Wiploc

Why? We should have gone in for what purpose?
crc

RLV

Excuse me? When are you talking about? What stuff?

Afaik, there is evidence that Saddam posessed WMD in the 80's, when he used it against the Kurds and against Iran. The US applauded or just looked the other way.

From then, there is not any firm evidence of WMD posession. The Iraqi may have had some during the Gulf War (and they were destroyed then).

Since then, no use of WMDs and no trace of them. You know, WMDs are not stable; they have to be kept in good condition, and even so some of them just expire.

When should you have gone where? What stuff was found and destroyed when?


R.L.V.
~~#~~

RLV

Oh, well, all this talk about making something to change things, so that they *might* improve (or not), it's OK if you are talking about rolling dice or betting your spare change.

But here your bet are several thousand people dead, many more seriously injured and tremendous damage to the property and lives of many people. All of this for a chance that things may go better for the Iraqis, or worse, who knows.

You know, simply leaving Saddam in place might have been a better bet. You would have avoided most of the death and destruction, and things might have gone even better. After all, Saddam *might* have died the next year and then the Iraqi people *might* have been able to revolt and achieve a better gov't all by themselves. Or they might not, but, using your own argument, "you never know what is going to happen".

Myself, I believe your bet is too costly for such an uncertain chance.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

PalestineChic19

Hey, what about Nader's suggestion? "round up all the brutal dictators of the world, and lure them to a tropical island, where they can't bother anyone." great idea. (although I'm pretty sure it was a joke)

-Samirah

Loren Pechtel

When it became apparent that Saddam wasn't going to comply.

RLV

This never happened. Saddam was complying, if slowly, unwillingly grudgingly and maybe partially. Given time to continue the inspections, he might have complied completely (maybe he already had, it wasn't proven to the contrary) or he might have expelled the inspectors.

THEN you might have a case for intervening. Not before that.

Note that the UN inspectors were the ones asking for more time. Note that they didn't accuse the Iraqi regime of total lack of collaboration. Neither total collaboration, of course; what would you expect from Saddam Hussein? But, frankly, Saddam's behaviour during the inspections was MORE honest than the behaviour of the US administration.

Btw, the US also miscomplied 1441. Shoud somebody have invaded them? Should Bush have ordered to bomb the White House?


R.L.V.
~~#~~

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by RLV
This never happened. Saddam was complying, if slowly, unwillingly grudgingly and maybe partially. Given time to continue the inspections, he might have complied completely (maybe he already had, it wasn't proven to the contrary) or he might have expelled the inspectors.

And he didn't? 1998 ring a bell?

Note that the UN inspectors were the ones asking for more time. Note that they didn't accuse the Iraqi regime of total lack of collaboration. Neither total collaboration, of course; what would you expect from Saddam Hussein? But, frankly, Saddam's behaviour during the inspections was MORE honest than the behaviour of the US administration.

They would have asked for extra time until the sun grew old.

Furthermore, Saddam wasn't complying in the critical thing of allowing interviews.

Godbert

And the US wasn’t complying by bombing Iraq for 10years and invading the country. But of course those are only minor details compared to not agreeing to force your citizens outside the country to be interrogated.

RLV

Ah, you mean you would have invaded in 1998. Funny, then Saddam was not considered to be any great danger to the world at large, neither likely to lend any WMD to any terrorist group.

You know, as these 5 years proved, that belief was quite right. Don't you think so?

The fact is that invading a country for this kind of non-compliance would have been a first, unprecedented and far out of proportion. Other countries, such as Israel (probably the US too), have committed far worse violations. No invasion so far.

Unwarranted assumption. Actually, they had asked for a quite concrete period of time.

But even if they would have to be in permanent inspection, so what? Saddam was not a danger at all under such a close surveillance.

He was, partially. And this thing was not so critical, according to the inspectors. They felt that they just needed more time. Why not give this time to them? Where was the urgency of the situation. I see no reason for such a hurry. Besides 2004 ellection, of course.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

auto-da-fe

So at what point should the Iraqi people have felt justified in wanting to get rid of SH? I mean, it is pretty apparant at this point that the guy was brutal. Mass graves, torture chambers, gassings of whole villages, etc., so if "leaving Sddam in place might have been a better bet", then how far should it have been allowed to continue? You talk about all the deaths and property damage, and I ask you how do you know it would not have been worse with SH left in power? You cannot simply say "we should just leave it alone and hope it gets better, rather than risk making it worse". Or, well, I guess you can, but then America would have never been founded, or countless other countries across the world. Hell, I don't think that there were too many countries that were founded for any other reason, other than they were hoping to make a better life, all the while understanding they could be making it worse.

I mean DAMN, what a pessimistic way of looking at things. If world policy was based on your philosophies, would there ever be any chances taken, or should we just rely on the status quo ad infinitum? It just seems that you are advocating for peace by just simply submitting to the whim of any person that happens to ruling your country.