BS: Saddam Has Got To Go

Subject: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:38 PM

This is first BS thread I've started and it might be my last:

About the onlt thing people seem to agree on in the Iraq conflict is that Saddam is a despicable ruler who has murdered, lied and cheated. I'm sick of him. Maybe we can all agree that he has to go.

If everyone in the world stood up against Saddam, protested against Saddam, and stood up to Saddam- it could force him out of power either by exile or an uprising of the Iraqi people.

By standing up to Saddam we could have a peaceful solution.

I say Saddam has got to go!@#$^#$

What do you think?

-Richie

Subject: RE: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:49 PM

You're right, Richie. Which is why economic sanctions that do the most harm to the Iraq middle class without doing anything to weaken Saddam's power are stupid. It might keep Saddam to poor to invade another country, but it won't get him out of power. Predominantly middle class non-violent uprisings were responsible for getting rid of Suharto and Marcos -- why not add Hussein to that list of former leaders unmissed?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Yep, Richie, I agree!

So do lots of the world's leaders. The list is too long and would read like an all star boogie-man team.

But, like Nicole eluded to, there are other ways of creating changes in leadership than blowing up the countries that they lead.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:

"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power — not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."

The rest of the article is here:

Bringing down a dictator

I was interested to see that the NATO bombing actually strengthened Milosevic, whereas the peaceful tactics that were used succeeded in ousting him where force did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

if only it could be like Chouchescu in Romania...(who remembers the pictures of the palace HE had?)

I'd sure hate to pay the armies necessary to chase around the world, taking out all the wannabe dictators.....but although Saddam is 'almost' as bad as they come, I do not like the precedent we are setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:29 PM

Great link, Carol.

Sadly, we rarely see history lessons on the success of non-violent uprisings, and there have been many. History classes would have you believe the world only changes through wars and bloodshed.

Non-violent movements can also build the foundation for fully democratic societies in a way that military force simply cannot hope to. The people are fully prepared to take political responsibility -- and no question about it, it builds great leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM

Right on Bobert! You go girl, NicoleC!

Violence begets violence... Wouldn't it be a terrible shame for a 'war on terror' to illicite more terrorism around the world? Let's not shoot from the hip, George... OK?

War is not the answer, in these troubled times... IMHO, we ought to agressively seek compromise with our allies untill we have an effective consensus, and be wholeheartedly truth-serving with diplomacy. If only our current administration could listen... and be respectful in doing so.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM

Perhaps a strongly worded recommendation that Saddam get counseling...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:56 PM

Awww, c'mon leprechaun. You know that wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:57 PM

How many American troops does it take to change a dictator?

346,721...346,720 to GET there and one to....oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

Well, this has been bugging me for quite some time, and since nobody else is saying it, I guess I will:

YES, Saddam should be taken out.

NO, bombing Baghdad is not a good way to do it. What's needed is a task force or trained assassins, CIA/Navy Seals/James Bond style, to go in undercover and kill the bastard. Same thing should have taken care of Bin Laden. And don't tell me the US doesn't have that sort of operative, or could not do it if it wanted to. Just ask Salvador Allende...

The very fact that Bush is not taking that route but instead wants to unleash US armed forces on innocent civilians should make it abundantly clear that this is not about Saddam.

It's about controlling the oil and setting the precedent for US world hegemony. I quote again Danny Glover's courageous and true statement at last Saturday's New York peace rally:

"Our democracy has been hijacked by an administration of liars and murderers."

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:22 PM

It's well documented that in a country under fire its citizens stiffen their resistance. The process of overwhelming that heightened resistance creates huge 'collateral' damage.

I just wish that we, as human beings, explored other ways than war of accomplishing objectives- even just being open to alternatives would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Kudzuman
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:32 PM

Thank you Michael...well said as did Danny Glover. I always loved John Prine's observation that so many "Christians" just don't get...."Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reason for..." but then again hypocrisy (and Daddy's money) can get you elected President and thats the American way I reckon. Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power ? not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course those Americans who practiced civil disobedience by marching in New York got arrested.....and then there is the "Patriot Act II" being covered up by Ashcroft and cronies...sounds like echoes of Hitler to me

Kudzuman

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM

If Saddam has got to go, he should wipe with his left hand like the Ayatollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Cluin
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:22 AM

If you've got the Shockwave plug-in, and need a chuckle about now, check out the Bushie Hill cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:43 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.
As far as non-violent protest as a means of overthrowing unpopular dictators, the quoted examples are certainly impressive. Now, does anyone have any facts and figures on those that DIDN"T work?
Balance is important.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Little Robyn
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:45 AM

Where's MacGyver when you need him?
Robyn

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:48 AM

Michaelr definitely has the right idea. There are safer, more efficient, and overall better solutions to one madman with power than to bulldoze our way through innocents to get to him, regardless of where said madman might be located.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:51 AM

Good question, Troll. Of course, I'm guessing it's still less than the number of groups that have lost violent wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 08:24 AM

Guest,

You said:
It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.


