Win bragging rights as a Segue Armchair Field Marshall and guess the correct start date of America’s “secret” war plan.
feb. 14th. 
It’s beautiful isn’t it?
These weapons inspections are nothing more than the cleverest intelligence-gathering exercise, ever.
Is it just my eyes?
Weapons inspectors or no, you can count on the fact that W will get his little war. It’s so pathetic.
My vote is for none of the above. I sincerely hope that George W’s warmongering efforts amount to nought and the world has the wisdom to seek peaceful and nonviolent means to solving this (and other) problems.
US Policy Gone Awry
[i]More than a decade of U.S. efforts to undermine the regime of Saddam Hussein has created only dire misery for Iraq’s 23 million people. A humanitarian crisis has ensued:
*According to the U.N. and scientific reports, the sanctions have led to the death of at least 500,000 children under the age of 5
*electricity capacity, crippled by bombs and then the lack of spare parts, stands at a third of 1990 levels, affecting hospitals, food supplies, and schools
*only 41 percent of the people have access to clean water; and
*83 percent of the nation’s schools are in dire need of repairs. [/i]
Source: http://www.afsc.org/iraq/Default.htm
And if Bush starts a war things will only get worse for the Iraqi people.
http://www.peacepledge.org
http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org
http://www.bearingwitnessjournal.com
What would you suggest?
I am in no way a supporter of Saddam Hussein. I agree that a change of regime is needed in Iraq. Is it necessary to go to war to do this? I don’t think so. The Gulf War in 1991 did not bring about a change and a decade of economic sanctions hasn’t worked either. The USA’s current warmongering only serves to galvanise the Iraqi people in support of their government now that they face a common enemy in the USA.
The USA has done little to support activism by Iraqis in exile. It also tries to justify the war on Iraq by calling it a war on terrorism. No clear links between Al-Qaida and Iraq have been demonstrated. Al-Qaida is far more active in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but has the USA ever mentioned declaring war on these countries?
I can’t pretend I know the solution, but couldn’t the billions of dollars that will be spent (and have been spent) on bombing Iraq be used to come up with a better solution.
For another idea look at this article: Butter Bombs. It is written about Afghanistan, but could equally be applied to Iraq.
[quote=“wix99”]
For another idea look at this article: Butter Bombs http://www.bearingwitnessjournal.com/reverence/butterbombs.html It is written about Afghanistan, but could equally be applied to Iraq.[/quote]
so you’re saying that if the us had dropped magazines and laptops on afghanistan, then the country would be better off than it is now? yes, i’m sure a few tons of bread would have effected the collapse of the taliban. in case you didn’t notice, most of the people already HATED the taliban. the reason they weren’t turning over terrorists(not sure how that would be logistically feasible, but that’s what your article described) wasn’t because they hated the us, it was because they were afraid of being executed.
the fact that the afghan invasion was successful in bringing down the taliban and us troops were greeted by cheering crowds in the streets makes your article look even more naive and foolish.
it might surprise you to know that many people living under oppressive regimes LOVE america(especially the ones fighting for change). that’s why during revolts(hungary '56, prague '68, beijing '89, baltics '91, iraq '96) they are praying that the us comes to their aid. i think it’s one of our nation’s greatest shames that we DIDN’T come to the aid of many of those people…especially in cases where we actively encouraged them to rise up. in fact, even with the bitterness they felt at having been abandoned by the us, in the countries where the revolts ultimately become successful(like eastern europe), they are much more pro-us than traditional us allies.
so your theory that we can get rid of oppressive regimes around the world if we can convince the people of those countries to like us has no basis in anything other than wishful thinking and an ignorance of recent history.
[quote=“Alleycat”]It’s beautiful isn’t it?
These weapons inspections are nothing more than the cleverest intelligence-gathering exercise, ever.[/quote]
goes to show the un can’t gather intelligence worth sh*t. the latest grip they have is that the us is not sharing enough of its intelligence with the inspectors. 
No. There are three roads to go down:
-
Let Saddam be Saddam and to hell with it.
-
Continue starving Iraq after supposedly defeating them in 1991. Stupid, spineless idea if there ever was one.
-
Put an end to it through military action.
I give credit to Bush for choosing the better of the last two options, and wonder how happy people would be if they had to sing praises to Saddam every morning. The Germans seemed pretty happy under Hitler I guess.
[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“wix99”]
For another idea look at this article: Butter Bombs http://www.bearingwitnessjournal.com/reverence/butterbombs.html It is written about Afghanistan, but could equally be applied to Iraq.[/quote]
so you’re saying that if the us had dropped magazines and laptops on afghanistan, then the country would be better off than it is now? [/quote]
No, I am not saying that. I am saying we need to think of different ways to solve the problem. We need to stop killing people.
This merely demonstrates the hypocrisy of the US. If the US was really interested in democracy and freedom for all then perhaps it would have been more pro-active in the situations you mentioned. The US acts according to much narrower interests (Iraq is a case in point). You need to ask yourself, why Iraq? Why not Burma or Sudan, etc.?
[quote=“daltongang”]No. There are three roads to go down:
-
Let Saddam be Saddam and to hell with it.
