Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
What 'other peaceful way?' Sanctions have failed for twelve consecutive years. Limited air strikes have failed, diplomacy has failed. What other peaceful method of resolution is left here? We're prolonging the inevitable while allowing more innocent Iraqis to starve and Saddam more and more time to prepare for an attack - very effectively lengthening any action that will have to be taken agaisnt him.

A sloppily executed war will invaribly lead to more trouble, but look at US military doctrine: precision strikes against military targets, minimize civilian casualties, treat POWs well, encourage disloyalty in the enemy's ranks...

This won't be sloppy. [/B]

Why didn't they remove Saddam in the war a decade ago?

Because the coalition was falling apart. The Saudis especially balked at actually invading Iraq.

Now they're pretty sure their military bases in the region are permenant , they just want to increase their domination over the region by taking over such a big country that's swimming in oil like Iraq ... And all the excuses the U.S. are claiming for this war are bullsh*t .

First they tried to link Saddam to Bin Laden & other extreme groups , then claims about Iraq developing Nukes & other weapons of mass-destruction which threatens the whole world ... Now after all the excuses proved to be a complete faliur , they just say Saddam should go off Iraq or else we'll strike ... Everybody knows that a guy like Saddam would never accept such a deal , so what's the point ? The U.S. seems very determined to strike whatever it takes , right?

Trying to link Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden is outlandish. I've said that already. The "Preemptive Strike" plan was just dumb. Bush has completely screwed his credibility here. As for Iraq's WMD programs, they're very real, and Saddam is insisting on keeping them for a very specific reason - to bully and/or conquer his neigbors. If you happened to pay attention to Hans Blix' report to the UN yesterday, you will have noticed the Iraq isn't complying fully, has a ton of holes in their reports, isn't allowing reconosance flights over Iraq, etc, etc, etc. The same old game. Why? They're hiding something. Any pshycologist could tell you that in a second.

Your description of US deployments fails to noticed that being so widely spread weakens an army, which is why that up until 9/11 Bush had been trying to get as many troops as possible BACK IN THE US. Two years ago, Europe was crying about Bush cutting back on our share of Peacekeeping troops in Kosovo and other areas of the world. You really haven't been paying attention to the news over the past three years, have you? Also, since you're still hammering on the issue of oil, you probably don't understand the nature of the world oil market. I'm not going to waste any more of my breaktime explaining it.

Other peacefull suggestions might be having the UN pushing Iraq to make some political corrections , democratic elections , trying to help the people by sending food not helping the regiem by sending money.

How do you expect to [u]force[/u] Saddam to do anything? You can't. The "sending food" idea sounds a lot like the Food for Oil program. We've seen how effectively that's forced Saddam to give up and reform. NEXT!

By the way , there are a plenty of other countries that deserve more punishment than Iraq (nowadays)

I agree. However, (and I find myself repeating things I've said in this very thread already yet once more), no other nation in the world finds itself in a situation similar to Iraq and the under the stipulations ending the Gulf War.