sanctions (which killed 1.2 million people)
2) Invade Iraq, topple Saddam
3) Take off sanctions from Saddam
4) Take off sanctions from Saddam and let him conquer Kuwait in order to appease him
5) Assassinate Saddam. Hire bounty hunters from Nigeria and hitmen from France to kill him.
6) Go nuts and blow up the entire Middle East

[tusaki]

7) invade iraq and tell the people you want to rid the earth of a ruthless dictator. (as opposed to lie to them)
8) invade iraq and tell the people you want better control of the oil flow.
9) invade iraq and tell the people you are also going to do more about domestic issues.

The war itself is not wrong, it's the reason over which the war was fought and the way towards it which is wrong.

[Bayou]

Okay 1st off sanctions were imposed on Sadaam AFTER he invaded Kuwait.
I would vote taking sanctions off Iraq originally, I mean at least from a pseudo political chest game point of view he might have actually aquired the WMD that was the justification for going to war with Iraq in the 1st place (although the fact Sadaam was able to support his economic hegemony despite the sanctions shows that lifting them wouldnt have increased the possibility of him aquiring WMD, as he already had the econmic means to).

I actually wont vote until you put in a fifth option or replace one of the other redundant questions: take out sadaam in the original gulf war, you avoid attrocities commited against the Iraqis, sanctions and an invasion of Kuwait!
thats what I vote for.

[eburchelli]

I like the assassination but without France. Unless Cherac is also a target. But what would have happened to Kuday and Usay? I guess the US invasion was the best of all the dreadful choices.

[darwinist]

10) Wait until Weapon inspectors report on WMD. Finding that 'he' didn't have any.

Then start a debate, From a USA point of view. Who say 'You Shall Not Kill', but if you do kill. We will kill you.

So how from a Moral stand point, can you say. You have to stop killing your citizens. ???

[Impenitent]

"thou shalt not MURDER"... big difference

happy fetuses scream "don't kill the citizens"

LOL

[Eulux]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,)
10) Wait until Weapon inspectors report on WMD. Finding that 'he' didn't have any.

Then start a debate, From a USA point of view. Who say 'You Shall Not Kill', but if you do kill. We will kill you.

So how from a Moral stand point, can you say. You have to stop killing your citizens. ???<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There's my pick.

Where's the choice for: Focus on the real terrorists (Osama Bin Ladin), and Saudi Arabia.

[Paavo]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
Where's the choice for: Focus on the real terrorists (Osama Bin Ladin), and Saudi Arabia.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

But the TV never told me that was possible!
[/sarcasm]

We all know why that's not a choice. -__-

[Impenitent]

don't worry, this party is just starting... soon there will be bombs and war all over the middle east...

kill 'em all...

it is what we humans do best...

[Sean]

Hey Castille, did you have Saddam help you make this poll? It sounds like the sort of democracy he'd have. According to your choices we can either blow stuff up, or beg him for mercy.... :rolleyes:

I think a point was well made above. The war in Iraq should have been the war in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, etc. The true terrorists with the money and the people are in countries that seem more like our best friends, than our worst enemies.

[Eulux]

Hmmm...I don't even see need for a "war on terrorism."

[Colleptic]

1: Surround Iraq with an international UN force.
2: Cut off all trade, from all countries and all resources. No person can get in or out of the country, period.
3: Drop mass propaganda within the country via air drop. The propaganda would state: “Your country is at siege until Saddam leaves power. After he leaves power the UN will help restore a representative government, in which, his assets and money will be use to build this. The reform will set up elections and a system of self government. THE CHOICE IS YOURS!
4: Saddam would be contacted, if he reacts, if he starts war and if he tries to inhibit the people from freedom of choice, he will force international invasion. The invasion will be an occupation to remove him and create a free state of affairs in Iraq.
5: If he does not react and the people remove him, whether by violence or peace, that is their revolution and the UN force would only be there to install peace afterwards.
6: The theoretical and most presumable outcome would be, the self-righteous-megalomaniac Saddam would resist.
7: If the resistance happens, the invasion would happen, just as the US did and he would be removed through force.

This might seem a bit harsh, but it gives one option, the possibility that the people of Iraq might react for themselves. The hope would be that the military's role would be one of reform and peace, rather than destruction then the reform. If they don’t or cannot, at least that option was offered. The propaganda that was dropped, over about 1 month, should have educated the people of the truth about Saddam and of what the UN’s intentions are, for Saddam would try and lie to them about the ladder.

[Suburbanite]

It is naive to think it is only Oil. There are tons of other businesses making a fortune here too =D
I said the best solution was to invade. Though, I wish America was doing a better job. It isn’t the idea of war I have a problem with, it is the poor leadership, diplomacy, and the sinister “real” reason Bush went to war, because I know I wouldn’t have gone to war for the reasons he is, and I don’t mean WMDs. It is naive to think it is only Oil. There are tons of other businesses making a fortune here too =D
I said the best solution was to invade.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eulux,)
Hmmm...I don't even see need for a "war on terrorism."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>War on terrorism, no. Militant Islam, yes.

[castille]

Keep in mind that every second you wait, Saddam kills more people. Second passes, whoops another Iraqi goes through the human meat processor. Not that anyone cares, since politics are more important than lives....

Fast decisions, fast decisions. Invade, or ignore it.


Also, invading Iraq itself during the Gulf War '91 was illegal, since the UN action was to liberate Kuwait.

[darwinist]

castille
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Keep in mind that every second you wait, Saddam kills more people. Second passes, whoops another Iraqi goes through the human meat processor. Not that anyone cares, since politics are more important than lives....

Fast decisions, fast decisions. Invade, or ignore it.


Also, invading Iraq itself during the Gulf War '91 was illegal, since the UN action was to liberate Kuwait. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It is as if these are the only 2 options are availbe.

What you are ignoring, is the Moral high ground. Who are the US to tell, anyone what is Morally right?

Did there not make promises and Murder the peolpe, who where living there before them ?

Or there invasion of Haiti ?

Or any of the other many things the USA have done.

[Bayou]

Oh I have come up with a better option to choose: I chose america never help train and fund the Baathist party and Sadaam in the 1st place!
aaah well now I am done with this useless hindsight 20/20 issue.
Yup every second the United States helped install the murderer of another Iraqis civilian......

[castille]

So if I give my neighbour a knife which he claims is "for cutting vegetables", then he kills somebody with that knife, am I responsible?

What about the man who sold a gun legally to a future killer? Would he be arrested?

The US isnt responsible because some mad dictator.


Also, officially the Soviet Union sold more weapons to Saddam than the US did. So since you want to play the blame game, I blame Moscow for unleashing a mass murderer on the world.

Also you can blame England and France for unleashing Hitler on the world, since their unfair terms to Germany in WW1 caused Hitler to come into power.


If we go further into time, the US isn't to blame for Saddam. Its the Ottoman Empire, who lost Iraq to the British in 1919 and thus caused the creation of an Iraqi state and thus Saddam....


The blame goes on. I love you leftists; all you do is smoke pot and play the blame game.

[Bayou]

Well I am glad you figured out the futility of the question, perhaps if you had figured this out before making this subject, you wouldnt have wasted your own time Castille.
Ah the pessimist who chases his own tale.