I believe the law was changed as a result of 9-11. Can anyone corroborate?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.

Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly the case that it is against American and international law for the US to wage a first strike attack on another country unless it is currently being attacked by that country, and/or it has permission from the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:39 AM

oops. here's the poop on assasination...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0921/p11s1-cods.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:44 AM

Does anyone know if there are any international laws to which we are a party that address the issue of assasination?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

There's a good article today at
Sobaka, sort of on this subject:
Black Arabs and Bandit Kings: Iraq, America, & the Legend of Charlemagne Peralte. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

Interesting links, Lepus Rex. I found this part, in particular, very enlightening...

"But one person did seem to learn something from all this: Smedley Darlington Butler...one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the Marine Corps and recipient of two Medals of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal, became unspeakably disillusioned with his accomplishments. His service record reads like an itinerary of all the "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian interventions" Wilson's enlightened and honourable foreign policy brought to a benighted world.

After his retirement in 1931, Butler wrote, "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

"Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.""


"Humanitarian intervention" indeed, says I.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:30 PM

It's tough indeed to right the wrongs
Removing heads where none belongs
But much much greater is the pain
To kill the people who's heads remain

When times are tight we seek a fight
And mercenary timings right
Philanderers thus mock the peace
The slippery slope of war to grease

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:41 PM

Here's another thread started about "a real peaceful solution for Iraq
" - with this link to a proosal that deserves attention, from the World Citizenship Foundation.

But in the light of the rather excessive number of threads about Iraq, I suggest that this thread here is the right place to talk about the ideas in that link, of anyone feels up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:57 PM

Transferred from "real peaceful":

This did seem inspirational, but I am afraid that experts in international law may give us dissapointing news on the plan's viability. This Monbiot fellow seems to have failed to notice that the site promoting the concept clearly states that the UN can have no involvement in a plan for regime change. The site has the following quote: "Danilo Türk, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, United Nations:

" This is worth trying. The UN has no mandate for regime change and cannot initiate this or host it, but if the Iraquis initiate this process, we might get involved at a later date. . . . "

The entire thrust of this plan is in the pre-overthrow phase. I can't find any reference on the main site to Monbiot proposal for seizing Iraqi assets and embassies, and giving them all to this pre-overthrow transitional government in exile. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those are not legal options, either.

In tandem with that, the problems of democratically electing a transitional government-in-exile seem massive. If it then has problems with legal standing, well then, how would it work.

Hate to be a naysayer, but, I suspect this one needs a LOT more work, into a form that would make its current incarnation unrecognizable. Glad to be wrong.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:23 PM

Regardless of who is right or wrong on substantive arguments: For those of you who have felt embarrassed by Bush's talents at international diplomacy, enjoy this delight from Chirac:

"The French president derided the Central and Eastern European countries that have signed letters expressing their support for the U.S. policy on Iraq, saying they were "badly brought up" and had missed "an opportunity to keep quiet."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/news/news_1n19iraq.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:03 PM

Chirac also threatened the countries who are seeking admission into the EU that their support of America would hold up their admission for a long time.
Rather tough talk from a man whose real purpose in avoiding a war in Iraq is to protect the billions of dollars in Iraqui oil contracts held by French companies and the quite substantial load of IOU's now being held by Saddam's govt.
The French are scared spitless that a new government wouldn't honor any of those, either contracts or IOU's.
So much for the French moral high ground.
No, I don't recall where I heard it but it wasn't on NPR or CNN. It might have been on the English language news in Tokyo.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:39 PM

Re you sure "philanderers" is the word you were after in your little poem Thomas?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it? Or am I missing something?

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:39 PM

It's a fairly normal situation in a revolution or a civil war for there to be a provisional government set up in exile, or in liberated territory, and for this to be recognised by other countries as a legitimate government.

Of course such governments often get up the nose of other governments even when thye recognise them in some degree, and this has some advantages as a mark that of the provisional government is not just a puppet. The position of General de Gaulle during World War II is a case in point.

Such a provisional government could not be a front for the UN, still less for the USA. It would have to be Iraq controlled. The legality of recognising it, and letting it control any Iraq resources outside the control of Baghdad would be interesting, but I would think there are plenty of precedents for this kind of thing happening.

