Sadam's dilemma

[woodpam]

He's got a few weapons left - most of which won't fire much further than 90 miles. His country is surrounded on all sides by hostile forces determined to wage war it and finish him off. They are better armed than him and nothing he does satisfies them - if they can't find the weapons they sold him they say he's not co-operating and will attack. If he gives them the weapons he's got left he can't defend his country in this volatile region, and the Iranians are looking threatening. The US and UK will probably invade to get him anyway, which will mean war. Should he give the weapons up and leave the country defenceless or keep the weapons and try and fight back?

[smithers]

Is this a hypothetical question or do you actually work for MI6 and know exactly what weapons he has cos I don't beleive that you think saddam has not got chemical and biological weapons (he may not have as much as we are told but i'd bet my house that he's got enough to cause some damage). But to answer your Q in an ideal world he should give himself up and go into exile (where he could even avoid a war criminal trial for murdering his own people) and then there is no way the UK and US could invade them (I personally would not support a war against Iraq if Saddam was ousted) but unfortunately he won't and he will try to play games till the end hoping the UN are a soft touch as usual. P.S. It is interesting to know how you phrased your question as if you think Saddam is actually trying the please the UN inspectors and is a nice peace lovin guy! P.P.S. I double sare you to respond.

[RCP]

As I see it, the UN is at a crossroads here. Does it wish to become the world's police force or not. If Iraq complies with all the resolutions and disarms,leaving its defences seriously depleted, theoretically the UN has a moral obligation to step in if another nation subsequently attacks Iraq. This would then set a precedent and one would expect the UN to become more pro-active in peacekeeping/peacemaking. I'm not saying this is the right way to go, just trying to give a possible chain of events. I just couldn't see the disparate nations of the UN ever agreeing on which situations would require intervention.I'm afraid political & strategic considerations would always outweigh the moral question. So to (finally) answer your question perhaps he should give up the weapons but demand a UN presence on the border.

[woodpam]

Good answers - I can't see that backing him into a corner like this is a smart move. If we humiliate him terrorists will avenge him as Andy points out. I'm inclined to agree with TW on this that an invasion is on the agenda come what may. Smithers I agree entirely that Sadam is an appalling leader and human being. I noticed though because of a previous question that you don't believe that France Germany and Belgium could be acting in anything other than their own oily self interest, but that the UK and US don't have oil high on their not-so-hidden agenda. What makes you think that Tone and Dubya have all the integrity and the other European leaders of the countries I've mentioned don't?

[woodpam]

Smithers, I can only apologise - I mixed you up with Ned Flanders when commenting about your views on the oil v integrity issue. I'm pleading confusion caused by the Simpson's connection and the lateness of the hour rather than senile dementia.

[smithers]

Woodpam - I don't think that tone and W have all the integrity of other leaders but I don't beleive TB would send British troops to their death if it wasn't justified. He is risking his political career on this and going against public opinion which is not like him at all. P.S. I am offended that you got me confused with Ned F as he is a Bam !