If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Options for Iraq
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, yesterday saw several hundred thousand people around the UK "March for Peace", in London alone it is believe that over 1m either marched or attended the rally in Hyde Park.
So the question I have is, now what?
If we take from this that there is a huge groundswell against armed intervention and that the politicians will listen (even though we know they won't), what are our options?
Hans Blix report clearly states that Iraq isn't complying, yet agin, with the UN resolution passed by the scurity council. This latest resolution finds him guilty of maintaining WMD, inspite of all previous resolutions, and a ceasefire, calling for him to disarm. In his report, Dr Blix highlighted the "missing" chemicals, the development of missiles, the incomplete declaration and various other breahes of resolutions.
However, in spite of this two-finger salute to the UN, some countries and their people are anti0military force.
So let's look at some options, and see if we can come up with some others...
1. Sanctions.
Usually the first port of call of "peace", sanctions are a form of isolation. They have now been in place on Iraq for over a decade. To what end?
Well, some of his military harware is falling to pieces. yet he has still managed to further develop missiles. And his houses seem in a good state of repair, so they haven't achieved much there.
There is also a huge number of deaths which for which sanctions are a contributory factor. It has been claimed that over 200,00 children have dies in the past 10 years as a result.
So really, if we want to save lives, we can rule out sanctions.
Added to this is the fact that they rarely, if ever, work properly. South Africa being a prime example. Again it was the poorest that suffered.
2. Internal Insurrection
Possibly the best option in terms of allowing self determination. Yet the people are hardly going to rise without bloodshed, so lives again become an issue.
Added to this is their lack of arms, and the fear of rising against a toturing, murderous regime which has put down every attempt at insurrection since they took power. Most notably back in 1991.
So no arms, no motivation and of course the US couldn't been seen to help, as that would constitute intervention.
3. UN Inspectors.
Which have failed for 8 out of the last 12 years. Even now, Dr Blix is being given the run around, as he himself says. So would more Inspectors and more time really amount to anything, or would it just create further delays?
If Saddam really wanted to comply, he would have opened his doors by now. Fully.
4. No Change.
Is this really an option, to leave things as they are?
More children to die, more palaces for Saddam and more space for him to continue to develop weaponry...
~~~
So what other options are there, and what do you think we should do?
But please let's not harp on about what the US did in the past in terms of support, nor on Palestine or anything else. They are not the issue here. the issue is, how should we compel Saddam to comply with the UN?
So the question I have is, now what?
If we take from this that there is a huge groundswell against armed intervention and that the politicians will listen (even though we know they won't), what are our options?
Hans Blix report clearly states that Iraq isn't complying, yet agin, with the UN resolution passed by the scurity council. This latest resolution finds him guilty of maintaining WMD, inspite of all previous resolutions, and a ceasefire, calling for him to disarm. In his report, Dr Blix highlighted the "missing" chemicals, the development of missiles, the incomplete declaration and various other breahes of resolutions.
However, in spite of this two-finger salute to the UN, some countries and their people are anti0military force.
So let's look at some options, and see if we can come up with some others...
1. Sanctions.
Usually the first port of call of "peace", sanctions are a form of isolation. They have now been in place on Iraq for over a decade. To what end?
Well, some of his military harware is falling to pieces. yet he has still managed to further develop missiles. And his houses seem in a good state of repair, so they haven't achieved much there.
There is also a huge number of deaths which for which sanctions are a contributory factor. It has been claimed that over 200,00 children have dies in the past 10 years as a result.
So really, if we want to save lives, we can rule out sanctions.
Added to this is the fact that they rarely, if ever, work properly. South Africa being a prime example. Again it was the poorest that suffered.
2. Internal Insurrection
Possibly the best option in terms of allowing self determination. Yet the people are hardly going to rise without bloodshed, so lives again become an issue.
Added to this is their lack of arms, and the fear of rising against a toturing, murderous regime which has put down every attempt at insurrection since they took power. Most notably back in 1991.
So no arms, no motivation and of course the US couldn't been seen to help, as that would constitute intervention.
3. UN Inspectors.
Which have failed for 8 out of the last 12 years. Even now, Dr Blix is being given the run around, as he himself says. So would more Inspectors and more time really amount to anything, or would it just create further delays?
If Saddam really wanted to comply, he would have opened his doors by now. Fully.
4. No Change.
Is this really an option, to leave things as they are?
More children to die, more palaces for Saddam and more space for him to continue to develop weaponry...
~~~
So what other options are there, and what do you think we should do?
But please let's not harp on about what the US did in the past in terms of support, nor on Palestine or anything else. They are not the issue here. the issue is, how should we compel Saddam to comply with the UN?
0
Comments
When he goes, his sons are going to be worse.
If we invaded Iraq and created a democracy, they would probably be better off.
None of this gives us the right to attack a sovereign state.