As for the extent to which it would have any democratic standing, that would be limited, but once again there are plenty of precedents. What democratic standing did George Washington have?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: 53
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:49 PM

kick his ass into next week and from there outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:15 PM

The latest news reports, Kevin, are saying that the US is refusing any potential Iraqi interim government in a post-war Iraq in favor of a US Military governor and all top levels of the government filled by Americans; then the lower levels comprised of Iraqis.

Oh yeah. That's gonna go over well. Even if the intentions are entirely honorable, most of the Middle East is still sore over the whole colonial era and are NOT going to respond well. The Iraqi opposition is already objecting, but their main gripe seems to be they're afraid that a US military government wouldn't kick out all of the members of the Ba'ath Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:34 PM

Troll: I don't have the time or inclination to sign up for the free subcription, but google news shows an interesting quote: "Russian officials have pressed the US to guarantee the existing contracts. . . ."

The quote is from South China Morning Post:
http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZK4D0ABCD.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:42 PM

The Empire Strikes Back

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:17 PM

Sorry I wasn't more clear Murray... Poetic license is the cause...

Philanderer....intr.v... To engage in love affairs casually; flirt...

...and for the love of war... some will think of any excuse...

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM

Assassination is against American and international law, but Dubya really doesn't care. The fact that he's perfectly willing to assassinate suspected minor members of Al Qaeda, but not Saddam, makes you think his major goal might not be to eliminate Saddam, so much as occupy Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:30 AM

Someone else quoted this form a link supplied above:

"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power — not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."

Slobodan Milosevic - "Saviour of Serbia" or "Butcher of the Balkans"

Start of his ethnic cleansing operation in Kosovo early 1998.

UN negotiate with Milosevic and actually drag him to a Peace Conference in France, 19th March, 1999. Unsuccessful.

NATO Bombing campaign starts 24th March, 1999 to protect Kosovo Albanians and interrupt Serbian Army operations.

9th June, 1999 Serbians agree to withdraw all forces from Kosovo.

UN applies economic and aid sanctions against Serbia over war crimes.

Milosevic calls elections in September 2000, effects of sanctions and Montenegro threatening to break away from the Federation, secured the election result for the Opposition. Milosevic refuses to accept the election result, there was a national general strike, the Serb Parliament Building and State TV Station were stormed and burnt and the Army and Police refused to act against the protesters.

Had the Peace Protesters in UK and the rest of Europe been listened to when they protested at the NATO decision (Not sanctioned by the UN) to use military intervention. Milosevic's Kosovo campaign would have been successful (let's face it the UNSC wasn't going to act was it - it never does) - there would have been no humiliating withdrawal to explain - Serbia's infrastructure and industry would have been intact, there may, or may not, have been UN sanctions, but the Serb's big brother - Russia - would have seen them alright, and would have ensured that whatever sanctions were applied, remained totally ineffective. Montenegro could have been bullied into line accepting almost direct rule on dictat from Belgrade. Elections would not have been called in September 2000, there would have been no protest movement, no general strike and the Army and Police would have obeyed the orders of the country's Head of State.

So to say that: "Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience." is being slightly disengenuous.

Action, or the results of action, got rid of Slobodan Milosevic. Action, or the results of action, will get rid of Saddam Hussein. The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:54 AM

Violent actions set the framework for Milosevic's nonviolent removal. I don't think that this is a situation which will easily be repeated. It requires that the dictator in question have a weak enough grip on his people that public opinion can be expressed. I don't think that this is the case in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:18 AM

MGOH:

From your link:

"Troy Davis of the World Citizen Foundation has been sketching out an ingenious means of pulling the rug from beneath Saddam's feet."

Its not ingenious its illegal.

"The United Nations, he proposes, should help the opposition groups based abroad and in Iraq's no-fly zones to establish a democratically-elected government in exile."

The UN cannot do this it is against its Charter. How on earth he expects the people, particularly in the Southern No-Fly Zone, to conduct an election under the eyes of the Special Republican Guard and Fedyin Saddam I do not know. The Kurds in the North are not too badly off they already have their own assembly.

"This government is then given the world's Iraqi embassies and the nation's frozen assets."

Again illegal - its called theft - can't see the UN having anything to do with it.

"It gradually takes control of the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food programme."

How? How do you take control of a no-fly zone? Iraqi troops are still present inside those no-fly zones, they only exist so that Saddam cannot reinforce his actions with airpower. How would it take control of the oil for food programme?

