What else can we do?

Millions of people around the world took to the streets last weekend to express their contempt for military action in Iraq and what is seen as American aggression. They implored President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the United Nations to find a peaceful solution to what they view as an unnecessary war.\nWhat onlookers did not see in the march were any signs begging Saddam Hussein to cease his illegal activities and do as the United Nations has commanded for the sake of Iraqi civilians. Instead peace marchers gave the distinct impression that the United States and the United Kingdom were the bad guys.\nThe most cynical of war criticisms comes from the laughable belief that the Bush administration is solely after Iraq's oil. Anyone who truly examines this possibility would see that the costs actually outweigh the benefits in this case. The political and military expenditures for this operation will be enormous. Some are more implicit than others, as this debate will possibly cost our President his next election. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of articles in recent weeks from those who project the cost of this war to reach $100 billion. In both respects it probably would have been cheaper to send troops into Venezuela and put down the protests, if oil was really our motive. \nAnother of the more popular anti-war beliefs: We're rushing into war and not putting enough resources into peaceful solutions. As you've no doubt heard dozens of times, 12 years and 17 United Nations resolutions is not quite a rush to war. We had hoped Hussein would have disarmed without street-fighting in Baghdad in 1991 when we sent weapons inspectors. Instead, they were led on a wild goose chase for four years while Iraq denied it had biological weapons. It wasn't until Hussein's son-in-law defected and revealed the real biological weapons program that anything was accomplished. (Soon after, the defector was caught, executed and dragged through the streets.) Our lesson from this was that inspectors cannot simply disarm Iraq unless its fascist dictator cooperates or force is brought upon him.\nIt wasn't until we saw massive American military buildup that Saddam started to make some concessions. So I ask: Why is it that every time the United Nations or the United States threatens force upon Saddam Hussein, peace marchers around the world suddenly try to convince the "Butcher of Baghdad" we are actually unwilling to follow through? If you were Saddam Hussein and you saw that world opinion might not be against you, why on Earth would you disarm peacefully?\nI can't help but think about what Saddam's reaction to the marches might be. He's slaughtered at least a million of his own people since he came to power, and it is the Americans that are hated. He gases his own people and the world marches for his own protection -- no doubt without intent. Humanitarians condemn the United States for being war mongers, yet he has invaded Iran, Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia. People weep for the innocents that would die in an attack, while he practices some of the most disgusting and inhumane acts in the world. \nIraq is the only known government in the world that actually keeps professional rapists on payroll to extract confessions from family members. \nAll of this and still there aren't any marchers asking him to disarm for the sake of peace. Instead they blame the United States, who has allowed this man to toy with the world for 12 years while we've tried every diplomatic solution and nothing has worked. I have to ask: What other means can be employed to peacefully disarm Saddam?