How's this for a solution to Iraq?

[achiral]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Saddam offers complete surrender to United Nations forces, minus the United States, GB, Australia, and Israel. If accepted, he goes into exile. Then the United States achieves its stated objective...the removal of Saddam and his WMD. And it gains the support of the rest of the world because it take George W and Friends out of the candy store (ie: oil and empire). A benefit to the US for pushing the issue is that they no longer have to worry about paying the bill of an Iraqi invasion and occupation. Saddam motivation is he gets to live and plan his return.

See...no war, no death, everybody happy (or should be, since everyone except Saddam gets what they say they want).

you talk about saddam like he's a rational person. go back to 3rd grade

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Rogue
Why is it that all you asshats constantly accuse the US of aiming to take over all the oil? Stop spewing your conspiracy BS and get to the real issues. Saddam has defied the UN and the World for years and now he's meeting head on with the consequences of it all. We liberated Kuwait and have a very large military presence there. Why didn't we take over their oil, afterall, they're much smaller and we could have done it as a thanks for saving their asses the first time around. I'm getting sick and tired of the mindless, one-sided, short sighted ignorance so prevalent in OT on this topic.

Then let the UN go in, not the United States, that will defuse the "its for oil" critics (of which I am one).

Um, again, that's fine, but since the UN doesn't WANT to, what's your next move?

Has the UN said they don't want to?

Look BACK at the news from last fall already! It was determined that UN forces could not undertake this conflict without substancial military assistance..........................(i.e. US forces and equipement)

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Rogue
The UN is there and has been there and time and again they've been misguided by the leader of a regime hell bent on death, torture and destruction. Are you so near sighted that you can't see that no amount of unarmed weapons inspectors will ever find anything that they're looking for in a country lead by one man in total control of every aspect of the country that they're looking in? Beyond that, let's not also forget that he's had over two years to hide any and everything that they are looking for. I'm willing to bet I can hide something of yours, in your own home and then task you with finding it and you may never find it, especially if I had two years to do it. President Bush put it best in his State of the Union address when he said that there are 120 inspectors trying to find WMD in an area the size of California. Can you even fathom those odds? Try finding even one specific car in all of California without any computer database or license plate tracking system of any kind, not to mention, everyone you see on the streets are opposed to telling you that they saw the car because either a) they work for the person that owns the car or b) they fear the person that owns the car will kill them and their family if they tell you anything. Now you only begin the imagine why the UN attempt at disarming and locating Saddam's WMD is futile.

You're answer doesn't address my suggestion at all. I'm not talking about inspectors.

BTW, those who say the UN has rejected occupying Iraq, what if Germany, France, Russia and perhaps the PRC commited troops to the occupation? If there is no war to be won, why do you need an army the size of the US?

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Rogue
The UN is there and has been there and time and again they've been misguided by the leader of a regime hell bent on death, torture and destruction. Are you so near sighted that you can't see that no amount of unarmed weapons inspectors will ever find anything that they're looking for in a country lead by one man in total control of every aspect of the country that they're looking in? Beyond that, let's not also forget that he's had over two years to hide any and everything that they are looking for. I'm willing to bet I can hide something of yours, in your own home and then task you with finding it and you may never find it, especially if I had two years to do it. President Bush put it best in his State of the Union address when he said that there are 120 inspectors trying to find WMD in an area the size of California. Can you even fathom those odds? Try finding even one specific car in all of California without any computer database or license plate tracking system of any kind, not to mention, everyone you see on the streets are opposed to telling you that they saw the car because either a) they work for the person that owns the car or b) they fear the person that owns the car will kill them and their family if they tell you anything. Now you only begin the imagine why the UN attempt at disarming and locating Saddam's WMD is futile.

You're answer doesn't address my suggestion at all. I'm not talking about inspectors.

BTW, those who say the UN has rejected occupying Iraq, what if Germany, France, Russia and perhaps the PRC commited troops to the occupation? If there is no war to be won, why do you need an army the size of the US?

Does the behavior of France and Germany imply that they'd have any interest in occupation? Your idea is good, but it's naive to the reality of the situation.

 

[Rogue]

Okay, but I think your issue has been addressed by other people who say that the UN has realized that it's not an undertaking that they can handle. Furthermore, for the UN minus the US to do anything of this scale is almost impossible. Let's see, Russia has little or no manageable military force that they could send, Germany's military has it's own issues with theirs, so does France. If you recall, every single UN operation that's been conducted in the past 5 years or so has easily been comprised of a vast majority of US forces. So if you're saying, let the UN take care of it and keep the US completely out of it, that's impossible, no nation within the UN has the forces to do so without us.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Rogue
The UN is there and has been there and time and again they've been misguided by the leader of a regime hell bent on death, torture and destruction. Are you so near sighted that you can't see that no amount of unarmed weapons inspectors will ever find anything that they're looking for in a country lead by one man in total control of every aspect of the country that they're looking in? Beyond that, let's not also forget that he's had over two years to hide any and everything that they are looking for. I'm willing to bet I can hide something of yours, in your own home and then task you with finding it and you may never find it, especially if I had two years to do it. President Bush put it best in his State of the Union address when he said that there are 120 inspectors trying to find WMD in an area the size of California. Can you even fathom those odds? Try finding even one specific car in all of California without any computer database or license plate tracking system of any kind, not to mention, everyone you see on the streets are opposed to telling you that they saw the car because either a) they work for the person that owns the car or b) they fear the person that owns the car will kill them and their family if they tell you anything. Now you only begin the imagine why the UN attempt at disarming and locating Saddam's WMD is futile.