Who spends most developing weapons of large scale destruction? If this war goes ahead, what new developments will the Americans be field testing?
If can't account for all _our_ weapons - how can we expect a country full of theiving arabs to be able to.
If you wish to liken this to the appeasment of Hitler, which countries are we allowing Hussain to annex?
Does an attack by the US (against a country that has never attacked the US) count as intervention?
You surprise me, MoK. You usually argue from a position of pragmatism, but you now want our government to pour money into a war which will leave our own citizens short, on the basis of the bizarre notion that Saddam Hussein is going to launch a Blitzkrieg against the other Arab nations? The downtrodden Iraqi people? The time for evincing sympathy for the plight of the Iraqis was twenty years ago. Now, it looks like crocodile tears. If you really want a bloodless method of destabilising and overturning Saddam, keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq, snooping around and undermining Saddm's appearance (to the Iraqis) of absolute power. If he manages to get rid of the inspectors by satisfying the UN's demands, we still win.
Cool; 'cos 50 guys in white cars that say "UN" on them can destabilise an entire country's security apparatus and despotic regime!
Damn, order me some of them for North Korea..... :rolleyes:
Bribery.
Or rather, in geopolitical terms: danegeld.
We remove sanctions, we open up our markets to Iraq, and perhaps even put a couple of MNCs in there to invest and create a free market infrastructure.
Saddam has no choice but to accept the West's help (would he refuse money and removal of sanctions?) and we open Iraq up by trade and commerce.
This also helps our monitoring of what he can have. He doesn't have so much he can hide if the country is more open. Maybe we recommend UN sponsored democratic elections?
Bush and Blair's plans for the recovery of Iraq results in cheaper oil prices as the region stabilises; war is no longer imminent, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. It no longer seems to be a war against Arabs, and the Gulf region becomes less tense.
Just a thought.
Y'all'd be surprised...
Anyway, that would just be the thin end of the wedge if an extended stay was required (and it would). Any continued UN presence would also improve the odds of your own scheme becoming reality.
This isn't intended as a discussion about what the US did in the past, Israel or any other side issue. This question is about Iraq, WMD, Non-compliance and International laws (you know, those Saddam flauts). If you want to discuss any of the other issues, there are plenty of threads around to do that.
2. Thanks to DJP for answering it.
3. Joe. You mentioned Inspectors again, but as I said they clearly aren't actually working. Hell even Hans Blix says so, how many times did he refer to Iraq's non-cooperation? They aren't even a pimple to him, he can mess with him until the year dot without breaking sweat. And he has been doing so for many years now.
I am trying to be pragmatic. I have ruled out warfare as an option, for this question, in an attempt to identify other options. Each of those I mention has been shown to fail, so what I am after is alternatives. Effective alternatives.
I don't want to see a war, but at the moment it appears to be the only alternative given the failure of the diplomatic efforts to date. Unless this thread can prove otherwise that is...
Han's blix's report was actually very optimistic, saying that there were great improvements in Iraq's cooperation.
How invaluable this site has suddenly become in the international decision making process. Somebody inform Hans quick!
He still pointed out that Iraq wasn't cooperating, most notably when it came to the items he had already identified as being in their possession. They still need to make significant improvements. Worth noting that at this stage the only weaponry handed over, and the only weaponry proved to exist were those which the Inspectors found, something which is not their job. They are there to disarm, not to locate off their own back. Blix pointed out that the declaration was long on volume but short on substance...
But thanks for not answering the question
Just like Clandestine. Blix says non-cooperation is happening, if that is enough for you then fine because it's certainly enough for me.
What Blix is also saying, though, is that he wants more time. Which I think we should give him. In the end, we should wait for his final decision, not make our own. That is what I think we should do.
Although I actually don't see the problem with option 4: he's not threatening us, so why should we threaten him. You all know the story about a tiger trapped in a corner.
And if he says that he cannot do anymore, would you support war?
If not what would you do to make Saddam comply?
You mean leave things as they are? Even though that threatens the lives of innocents and sanctions don't actually hurt Saddam?
And yes, I know the story of the Tiger but I'd rather have him trapped than running free...
If you are so concerned with the lives of all these innocents, what do you think our full scale invasion will do to them? I suppose you think theyve developed immunities to our depleted uranium shells, cruise missiles, and cluster bombs since the last time we used them there?
Or, to go further, what shall we then tell our leaders to do about all the other despotic regimes our respective successive governments helped put in place around the globe and continue to support financially or militarily (or both)? Shall we just keep invading country after country till we "free" every oppressed people which we helped oppress? Think our multinationals would approve?
Becomes a slippery slope right quick, doesn't it? Consistency is, after all, such a bugbear.
Because now would be a good moment to follow that saying. You haven't offered anything here, have you?
My comments about deaths as a result of sanctions were to highlight to contradiction between your "anti-war will save lives" approach and one of the alternatives, which will (and actually has) also cost lives.
