question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[nicky g]

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Let me put it this way:

The sanctions have now been replaced with the threat of war. The sanctions were originally put in place to persuade Iraq to comply with various demands and resolutions, particularly concerning WMDs. They were not meant to simply punish Iraq. However, Clinton, Blair and Bush have all made it quite clear that the sanctions will NEVER be lifted so long as Saddam is in power. They also actively undermined the inspections process, by putting spies in the original inspections team, which they've admitted, and replacing the original chief weapons inspector, who after several false starts said he was happy with the progress he'd made and that the sanctions should be lifted, with the bullish and idiotic Richard Butler, who set the entire process back to square one before getting his team kicked out.
Now they've decided the sanctions and inspections won't work, and are going to go to war; but the sanctions/inspections process could never work because there was no prospect of the sanctions ever being lifted. Even now if Saddam did whatever it is Bush wants him to do, the war might be averted but the sanctions would remain. Surely before going to war the UK and the US should at least investigate the posibility of fair negotiations and a genuine quid-pro-quo disarmament programme in Iraq before launching this incredibly dangerous adventure.