Replies to post #5501 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[mainehiker]

zeev your thoughts on iraq are well founded and others here inc me have indicated those types of ideas a better alternative than "all out war"...perhpas in fact the best alternative amongst all bad ones.
Do we want to set a precendent, what with N Korea rattling, India/pakistan still smoldering in the bacground...i think not,...sadly, becasue of timing maybe Saddam wins, on running out the clock...we dont like that , but is it the safer chess move, for NOW....there is a greater risk to world instability if we go to war now, unless some drastic new element comes up re iraq; and if that happened id reconsider.

zeev you said
could be easily translated to a permanent regime of inspection, followed by UN enforcement of human rights in the same manner and a gradual removal of Saddam and the Baath's hold without an actual invasion. Inspectors would have to continue and report monthly, and any deviation would bering back the threat of forcible enforcement. In time, we protect ourselves and the rest of the world from that threat and do not go all the way to war. There are a lot of advantages to such a solution, it shows the wrold we do not enforce our will without regard of world opinion, it gives Germany and France a "way out, but we exact the price of permanent inspection and enforcement of UN presence and control until Iraq develops its own more humane form of Government.
...sounds like common sense to me..............if the powers can agree to it
MH

[jbennett53]

Zeev, Sometimes you are absolutely brilliant!

""I hope and pray you are right. I still fear the law of unintended consequences. I think alternative could be considered though. For instance the current pressures on Iraq right now, and the French and German insisitence on non violent solutions, could be easily translated to a permanent regime of inspection, followed by UN enforcement of human rights in the same manner and a gradual removal of Saddam and the Baath's hold without an actual invasion. Inspectors would have to continue and report monthly, and any deviation would bering back the threat of forcible enforcement. In time, we protect ourselves and the rest of the world from that threat and do not go all the way to war. There are a lot of advantages to such a solution, it shows the wrold we do not enforce our will without regard of world opinion, it gives Germany and France a "way out, but we exact the price of permanent inspection and enforcement of UN presence and control until Iraq develops its own more humane form of Government.
""

[Tom K]

Zeev, I respectfully disagree with your position.

First, your statement that "the current pressures on Iraq...could easily be translated into a permanent regime of inspection..." is flawed.

Saddam wouldn't have agreed to the current inspection regime without the escalating presence of U.S Military forces on his borders AND the real possibilty of invasion. The logistics of maintaining the current state of military readiness over the long term would be impossible, and as time passes, our threats would lose credibility.

I can't begin to imagine how the UN could implement and maintain an enforcement of human rights let alone the gradual removal of Saddam and the Baath Party. Even with overwhelming air superiority, we couldn't protect the Shites from reprisals post Gulf War.

You also state "Inspectors would have to continue and report monthly, and any deviation would bering back the threat of forcible enforcement." So how do you square this statement with Iraq's present "deviation" - material breach? Saddam hasn't complied with 1441, he has failed to come clean, and the game of hide and seek continues to this day. Please recognize that there's a big difference between a "threat of forcible action" and "forcible action". Saddam understands this difference.

I agree that the decision to go to war shouldn't be made cavalierly, however Saddam poses a huge threat to our country even if inspectors continue to do their work - ten-fold. Why? The UN inspectors aren't the FBI. Their job is simple: inspect and verify compliance. Given the nature of Saddam's WMD, concealment in a country the size of Iraq would be very easy.

I don't lay awake at night with the fear of Saddam launching a nuke at the U.S. mainland, nor do I envision the Republican Guard storming Daytona Beach. I do fear a biological weapon in the hands of Al Qaida or Islamic Jihad - a weapon that could easily be deployed in the HVAC system of a large office building, a shopping mall, or a domed stadium. I also fear a radiological "dirty bomb" being detonated on a rooftop in one of our large population centers.

Continued inspections cannot contain Saddam. Continued inspections cannot prevent Saddam from providing terrorists with WMD. This point hasn't been addressed by the French, the Germans, or anyone else on the UN Security counsel.

We should have learned from 9/11 to expect the unexpected and to stop thinking simply in terms of conventional military threats. The next terrorist attack on our country won't be expected or conventional.