You're answer doesn't address my suggestion at all. I'm not talking about inspectors.

BTW, those who say the UN has rejected occupying Iraq, what if Germany, France, Russia and perhaps the PRC commited troops to the occupation? If there is no war to be won, why do you need an army the size of the US?

OK, try to comprehend this.........................those three DO NOT WANT TO!!!! Germany has not the army to use (econmics have rendered it nearly bankrupt) France and Russia have Iraq interests and do not see any interest in getting rid of the currect regime. Russia will NEVER committ troops to Iraq and the ONLY way we'll see any French support is when they join the coalition and send some token support.

 

[Alistar7]

cant wait till we start already so all this jabber will stop.........

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

why don't we just buy him out?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Rogue
The UN is there and has been there and time and again they've been misguided by the leader of a regime hell bent on death, torture and destruction. Are you so near sighted that you can't see that no amount of unarmed weapons inspectors will ever find anything that they're looking for in a country lead by one man in total control of every aspect of the country that they're looking in? Beyond that, let's not also forget that he's had over two years to hide any and everything that they are looking for. I'm willing to bet I can hide something of yours, in your own home and then task you with finding it and you may never find it, especially if I had two years to do it. President Bush put it best in his State of the Union address when he said that there are 120 inspectors trying to find WMD in an area the size of California. Can you even fathom those odds? Try finding even one specific car in all of California without any computer database or license plate tracking system of any kind, not to mention, everyone you see on the streets are opposed to telling you that they saw the car because either a) they work for the person that owns the car or b) they fear the person that owns the car will kill them and their family if they tell you anything. Now you only begin the imagine why the UN attempt at disarming and locating Saddam's WMD is futile.

You're answer doesn't address my suggestion at all. I'm not talking about inspectors.

BTW, those who say the UN has rejected occupying Iraq, what if Germany, France, Russia and perhaps the PRC commited troops to the occupation? If there is no war to be won, why do you need an army the size of the US?

OK, try to comprehend this.........................those three DO NOT WANT TO!!!! Germany has not the army to use (econmics have rendered it nearly bankrupt) France and Russia have Iraq interests and do not see any interest in getting rid of the currect regime. Russia will NEVER committ troops to Iraq and the ONLY way we'll see any French support is when they join the coalition and send some token support.

I disagree. I believe that Russia will commit troops but only after we make some concessions like changing our position supporting Georgia's refusal to allow Russians Troops to attack Chechen Separatist strongholds in Georgia. As you know (or should know) the Russians are in a nasty war with the Chechen Separatists in which the Chechens have attacked Russian troops, Interest and Civilians with deadly regularity. Some of these attacks have been committed from these Separatists based in Georgia. However the Georgians have refused to allow the Russians to attack these Strongholds and have have barely lifted a finger to help the Russians against them. To add to the Russian's chagrin, the US has firmly stood behind Georgia's refusal to allow the Russians to take the offensive against these strongholds. I believe that is we were to convince the Georgians to let the Russians go after these Chechen in Georgian territory that in return the Russians will support a Military action against Hussien and would provide Troops to help with the occupation afterwards, which is when they could be of the most help.

 

[kuk]

Dear hagbard,

In case you become president of Iraq, would it be possible for you, sir, to give me the following items:

1 Oil rig (if possible, dated post March 3rd 1991)
3 Iraqi women, in good shape and health.
2 Camels

Thank you,
Kuk

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Saddam offers complete surrender to United Nations forces, minus the United States, GB, Australia, and Israel. If accepted, he goes into exile. Then the United States achieves its stated objective...the removal of Saddam and his WMD. And it gains the support of the rest of the world because it take George W and Friends out of the candy store (ie: oil and empire). A benefit to the US for pushing the issue is that they no longer have to worry about paying the bill of an Iraqi invasion and occupation. Saddam motivation is he gets to live and plan his return.

See...no war, no death, everybody happy (or should be, since everyone except Saddam gets what they say they want).

Hasn't he had this option all along? I have heard administration officials saying it would be better if Saddam just abdicated and went to Syria or something.......

