Sanctions better than war?

[Saen]

Do you not understand that when I say “continued inspections” that means

It means status quo. What part of “inspections are not working” do you not understand? While we play the damn games people are dying left and right due to sanctions, or depending on your perspective, the brutal policies of Saddam. This is what the whole friggin post is about. While you sit in front of your computer babies are dying of malnutrition while you give lip service to more of the same.

Do you also not see how tactical military support of specific inspection teams would be vastly different than military buildup pending invasion?

What support are you implying at. At what point in time did the inspectors even call for the need of military action eccepting the threat of invasion???
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/04/blix.loose.ends/

Blix reiterated that point after the meeting, saying, " I think it is clear that there has to be constant pressure to keep the Iraqis to comply with the resolution."

Even your touted proposal of the french & Co says the same thing.

The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build-up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

The easing of sanctions is apparent in the resolutions against Iraq subsequent on their cooperation and dissarmament.

Do you fail to comprehend that immediate negotiation over specific sanctions is different than blanket lifting of sanctions based on certification of disarmament and also different than the resolution adopted last May?

I understand it clearly. But do you understand the difference between a blanket lifting of inspections incumbent upon Saddam’s cooperation versus the specific lifting of sanctions based upon the same thing? Because I do not. If he is enticed to cooperate by specific sanctions being lifted, why would he not be more enticed to cooperate to get them all lifted?

The goal of the Un resolutions is not to ease sanctions on Iraq. It is to use sanctions to keep him disarmed. The sanctions, in particular about weapons material, are not up for negotiation if Saddam has to be enticed to disarm. The whole idea is that, until Saddam is recognized as someone not wanting to acquire (to him) illegal weapons, we impose sanctions on him to deny him the materials. Negotiating does not accomplish that.

We’ve heard rhetoric from Saddam before (like when he refused to destroy the Al Samoud missiles right up until the point where he started to destroy them).

Oh, so it does not matter what Saddam says or has done in the past. We should go foreward with removing the invasion threat and continue with over a decade old inspection regime, while easing sanctions on his forced disarmament, because after all, we can’t believe anything he says anyways and we know it will work. Are you serious?

Sure, just as soon as you tell me which specific military targets need to be hit first in an invasion (be more specific than “Bagdhad” — you guys are always so overtly ambiguous about this), and explain the military command structure of the Iraqi army, with names of commanders. War is your proposed “solution”, you explicate that and I’ll explicate my non-guaranteed proposal.

Remember, I’m recommending nothing more than an overt application of the diplomatic effort your Commander in Chief promised us in that NSS. I don’t have specifics. Neither does Bush, as is becoming painfully obvious.

I just gave you several cites where specifics where givin on the implimentation of Bush’s “promise”. I asked what he needs to do different and you say you cannot get specific. This is the BS game that I specifically did not want to play. And I will not continue to do so.

[xenophon41]

his is the BS game that I specifically did not want to play.

Then stop bullshitting.

And I will not continue to do so.

OK. I’ll stay out of your thread from here on out and let you see if you can find an opponent who won’t argue with you.