Broad cross-section marches againt war

[Clarkmeister]

"If we DON'T take care of Saddam, he will continue to misuse and probably starve his own people"

Who cares.

If your son was sent into Iraq for this war and died, do you really think the cause is worth it? I certainly don't. If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Clarkmeister]

" What have you done lately in that regard?"

Nothing. But that doesn't mean I can't point out that the tone your response to John struck me as being beneath you.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I'm having a hard time conjecturing up scenarios which would provide nonviolent means to get Saddam out of power. Maybe a think-tank could come up with some that might work--or maybe not. At any rate, if you have any to suggest, I'd be interested to hear them.

As far as nonviolent rsistance to Saddam, his own people can't do that--he just kills any he sees as threats or impediments. As far as nonviolent pressure from the outside of Iraq, isn't that pretty much what we/ve tried for 10 years or so? Maybe if there were millions marching worldwide calling on Saddam to resign instead of calling on us not to attack him, he might listen. Do you think so?

[MMMMMM]

US casualties will probably be quite low. How many US soldiers died in Afghanistan out of how many that were sent over there? How many US soldiers died in the last war with Iraq? A few hundred, out of six figures? Sounds like pretty low-risk odds to me.

[MMMMMM]

I thought we'd discussed this aspect at length in other threads.

I hold that Saddam didn't have to let his people suffer under the sanctions--he obviosly had TONS of money to spend, and chose to spend it on the military, and his WMD projects, and on erecting palaces and statues of himself all over the place--instead of spending some of it to help his people.

You disagree. Fine. But I don't think it's really highly relevant here, unless you just feel like rehashing that entire debate in the middle of this thread.

As for his systematic campaigns of torture, rape and murder of his own citizens, that will soon be coming to an end. Thank God. Maybe if you were an Iraqi, you'd be praying for someone to come and do away with their Stalin. Or maybe you wouldn't.

[Jimbo]

"Nothing. But that doesn't mean I can't point out that the tone your response to John struck me as being beneath you. Fair enough Clarkmeister, and perhaps I was too harsh on you. It simply struck me as odd that you were criticizing my right to withhold my funds from someone with whom I disagreed with their political views. I also surmised that if John had been "just another poster" that you would have said nothing at all. I hardly think he needed you to come to his defense. Why don't you buy a 2nd copy of his book so that I will not have harmed his bottom line? Then perhaps we will both feel better! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

On another subject you asked MMMMMM about his son being killed in Iraq. That is the primary objection I have to the protestors. At least during the Vietnam era a majority of the protestors were at risk of being drafted and forced to serve their country. As far as I know todays Armed Forces are all volunteer and could have at least expected the possibility of war. If all the peace protestors would have donated their time to help underprivileged children in their respective countries this weekend they would have at least accomplished a worthy goal. In reality all they have done is cost the taxpayers money and made themselves "feel good". Historically it has been shown that a war can be ended by marching in the streets but highly unlikely it will be successful in the prevention of one.

[brad]

ha ive got you there!

how many soldiers from gulf war applied for disability?

theres a whole can of worms there if you care to look into it but if you do you cant say it was without human cost.

[John Feeney]

"Well, I'm having a hard time conjecturing up scenarios which would provide nonviolent means to get Saddam out of power."

And I'm having a hard time designing the next ICBM. But give either of us a billin bucks and I'll bet we could create an orgainzation that could make some good progress on either task.

In other words, it would be surprising if you or I were able to come up with such scenarios off the tops of our heads. But give us sufficient resources to do so and it might be different.

And that makes my point. You have billions going to military R&D on the one hand, then on the other hand you have two unpaid guys on a website saying, "Hmmm, what might be an effective nonviolent tactic here? I'm not sure..." That about sums up the difference in resources thrown at each approach. Not a very good balance if you ask me.

Now, I realize there are other people looking at nonviolent methods, but you get the point about the imbalance. In reality, anyone well versed in nonviolent resistance (not me) would probably be able to suggest some ideas applicable to the Iraq situation. And such ideas might or might not be effective. But how much more confident might we be of their effectiveness if the ideas had been were thoroughly researched and tested with sophisticated methodologies? Moreover, in many cases the cost of such methods, either financial, or in human lives or suffering, is tiny compared to that of war. So you almost end up figuring, "What the hell, it can't hurt."

"As far as nonviolent resistance to Saddam, his own people can't do that--he just kills any he sees as threats or impediments."

Maybe there are nonviolent tactics that (a) would not be perceived as threats, or (b) that would somehow shield their practicioners. More to the point, I don't think we can say they "can't do that" when we aren't well versed in what "that" is or might potentially be.

"As far as nonviolent pressure from the outside of Iraq, isn't that pretty much what we/ve tried for 10 years or so?"

Yes, but what kinds of nonviolent pressure? Diplomacy and sanctions have their place. But where's the creativity in looking for other methods?

"Maybe if there were millions marching worldwide calling on Saddam to resign instead of calling on us not to attack him, he might listen. Do you think so?"

Probably not, but maybe so - if it would somehow cause him to see it as to his advantage to step down. Perhaps "subsequent to" would be better than "instead of" though. Right now, many see it as a matter of urgency to create more time to seek a solution other than war. But if war is prevented or delayed for some period, sure, it might be worth considering, though I imagine there might be more effective tactics.

[Zeno]

The eagerness to kill is exacerbated by both Muslims and Christians. The outward manifestations are sometimes different. Muslims more blunt, Christians in subdued tones.

Jerry Farwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk are far more dangerous or scary than most people think. And this because they are not usually blunt. Subtle and deceitful is what they aim for in everything that really matters to their agenda.

In fact, I regard both of them as exact replicates of Bin La-la. The only difference is in tactics.

-Zeno

[adios]

Many (majority of) peaceful Islam followers in the world as well. Many practice their faith here in the good old USA and I'm glad of it too.