I wanted to start a thread to discuss alternatives to a war with Iraq. We all have discussed the possible war with Iraq at great length on another thread. I don't want to do that here. What I want to do is hear from those that are against a possible war with Iraq. I want to know what they suggest we should do instead. So far I have only heard from them criticism of the possible war (how it is more proof of US hegemony, its about oil, etc.). I understand and hear you there. But at some point the criticism is exhausted and we get back to a very serious issue that the world has to deal with. Namely, a sadistic maniac with some of the worst weapons man has created. So please tell us what you would do if you were the Kofi Annan? What would you propose the world do to address the threat that Saddam presents? What would you propose the world do to help the innocent people of Iraq? But please don't throw out something totally impractical like "just lift the sanctions" or "ask Saddam to hold an election" (believe it or not someone did say that). Please be specific and tell us how the world could implement your idea. Thanks.
It's useless to discuss this - anyone that brings up an interpretation that doesn't enthusiastically parrot the Presidental sales pitch, or dares to ask why politicians universally understood to be serial liars througout history have suddenly been reformed, is drowned out by mindless attacks and criticized as being, ironically, "unamerican." (what those commies need is a good "2 minutes hate" program... maybe Ashcroft could lead it) I'll just ask this: how does the quote above change if you replace the word "Saddam" with "Mao Tse-tung," "Kruschev," "Stalin," "Castro," "Pol Pot," or "Kim Jong-il," among others? Does it change?
"I'll just ask this: how does the quote above change if you replace the word "Saddam" with "Mao Tse-tung," "Kruschev," "Stalin," "Castro," "Pol Pot," or "Kim Jong-il," among others? Does it change?" no it doesn't change. We can check off Stalin, Pol Pot, Kruschev, etc. now Sadam and Castro are still left. So what is your point ?
Madison, look I don't want to get on a tangent about lying politicians, etc. If what you are implying is that Saddam is not a threat and therefore we should just leave him alone. Then just say that. I am truly interested to know what our (world) options are with regards to Saddam. I want to hear what your (those who are against the war) views are. Don't just wine and bitch. Step up and let it rip. Tell us a better way to solve this mess that the world is in.
Nearly 60,000 young people lost their lives in Southeast Asia based on a lie this Nation told to its people. The only thing that seem to hold American's together is a "common enemy". Take away the enemy. and we fight among ourselves. We are indeed a sad lot.
I'm not sure we can discuss Iraq without mentioning lying politicians. We probably wouldn't even be talking about it. Granted, I have zero info on what really goes on there, but maybe we can learn a bit from history. Since 91 when the US and Britain have patrolled 2/3 of Iraq with no-fly zones and weekly bombings, Iraq has not threatened its neighbors, used poisons against its citizens or to all indications, worked seriously with anti-US terrorists. Before that Hussain was a purchased US-proxy thug who was very loyal in various battles against US enemies of the hour. Also given Iraq's short but fractious history, he may be akin to Tito in the old Yugoslavia- a nasty dictator who was uniquely able to hold three separate countries (Shias, Sunnis and Kurds in the case of Iraq) in one nation. We have no indications that Hussain is remotely suicidal and this was confirmed by his not using any WMDs against the US in the first Gulf war. Its entirely different to say that he used them against his own people or Iran- neither of whom are armed to the teeth with Nukes as is the US. What does this tell us? Iraq can easily be bought (70s-90) and deterred (91-present). As far as we know, all the rest is pure propaganda, war mongering or something else.
resinate, ok so you don't think that Saddam is a danger and we can just continue to contain him as we have before. I think I understand where you're coming from. I assume that by contain you mean keep the no fly zones, the sanctions, etc. You realize that this means continued suffering for the innocent Iraqi people, right?
Babak, First, we lower our dependence on oil. Then we pull our troops out of every foreign country they are in. We bring our boys home and shut our borders. Then, when terrorists or another country perform some terrorist action against us, we nuke them -- no questions asked. If we stay in our own little country and mind our own business, then they have no business screwing around with us. Those troops in Saudia Arabia need to get off their soil. The Isreal / Palestinian problem is beyond my intelligence to solve.
Great question Babak. I'm not sure what is necessary to produce containment. From what I understand, Hussain asked permission of the US before invading Kuwait and only went forward after receiving a vaguely neutral reply from the US. Its my guess that he would likely be deterred from doing anything that would trigger a US attack even without the post-91 punishment regime. Kuwait is not the 51st US state. My personal feeling is that the economic sanctions and weekly bombings are cruel and sadistic and only hurt the Iraqi citizens. I think we should put some of the huge amount of $$ we would save by not warring and put it into developing technology to detect radioactive material across large distances and empower the international atomic agency to enforce the nuclear non-proliferation treaties which all nations including Iraq have signed.. What do you think?