Rather than bleat on, just as you have on other threads, about how bad the US is, or how inconsistent their actions are, why not just answer the damn question?
If you can.
My take on the likely alternative to fullscale war - from what ive sat in on over at NATO this whole weekend - should the actual "war" be averted (though military ground action has already been going on regardless of what our leaders are doing at the UN) is a face saving "retirement" for Saddam to some third country. Much as what befell Mobutu a while back.
So, now how bout answering the questions put to you?
Yeah, having the minders dropped from 5 per inspector to 1 per inspector... :rolleyes:
Probably no more than it did the first time...which is a whole lot less than Saddam does in a year in power...
Agreed, that would be preferable.
How do you make that happen?
The one about uranium shells?
I agree with you, they are an horrific weapon and have been shown to help cause some cancers. However, I also expect us to give our soldiers the best chance of survival and these shells do their job. I haven't forgotten that the best result of warfare is ensure that your own soldiers survive. The aim isn't to ensure the survival of your "enemy".
Of course, sanctions on medical supplies don't help that be treated. And not all cancers are terminal, so treatment is possible.
Unlike a bullet in the back of the head
And you really don't need to lecture me about our Govts inconcistency. I know that, but then that wasn't the question I put, was it? I was asking about how we effect the implementation of international law with regards Iraq.
My trouble is that we are attacking Iraq but leaving places like North Korea alone- the US is not protecting anything, certainly not those 'downtrodden Iraqis' (ill come to that in a minute), and is merely waging a war for popularity that it knows it can win. It couldnt beat Korea, so it ignores it.
As for the 'downtrodden Iraqis', most of them are Kurds. Kurds are in Turkey. Turkey treats them as bad as Saddam. The UK government is financing a dam project in Turkey which just so happens to obliterate the largest Kurdish city. Why arent we fighting Turkey as well? Oh, silly me, theyre a "friend". Whoops.
Its true that Saddam is hiding things though; we sold him the stuff in the 80s when Iran was evil. And now Iran is good. How nice.
Again, if we are supposed to be different from dictators like Saddam we should show more concern with human life. No one is suggesting we send foot soldiers to storm machine gun nests like in the Great War, when losing 60,000 troops in a day was not uncommon. But we have gone to the very edge of the opposite side of the spectrum and the sight of body bags returning home has become such a political issue that we're prepared to use rather cruel methods in order to minimise losses. There have always been methods and ways of getting through armoured plate. It's not like if we don't use DU shells we won't be able to stop tanks; certainly not the rustbuckets the Iraqis have. But no, let’s use cancer dispensers and if another 100,000 children are killed or born with hideous deformities, so be it.
Why not just nuke them? That way not a single American and British soldier's life would be lost. We'll give the survivors of the attack good medical care and help them rebuild the country. :rolleyes:
Look I think some of you on the left are a little slow so I will explain the difference in the U.S. reaction to the North Korea vs Iraq response. Iraq has WMD and wants more so they can kill more people (his own or others). North Korea has WMD but only wants fuel oil and food to feed its people. CAN YOU FATHOM THE DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE FROM THE U.S. NOW.
That he still has WMDs remains to be seen. So far the US/UN have been able to provide, er... bugger all proof.
No he doesn't. But if he did, would you care to explain the reasons of the USA, Britain, China, Russia, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea for owning WMDs?
Seems that the fact that the UN inspectors are about compliance has been completely missed. We know Iraq had WMD. The inspectors are there to make sure that none exist any longer. So why would Iraq not be completely cooperative if they no longer had any?
You keep forgetting that Saddam has a history, Aladdin. He has used WMD. No other current leader in the world has used them. Not one.
DU is less radioactive than natural occuring uranium. That is why it is "depleted". Exposure to it is less likely to cause radiation related sickness than dirt.
It is a heavy metal, and like lead, gold, mercury, etc. it is dangerous because of that fact.
However, claims for DU causing sickness and death in Iraq (other than the crews of the tanks destroyed) seem likely far-fetched.
Red Cross
European Commission
DoD
Rand Report
NATO statement regarding UN report
The UN report itself stated that health risks were minimal. It is no longer at the link I had for it, however.
Again, more about why we shouln't use military force, but still a lack of an alternative.
Any chance anyone from the anti-war "group" could come up with something?
That is what this thread was supposed to be about.
[/broken record]
We should also promote and support opposition groups both within and outside Iraq.
And if the inspectors conclude that there are no longer WMDs in Iraq, the sanctions should be lifted immediately and the US and British troops sent home. As these are the best recruiting/popularity weapons Saddam has.
You won't get an answer MoK. The sheeple are willing to say what they don't like, but never willing to stick their necks out and offer an opinion.
Because, you know, that might require thought and everything.
Not to mention a pair of balls, which clearly, they are lacking.