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hagbard,

I would be satisfied with the first 4 words of your post.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Rogue
The UN is there and has been there and time and again they've been misguided by the leader of a regime hell bent on death, torture and destruction. Are you so near sighted that you can't see that no amount of unarmed weapons inspectors will ever find anything that they're looking for in a country lead by one man in total control of every aspect of the country that they're looking in? Beyond that, let's not also forget that he's had over two years to hide any and everything that they are looking for. I'm willing to bet I can hide something of yours, in your own home and then task you with finding it and you may never find it, especially if I had two years to do it. President Bush put it best in his State of the Union address when he said that there are 120 inspectors trying to find WMD in an area the size of California. Can you even fathom those odds? Try finding even one specific car in all of California without any computer database or license plate tracking system of any kind, not to mention, everyone you see on the streets are opposed to telling you that they saw the car because either a) they work for the person that owns the car or b) they fear the person that owns the car will kill them and their family if they tell you anything. Now you only begin the imagine why the UN attempt at disarming and locating Saddam's WMD is futile.

You're answer doesn't address my suggestion at all. I'm not talking about inspectors.

BTW, those who say the UN has rejected occupying Iraq, what if Germany, France, Russia and perhaps the PRC commited troops to the occupation? If there is no war to be won, why do you need an army the size of the US?

OK, try to comprehend this.........................those three DO NOT WANT TO!!!! Germany has not the army to use (econmics have rendered it nearly bankrupt) France and Russia have Iraq interests and do not see any interest in getting rid of the currect regime. Russia will NEVER committ troops to Iraq and the ONLY way we'll see any French support is when they join the coalition and send some token support.

I disagree. I believe that Russia will commit troops but only after we make some concessions like changing our position supporting Georgia's refusal to allow Russians Troops to attack Chechen Separatist strongholds in Georgia. As you know (or should know) the Russians are in a nasty war with the Chechen Separatists in which the Chechens have attacked Russian troops, Interest and Civilians with deadly regularity. Some of these attacks have been committed from these Separatists based in Georgia. However the Georgians have refused to allow the Russians to attack these Strongholds and have have barely lifted a finger to help the Russians against them. To add to the Russian's chagrin, the US has firmly stood behind Georgia's refusal to allow the Russians to take the offensive against these strongholds. I believe that is we were to convince the Georgians to let the Russians go after these Chechen in Georgian territory that in return the Russians will support a Military action against Hussien and would provide Troops to help with the occupation afterwards, which is when they could be of the most help.

Red.................nice to hear from ya.........haven't been on for quite some time............nasty health problems. My brother actually told me about all the threads going on this AM and I decided to get back in.

Anyhoo, I agree, but, my point is this, either both the US and Russia have to come to terms, or, it will never take place as Russia has NO desire to have a military presence in the ME according to Putin for economic and political reasons. In all honesty, i believe, from what I've read, that the US is not against the Russians going after the Chechnians (sp?) but, the georgians do NOT want this to happen and the US wants Georgia as an "ally" of sorts.

I honestly do not think the US and Russia are as far apart on the Iraq issue as the US/Germany France are. There have been articles basicly stating that the US has guaranteed Russia pay back on the billions owed to them by Saddam and the rest, right now, is simply political wrangling.

I may be wrong, but, i just do not see any Russian troops in Iraq anytime in the near future. Russia has enough problems economicly and politicly right now and Putin's only real concern is in his "back yard" which I expect to see him "clean up" pretty much in the same general time frame as the US goes into iraq!

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Hagbard,

I would be satisfied with the first 4 words of your post.

I'd rather see things as uncomfortable for the invaders as possible, given that choice.

 

[rufruf44]

As long as this can happen, I'm all for it. As for UN sending troops which exclude US troops, I really doubt any country would commit a large enough contingent to go against a sizable Iraqi's troops, knowing full well they won't have US forces to fight alongside with.

 

[rawoutput]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Hagbard,

I would be satisfied with the first 4 words of your post.

I'd rather see things as uncomfortable for the invaders as possible, given that choice.

What do you care, whatever happens either way, you'll still be living an American lifestyle even if you don't live in the US. Your e-mail plan will probably be intercepted by the CIA on its way to Iraq, so maybe at least someone will read it before trashing it as another useless opinion from someone who needs a hobby.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Saddam offers complete surrender to United Nations forces, minus the United States, GB, Australia, and Israel. If accepted, he goes into exile. Then the United States achieves its stated objective...the removal of Saddam and his WMD. And it gains the support of the rest of the world because it take George W and Friends out of the candy store (ie: oil and empire). A benefit to the US for pushing the issue is that they no longer have to worry about paying the bill of an Iraqi invasion and occupation. Saddam motivation is he gets to live and plan his return.

See...no war, no death, everybody happy (or should be, since everyone except Saddam gets what they say they want).

I like it. I was thinking the same thing myself.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: rufruf44
As long as this can happen, I'm all for it. As for UN sending troops which exclude US troops, I really doubt any country would commit a large enough contingent to go against a sizable Iraqi's troops, knowing full well they won't have US forces to fight alongside with.

Unfortunately, you guys are missing what I"m saying. I said "surrender"...that is, no resistance. The American troops can stay positioned where they are until Iraq is completely disarmed and the UN forces are in control. I do agree with those who say Saddam would not likely consider this option, however, nor is George W. Bush for obvious reasons (ie: he wants oil and empire).