pacifist fron against Iraq

[Blasphemy]

so... i don't know if saddam have or doesn't weapons of mass destruction. no idea.. maybe he does... maybe he doesn't... what is obvious to me, is that he wants them. he wants nukes, and he'll go out of his way to get nukes. when he does, the entire world will be threatened. no one will be safe. the world must do something, to rid the world of such a dangerous man as saddam. and so, do you think there is any way to disarm saddam, to overthrow him, without taking the lives of thousands of innocent iraqis. is the idea of a pacifist front against saddam possible, and how will it work?

[oki]

just assasinate him or pick him up put him in front of the int. court iof justice in the Huage.support democratic groups give people more access to information,make him acceopt a UN force,whatever.a war is a war on the people of irak,who will die in massive numbers from deseases starvation and violence.all for one man and his bunch.

[Conghaileach]

The problem is, if you remove Saddam - what's to stop a worse tyrant from assuming his position?

There must be a way found to democratise Iraq. A mass bombing of the country won't do that.

[Umoja]

Publically endorsing and training rebels in the country, and if they take over, offering, but not forcing our support to re-develop the country. It woulds seem a bit better for PR, but I'm not into Geo-politics.

[praxis1966]

There's no easy way to do it. I mean, look what happened in Afghanistan. The CIA and therefore the American government supported the Taliban 20 years ago. We gave them weapons, set up training camps, and gave them money. All so we could keep the Soviet Union from making any further advances in that part of the world.

Years later, the morons over at CNN are busy whipping up public fervor against 4 men in Buffalo who spent time in terrorist training camps (the same ones we set up 20 years ago). They talk constantly about how terrorists over there posess shoulder-fire Stinger missiles that are capable of taking down a commercial airliner. CNN doesn't mention that it was the U.S. who gave them the weapons. We did the same shit in Iraq, and that's why we're dealing with this "little Hitler" now.

My point? It doesn't matter what kind of puppet regime we set up, it's probably just going to come back to bite us in the ass later on.

Personally, I think that open dialogue and diplomatic engagement are the only way to go.Just look at what those strategies have done for Peru. Fujimori's punk ass is finally out the door, and they actually had some success with democratic elections this last year.

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. I do, however, think that bombing the entire Middle East back into the Stone Age is not a viable option.

[nz revolution]

if i knew what "fron" was maybe then i could answer

[Conghaileach]

He meant 'front'.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I feel more threatend by nukes owned by one side, than that 2 sides have them.

Let me explain this.

If one side has nukes, he has no obstacles for using it, no counter attacks by the enemy. It takes minutes to plan, prepare and fire of nukes, but it takes months to even mobilize troops.

This way the side with nukes has initiative, they can decide what happens, if the enemy starts to act more hostile, they just hold a parade with nukes and if they are tired of the enemy they just fire of a few nukes.

When there are two sides....

No power has initiative, if one side starts to get more hostile, the other side just aims it's nukes and the other does the same thing.

Not one side can fire of without facing consequences in the shape of complete destruction and extermination.

Finaly....

I wouldn't mind if Iraq had nukes. But I would support leftist geurilla's if they have the support of the majority.

If they don't have the majority, I would support them in spreading their word, even if it would be illegal.

[oki]

the taliban was an islamic group,not a democratic one.the US never supported groups that could bring change to the country,just groups that they could use at that moment.

[Pete]

Pinochet sure brought change to Chilie.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from oki on 2:09 pm on Feb. 18, 2003
the taliban was an islamic group,not a democratic one.the US never supported groups that could bring change to the country,just groups that they could use at that moment.


Because the Taliban didn't excist at the time.

They did support Mujahideen wich evolted into Al'Qaida, N.A and Talibanl.

And later on when Pakistan wanted to have new rulers next to them, they made the Taliban, with approval of the CIA.

And now you.