Why War Is The Right Choice by Tony Blair

[MMMMMM]

1,000 tons + 25,000 liters + 53,000 liters + 6,500 chemical bombs + 500 tons + rocket engines: all unaccounted for.

Blix isn't presuming they're unaccounted for; they ARE unaccounted for. Whether that means they exist in whole, part or not at all is a different matter...but only a fool would presume that Iraq really destroyed them all unilaterally and without verification.

It's amazing how you seem so intent on giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein--who is quite possibly the least deserving person of the benefit of the doubt in the world today.

[MMMMMM]

As I've said before, I'm not using the Cold War context for ALL cases; I'm just saying that taking US actions out of any context (including the Cold War context) is an unfair way to judge.

[John Feeney]

The gist of Blair’s speech seems to be: War is the right choice because if we don’t remove Saddam from power the consequences will be horrible. As you might guess, my response is to ask where is the really, really solid evidence that war is the only way to remove him from power? Should we not demand such evidence before resorting to war?

A lot of dictators have been removed through nonviolent movements of one sort or another. Yet I’ve seen little evidence that the U.S or any European country has done much to enable this to happen in Iraq. I’ve seen a rare reference to the U.S. encouraging resistance from within Iraq, but no evidence of any concerted organized efforts from the U.S. to bring this about in a way that might be effective.

Is there any real reason to believe Saddam is somehow so different from other military dictators that he could not possibly be susceptible to nonviolent tactics?

Isn’t it both logical and humanitarian to demand evidence that such efforts have been exhausted before turning to war? I don' t get the sense that war is being reserved as a last resort here.

I really don’t want to argue with any of you guys about this; I just truly feel there’s something disturbing about choosing war without first showing convincingly that no other option exists for accomplishing the same thing. I think this is what we should be demanding from our government.

[Jimbo]

A lot of dictators have been removed through nonviolent movements of one sort or another. Please list two by name John and the successful nonviolent methods employed.

[John Feeney]

Jimbo, I said I didn't want to argue, and I think you're trying to provoke argument. Why you've had a hostile attitude toward me in a couple of posts I don't know. (Yeah, I know you said 'please.') But if you can shift to civility and not pop quizes, I'll humor you by citing two instances as you request. But you'll need to make such a shift by tomorrow when I'll be offline for a few days.

BTW, I probably couldn't go into much detail on the nonviolent methods used, since I haven't looked into it in great depth. I never claimed to be an expert on it. But I think when something is common knowledge, as is my assertion about dictators having been so removed, a reference to it is quite acceptable. To challenge someone, then, to prove such common knowledge is simply argumentative.

[Jimbo]

Honestly John if it was common knowledge I wouild not have asked. I am actually attempting to see if your point of view may have it's merits. Considering your response I can only assume two examples may be difficult to find. If it is not a lot of trouble I would be interested in other alternatives than either war or a lifetime of perpetual inspections.

As far as arguing with you I see no value in that at all, most liberals are firmly convinced they are taking the high moral ground and are unlikely to be swayed by either arguing nor conservative logic.

ps: Since Masons policy on these forums seems to be to hold published authors to higher standards I fail to see why my simple request should seem so threatening to you.

[John Feeney]

It's not threatening. I just don't care to argue.

It's not hard at all to come up with examples. I think Marcos and Pinochet both qualify. I'll leave it to you to research and report back on methods used. Such research should take no more than a couple of hours on the net, a couple of hours I don't have tonight. Please cite dates, central figures involved and references for each instance. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Also, your comment about authors and higher standards is again just an effort to provoke argument rather than productive discussion. Why? (I expect you to play innocent, but I'd rather you answer genuinely.)

BTW, I'm not a liberal.

[Jimbo]

Marcos-
On February 22,1986 two of Marcos’s key military supporters publicly turned against him. Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos staged a military mutiny, seizing two vital military installations in suburban Manila. This mutiny presented Marcos with an immediate challenge that his cousin General Fabian Ver, the armed forces chief of staff, wanted to meet with decisive force. Cardinal Sin, using Radio Veritas, summoned the Philippine people into the streets to block General Ver’s tanks. Thousands of civilians flocked into the streets and formed a human barricade on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), the main boulevard between the two military bases. Marcos’s troops lacked either the brutality or the political will to attack unarmed civilians, and they were effectively immobilized by the strong show of what Filipinos called “people power.”

Now this was less than nonviolent but did not require war nor inspectors. On the other hand his Army refused to inflict death and destruction on their own people unlike Saddams' Army.

I have yet to do research on your other suggestion but will complete that by tomorrow. I fully expect that his dictatorship was eliminated by violent means as well. See what I meant by not common knowledge? I expect all posters attempting to change others opinions to substantiate their claims particularly when they attribute something to "common knowledge" when I have reason to believe it may be otherwise.

[Jimbo]

Circumstances surrounding Pinochets departure are much more vague. All I could find about his deposition was this from Encarta (as was the Marcos information): In December 1989, in Chile’s first presidential election in 19 years, voters chose the Christian Democratic candidate, Patricio Aylwin. Pinochet resigned the presidency as planned in 1990. Although he did initially seize power through a military junta it appears he relinquished his post as President of Chile through voluntary democratic elections. Do you think this might happen with Saddam?

[John Feeney]

Seems to me, your quotation supports my point. That a military mutiny (not war initiated by an outside country) was involved as well does not eliminate the fact that nonviolent resistance was central.

Now, you quoted this part. emphasizing “tanks.”:

“Cardinal Sin, using Radio Veritas, summoned the Philippine people into the streets to block General Ver’s tanks.”

The tanks were those of the forces against which nonviolent methods were used. So you support my point there.

You also put in bold face “human barricade.” I think that qualifies as nonviolent.

You say, “Now this was less than nonviolent but did not require war nor inspectors.”

The nonviolent part was just that, and was a key factor. And you’re right, it did not require war - exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.

As you know, but apparently don’t want to hear, I never said, ‘The exact same methods that have been used in some other instance should be used in Iraq.’ Yes, perhaps in the case of Marcos they were able to play on some ultimate bit of compassion that would not exist with Saddam. Who cares; there are a thousand other tactics to consider. Please show me that lots of them have been considered or tried with regard to Iraq.

It certainly is common knowledge that many dictators have been removed with nonviolent methods. Not every case has involved no violence whatsoever. These things are messy. Lots of things happen. And each case is different. But the levels of violence have in many cases been minimal compared to war. There’s Poland, Berlin, and many others. If you want to scurry around and find every instance of violence in these and other cases to try to refute me, fine. But show me the wars. In all of these cases, and others, one thing is clear: Nonviolent resistance played a central role in regime change, and war was not necessary. Show me the convincing evidence that no option other than war could work with Saddam.

Neither you nor I have any idea if some kind of nonviolent methods (beyond diplomacy and sanctions) might work in the current case of Iraq. As far as either of us knows, they haven’t been tried or even suggested by our government. I'm just saying they ought to be exhausted before resorting to war. Do you not think war should be a last resort?