[primitive]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Posted by Some1:

quote:

---

p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.

And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

---

I have some trouble understanding the logic here.

When you use "threat of force" to get someone (Saddam) to comply with your wishes. Shouldn't you then choose not to use the actual force when he complies.

Doesn't attacking anyway ruin the "threat of force" as a weapon in the future, as it now will be obvious for all bad-guys that him complying or not will have no influx on the decission to use that force ?