StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

Stormbringer wrote:Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

This is something that I have noticed with many of the anti-war crowd. They agree that they don't want war, but when it comes to an actual, workable solution, they all either scream louder that "WAR IS WRONG" or shut up and quietly fade back into the woodwork.

And, some of them even agree that Saddam is an evil and psychotic dictator. He really needs to go. He also needs to be relieved of his WMDs, as he'd demonstrated he's more than willing to actually use them. But how do we do that? He can keep the UN weapons inspectors scurrying about until the Earth falls into the sun. Sure they'll find the occasional suspicious bit of stuff, but they'll never really hit it big.

But yes, what solutions, besides war, would work in seperating Saddam and his WMDs from Iraq?

I would propose covertly assassinating Saddam instead of a full-blown war if war was to be avoided.

I'll start with a couple of things that will not work.

1. More weapon inspectors: 12 years of this no results

2. UN troops: Kosovo nuf said

The only sure way, is to grab him by the mustache and pull him out of Iarq

I'm guessing the typical response will be "Let the Inspetors do their job" or so such thing

Clue in on that, The Insecptors HAVE done their job, and have already found over two hundred little things and about twenty realy big things that violate Resoultion 1441 and the 91 Treaty

Granted they have not found the 70,000 Liters of Missing Material or the "possible"(Possible Being if they operated their plants after 97) 140,000 Liters of Nasty things, But since even one Liter is a violat, the ten or so they have found so far should suffice



1441 Says very plainly that if Saddam Does not Prove he has completly Disarmed then he faces server conquences(France got it toned down from its inital "If you lie we remove you" to "If you lie we MIGHT remove you")

Also Note that the issue has been on the table for a year and a half, Two American Congressional Resolutions have been passed pledging support, Ted Kennady wants a third but everyone is pretty much ignoring him, Likley we will get two from the UN as well as we already have one
To put in blunty, We've been talking our sweet time to go do this

The U.S has laws about assassinating world leaders. So thats out of th question. And from what i hear he has a few doubles of himself. So we won't know if we killed the right one.

Shinova wrote:I would propose covertly assassinating Saddam instead of a full-blown war if war was to be avoided.

Well, unless we just want to give it to some one else that won't work either.

Saddam's Son is next in Line of Succesion, We don't want him in power, He's even more of a Psycholopath than Dear old Dad-Combined with twice of Saddam's Arrogence means one crazy mo-fo

Next
If you want to come up with a way of killing a man with(8 Total now) "Perfect"(Perfect meaning sugicaly alterated to look like him as closely as possible) Body-Doubles and sixteen Look-alikes(For Crowd/Long Distant Work, Look pretty much like him but not exact for some reason or another)

To date Mr Hussan has appeared in Public.... get ready, TWICE inbetween 90 and 2003

If you can think of how to Kill a man with over a hundred bunkers and those spiffy Presidential Palaces(Each of Which have a "Saddam" apprently), I'd love to know how

I would propose covertly assassinating Saddam instead of a full-blown war if war was to be avoided.

You must have taken the blue pill.

Assassinate his whole command structure or simply target his WMD facilities in raids.

You know what erks me the most about the whole thing? All these foreigners to Iraq (People like us) are trying to decide the fate of another sovereign nation as though it were a pet project. No one bothered to even contemplate what the Iraqi people want as they are the one's who will ultimately have to live with the decisions coming out of our governmental 'workgroups' and 'threat assessment committees' etc.

If the Iraqi people wants war that they themselves will have to endure in order to get rid of Saddam, then I say go for it. If they would prefer to have Saddam wither away then force a coup, then do that. We should stop pretending that we are doing them a favour (that goes for both the doves and the hawks) until we have some idea of what THEY want.

Tragic wrote:The U.S has laws about assassinating world leaders. So thats out of th question. And from what i hear he has a few doubles of himself. So we won't know if we killed the right one.

Saddam is also the commander of his nations military and more importantly, holds a rank in it. That makes him fair game.

However there have been many efforts to kill him, in one case in the Gulf war his convoy was actually hit with aircraft bombs but his armored limo survived. Assassination attempts aren't going to work against him unless Iraq becomes a much more open country and he actually shows up in public.

Shinova wrote:I would propose covertly assassinating Saddam instead of a full-blown war if war was to be avoided.

Yes, assasinate Saddam. And then what? The next few people in line are all psychotic nutjobs. We'd be exchanging one psychotic nutjob for another. And worse, we'd make him even more paranoid and hostile.

