Topic awaiting preservation: Peace Protests (Page 2 of 2)

Bugs: Very nice editting

This article addresses questions of more peaceful ways of change (although there always needs to be the threat offorce to back things up):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,898438,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

If you want to overthrow Saddam with occupation or with the currently planned method, I think the region will be all the better for it. I think if the powers that be in constructive activity with the peace lobbyists had taken more initiative sooner and developed a viable plan like the occupation described in this article, then perhaps that could have been tried. What has happened is that nothing has been done for 12 years and now that we have a leader willing to insist on disarmament, groups are scrambling for alternatives. We've mostly heard feckless slogans as opposed to real solutions.

Emps, I feel that it is simply too late to develop a plan like this that would take years when we are poised for action now. We must assume that the invasion is a fait accompli with or without bloodshed. There is still a very good chance that Hussein will opt for exile. In fact, a plan for just that sort of thing negotiated with Russia and Iran was just leaked to the press yesterday.

What we must turn our attention to is not the 2 week military action but the 2 years military government that the US is planning to install. We must start pushing our governments towards an Iraqi based provisional government backed up with US military power with a serious timetable for a transition to a true democratic coalition government.

IMHO as always. How does that sound to you?

Well, Bugs. How does that sound? Hmmm...I would say interesting...were it not for the fact, that this goes along the line of Pax Americana, doesn't it? In light of that, it doesn't sound all that good.

Is it really too late? Why? I don't think so...it is never too late, when the enemy (Saddam, in this case) hasn't already attacked. We have the forces, and we have the will of the people...just need to impliment the idea...if Saddam then refuses, we can then use force...and be in the right. A much better idea, IMHO. So impliment a gradual change to democracy, backed up by the UN and the military forces that we have there now. Any 'deviations' from the plan, means war. Set out a timetable for the implimentations to take place, and follow them. Enable Saddam to go into exile (and give him a way to 'bow out' without being killed), so that he has a way out. In that sense, leaving options open, and pressing for a change in regime, along these lines, is much better, IMHO.

This would be a win-win situation. Mr. Bush could hold his head up high (because, either way, he wins), the UN could be happy, and the western world would also be happy.

But I suspect that this will never happen, because Mr. Bush is not interested in an actual change there...at least, not along these lines. Otherwise, he'd have already have insisted on this, and presented a Security Council Resolution along these lines. Or Mr. Blair could do this. He's all wild about rigime change all of a sudden. However, he wants it down militarily...without exploring any other options. Now why is that? Don't know, if you don't try first.

In all of this, you know, Mr. Bush senior was much better at this type of game...letting Saddam first invade Kuwait, and then getting the UN on board...but then, the coalition didn't go far enough back then...Saddam was left in power. This Mr. Bush hasn't been 'smart' enough, IMHO. Should've first proposed the 'peace' plan (as all sympathy in the world was on the US, after 9/11), then, as Saddam refused, then went to war. Then he could have accomplished the Pax Americana under cover of the 'peace' plan that was refused...and nobody would have been the wiser...

Doing it now...well, one can see what type of problems have cropped up...and they will only get worse, IMHO.