-
Continue starving Iraq after supposedly defeating them in 1991. Stupid, spineless idea if there ever was one.
-
Put an end to it through military action.
[/quote]
My most important point is that there is a fourth road: try to seek a nonviolent solution.
It is not considered acceptable for adults to solve their problems by hitting or killing each other. Why should it be acceptable for nations to solve their problems by killing thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people? There has to be a better way.
Think of all the money, technology and human resources that is put into the military. Surely if the same amount of resources were put into seeking a nonviolent solution one could be found. Perhaps I can phrase it differently: If I gave you ten billion dollars, access to all the latest technology and the best people for the job and asked you to overthrow Saddam’s regime without bloodshed could you do it? I’m sure many people would be willing to try.
until someone can describe what this magical solution looks like, it doesn’t exist as an option. sounds like you are going for option #1(let saddam be saddam) and hoping that one day he comes to his senses, implements full democracy in iraq, and decides to step down.
Flipper, please read my original post more carefully (see quote above). One problem is that nonviolence is not well understood in our society. It seems to be a case of shoot first, think later. Well, I suggest think first and then it may not be necessary to shoot.
Do you know about Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan? He lead an army of 100,000 men all of whom were unarmed and sworn to nonviolence to resist the British rule in what is now Afghanistan. (Also note all the men in his army were Muslims). His story is virtually unknown. If you (or anybody else) would like more information about him please send me an email or pm.
Better known are the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. There are many others. Perhaps you could have a look at the book/video A Force More Powerful
Many people are seeking nonviolent alternatives to solving problems. Please read the proposal for a nonviolent peaceforce for example.
You could also look at the example of the Quakers, Gandhians and others who have shown a very profound and deep commitment to peace and nonviolence.
If you carefully read all my posts in this thread you will see that I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I am just saying there is an urgent need to think about and pursue alternatives.
I hope it’s all just an enormous bluff, with Bush and Blair relentlessly turning up the heat until a critical mass of the Iraqi military turn on their leader, remove him from power, and commit to a course of action that will ensure he’s not replaced by another of his kind. If that is what happens, I will give Bush et al full credit for a worthy mission well accomplished. But if they really are hell bent on launching a war and actually do so, then Bush and his cohorts will deserve to be indicted for crimes against humanity.
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Gandhi and Martin Luther King faced the British and the US. But what about when you face a less enlightened regime? How did you miss this point?
So you think the US should go around liberating all oppressed peoples? And how would this be done in a non-violent way? Oppressors generally do not respond well to non-violent stimulus.
Of course the US acts in its own best interest. However, when acting in the best interest of the US the results are often at least benign to other nations and frequently helpful. I don’t need to ask why the US is targeting Iraq now. I’ve been paying attention for the past decade. Burma is not a threat presently, to the US and the Sudan, while run by a contemptible lot, also poses little threat to the US. In fact, several years ago, when Clinton was still in the White House, the Sudanese Government offered to hand OBL to the US. Idiot Clinton refused the transaction.
How does it work?
But self defense is acceptable, for individuals and nations. Yes, there must be a better way, but it takes cooperation on all sides for a better way to work.
What makes you so certain about that?
Trying means nothing without success.
Your point is a good one. I didn’t miss it. One of the problems is that people are so conditioned to accepting militarism that they never really think about alternatives. Education is really important here. It is no good saying let’s resist nonviolently once a full scale war has started. It takes time. You need people with knowledge and skills, just like they have in the military.
Please have a look at these ideas about civilian based defence in Taiwan. Please don’t react and say “But China has XX missiles and could destroy Taiwan in an instant.” or something similar. Just read and reflect on them. Realise that there are alternatives, but there are no easy answers. (I am not saying the suggestions below are how Taiwan should respond to a Chinese invasion, but they need to be considered as alternatives).
The Research Association of National Peace-Security in Taiwan
http://www.geocities.com/tranps2000/IntroCBDEng.htm
Scholars tout civilian-based defense concept
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2001/09/15/0000103043
[quote=“wix99”]look at these ideas about civilian based defence in Taiwan.[/quote] One picks one’s fights. Saddam slaughters opposition.
There’s wisdom in what Wix is saying, despite its appearance of foolish impracticality.
If you’re a follower of Jesus and have thought about his teachings you’ll see alot of similarities:
To save your life, you must lose it.
If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek to them.
If someone steals your coat, give them your cloak too.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Talk about monumental impracticalities. Not a single follower of Jesus that I know actually believes in or follows these teachings yet temples to Jesus abound in the land of Bush. Why do so many people, including George Bush, profess belief in such an impractical, improbable world view – one much more similar to Wix’s belief system than to US policy on Iraq?
As simplistic as it may sound, I think both Jesus and Wix are saying nothing more than ‘don’t treat the symptom, treat the cause.’ This notion applied to Iraq then would cause one to ask not “Well, what would you do about Saddam then?” to “Well, what is the real problem there and how do we solve it once and for all.”
Phrased differently, an answer to the recurring Saddam question then is, do you really think he’s a cause and not a symptom? Do you really think that once he’s gone things will get better in the Middle East and terrorism will diminish?
That, to me, is a foolish impracticality. We’ll soon have the chance to see whether that’s true or not.