I say we go in now. before the iraqis have anymore timr to prepare for the U.S.troops. even though they still can't win. but aleast it will lower troop deaths.

CyberianKnight wrote:Assassinate his whole command structure or simply target his WMD facilities in raids.

Well, if we could find those from the air easily we could just send the inspectors to them now couldn't we. Its very easy to hid such things, that's why the Inspectors where never support to look. Iraq was support to present them to the Inspectors, and they would then be blown under supervision. That never happened, ensuring that the whole inspection process is unworkable.

for myself, I dont like war, but this one is necessary. assassination wont work, he's a paranoid, and destroying his command lines would be even harder - consider the idea of killing u.s. congress in the same time. if we want to change him, it will take war, and we should change him, cuz he's an agressive psychotic.

Enforcer Talen wrote:for myself, I dont like war, but this one is necessary. assassination wont work, he's a paranoid, and destroying his command lines would be even harder - consider the idea of killing u.s. congress in the same time. if we want to change him, it will take war, and we should change him, cuz he's an agressive psychotic.

Not to mention the fact that dropping thousands of bombs and missiles to destroy known and suspected WMD targets, along with Iraq's political and military leadership IS a war. It just lacks the ground invasion, which ensures the problume wont be solved and we can debate this on the tenth anniversary of these forums being opened.

I would favour the biological final solution. After all, he's going to die sometime.

Apart from that, I couldn't care less about Iraqi people or the region.

If he would have done any funny business, he had any time he wanted in the past decade. The only thing he wants is to stay in power.
Just let him, and in some years he'll die.

Dahak wrote:I would favour the biological final solution. After all, he's going to die sometime.

Apart from that, I couldn't care less about Iraqi people or the region.

If he would have done any funny business, he had any time he wanted in the past decade. The only thing he wants is to stay in power.
Just let him, and in some years he'll die.

The problem is that his sons are even worse than dear old dad.

theski wrote:I'll start with a couple of things that will not work.

1. More weapon inspectors: 12 years of this no results

2. UN troops: Kosovo nuf said

The only sure way, is to grab him by the mustache and pull him out of Iarq

More inspectors would work if the US stopped giving Saddam reasons to legitimately expel them (like putting intelligence agents in the teams - contrary to the UN laws, IIRC this was why Saddam was able to kick the teams out without repercussions last time).

As for Kosovo, the UN forces worked brilliantly there. It was the Americans that caused many of the problems. Discontent amongst the forces due to an American dominated command structure, the eminently ridiculous US camps. US telling everyone to stay behind so that they could march into the airport first (yeah, that worked)...

If all else fails, we could just turn Baghdad or the entire country into an inland sea of moltan glass.

Seriously, though, I'm not against war, and I think something should be done. I just personally don't know what that is.

Debates on this subject would be a helluva lot easier if we could foresee how an invasion would turn out. Unfortunately, no one seems to possess that ability, and I'm not at all confident in the fortune-telling abilities of those who confidently predict that everything will go exactly as planned.

Stormbringer wrote:Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done?

About what? Please itemize.

weemadando wrote:More inspectors would work if the US stopped giving Saddam reasons to legitimately expel them...

You don't need more inspectors. What you need is for Hussein to actually honor the terms of the cease-fire that they signed in exchange for not being forcibly deposed in 1991, and destroy the WMDs he's known to have in their presence. Had he cooperated, the sanctions could have been lifted in 1992 or 1993 and none of this nonsense would be going on. Shit, he could cooperate with the inspectors now, score a huge diplomatic victory, and leave Bush backed into a corner. It's not like those weapons will ever do him any good anyway. It ISN'T the job of the inspectors to play hide and seek with the Iraqis. That's why this whole more inspectors/more time argument doesn't work, because the Iraqis have to cooperate in order to make them work, and even Hans Blix, who desperately doesn't want to be the guy who says Iraq is in violation of 1441, has said the Iraqis are jerking the inspectors around.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done?

About what? Please itemize.

About Iraq, doorknob.

Stormbringer wrote:Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

Most people are not against war against Saddam, just against the US useing the UN as its personal foriegn policy puppet to justify Dubya's vedetta's. It would be one thing if it was world opinion that was for deposing Saddam, but its not, its the US doing what it wants for its own reasons, for its own good, that is what people object to.
That and the US does not seem to have much of a clue as to concequences of its actions.