"Saddam Hussein would find himself both isolated diplomatically and confronted by a legitimate alternative government."

No he wouldn't - the alternative government crafted under this proposal is illegal and governs nothing.

"It is not hard to see how his authority over his own people would be undermined, permitting him to be toppled more easily."

So lets understand this aright - Saddam's authority over his people comes from the barrel of a gun, the threat of imprisonment, torture and death. In short he rules by terror. To do this he requires armed forces made up of loyal cadres (SRG & FS are recruited exclusively from Saddam's own tribal group). I can see nothing in the above that even remotely tarnishes Saddam's authority let alone diminish, or undermine it. Therefore toppling him is as hard, if not harder, after implimenting this fiasco of a plan as it is now.

I read through the thread that this was originally mentioned in - I'm not surprised that Bobert liked it and praised it as classic example of someone thinking out of the box. It seems to be a fairly pointless exercise unless your proposal addresses the current situation, reflects reality and has some vestage of attainability.


This plan also ensures that democracy is less likely to be frustrated by the installation of a puppet regime."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:34 AM

Apologies I forgot to add my comment to the last part

All that plan ensures:

1. That Saddam and the Ba'ath Party remain in power in Iraq.

2. That democracy never sees the light of day in Iraq.

3. That the UN is made to look even more foolish and irrelevant than it manages to do by its own actions - or more correctly by its lack of action.

4. That the exiled alternative government is viewed by all as a puppet regime.

The long term good of the Iraqi people and the region as a whole would be better served with an administration similar to that set up in Germany and Japan at the end of the Second World War - long, difficult and costly - but it would work.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:07 PM

What the USAK is proposing to do now is illegal anyway.

Once you recognise a government you recognise that government own the embassies and frozen assets. If they belong to private citizens it nationalises them - I know that wouldn't go down too well with the USA, but it's legal enough.

And if the the UN recognises a government, there's nothing illegal in assisting it.

What I mean is, not that this plan would necessarily work as it stands, but there are ways around the legal arguments Teribus came up with.

I predict that if the US tries to run a viceroy type regime in a post Saddam Iraq they are going to find themselves in armed conflict with anti-Saddam Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:27 PM

Teribus came up with? Dang, I gotta start signing in as a Member.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:54 PM

I'm missing something here, obviously.

Uprisings by their very nature are by the citizens, no? Where does another nation come in? Even the USA from its supremely unselfish and altruistic motives.

No, I don't like Hussein. But for the sake of argument, let's postulate the unlikely notion that Bush is not too popular a figure in Europe. Let's say further that he and his administration alarm a great many governments and peoples in the world, that some consider him a menace. So- if some other citizens of some other country decide that he has to go, do we agree that they have the right, nay, even the obligation to do that?

Until and unless the people of a nation have had their fill of their own government, they're not going to rise up against it. And unless and until they do, no one else is going to accomplish it for them. Sure, assassination from the outside is possible but the people in all likelihood will not be friendly toward their liberators nor without extensive outside control will the country have learned anything about freedom. My opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM

From this part of your post, Teribus:

Had the Peace Protesters in UK and the rest of Europe been listened to when they protested at the NATO decision (Not sanctioned by the UN) to use military intervention....

To this part:

The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.

Is all supposition on your part, and there is no way to prove whether you are right about it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:34 AM

Teribus:

Why wasn't Sobodan removed before NATO bombed Yugoslavia?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:01 AM

The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after
time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.
I don't see this as supposition. The UNSC is great at passing resolutions but not too good at enforcing them as you yourself have pointed out in your spirited defenses of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs, Carol.
But, since you think that Teribus' scenario was wrong (at least I assume that's what you think), How do YOU think it would have played out?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 04:16 AM

Old Guy,

He wasn't removed before NATO took action because within Serbia he was popular, in power and had the backing of his Parliament and the armed forces. Although Kosovo was demographically predominantly Albanian muslim, historically and emotionally it is considered to be the heart of Serbia. It was in Kosovo that the Serbs turned back the Moors (Turks) centuries ago.

As I said in my post carol he was considered by some to the saviour of Serbia and by the non-Serbs in the region the butcher of the Balkans. My supposition is based on the fact that had NATO not taken the action they did Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing would have gone ahead unopposed - that would have been seen as a great victory to the Serbian people. The everyday life of the people of Serbia would not have been disrupted - there would have been no cause for public grievance, no discontent.

Why did NATO act? Because Russia would veto any direct military action against Serbia in the Security Council - The Russians had no sanction over any option open to NATO.

You are correct - they are suppositions - but suppositions that are based on logic, past history and human nature.