Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (81262)	3/11/2003 5:34:57 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<methods you think would work to remove Saddam without war?> 1. first, I think the primary responsibility for instituting good government, in every nation, lies with their own citizens. The historical record is, in 99 times out of 100, when a powerful nation says to a weak nation, "we're going to force you to do____________, for your own good", it turns out to be just an excuse for imperialism. So I am extremely sceptical of my own nation's motives, and I'm sceptical the Iraqis get anything lasting and good out of this. In Afghanistan, we replaced organized thuggery with chaotic thuggery. Other than in Kabul, the warlords run the country today. Many of them are Islamists and/or brigands. So, I reject the idea that we have any obligation to, (or are likely to) provide Good Government to Iraq or any nation. The best way to help other nations get good government, is by setting a good example. 2. If we wanted to remove Saddam, there are a number of specific steps we could take, to put more pressure on him, and give Iraqis a (further) incentive to overthrow him, steps that fall short of war. I will admit these methods may mean more Iraqi death and suffering than Blitzcrieg. I list them, because you asked for alternatives. A. nation-wide no-fly zone B. have the inspectors call in air strikes, as they drive off from any site where they did not get 110% cooperation. C. shut off Iraq's illegal oil exports to Jordan and Turkey. This is how he funds his WMD programs, and his palace-building. Knocking out pipelines and roads from the air is easy. D. fund/train/arm alternatives to Saddam within Iraq. E. use trade embargoes, and the full weight of our diplomatic power, against nations that are found to have provided Iraq with banned technology. He has to get it from somewhere, it takes two to tango. 3. Saddam has power, because millions of Iraqis continue to act as his "hands and eyes". No government, even the most authoritarian one, can survive except through the willing cooperation of all the people who staff the various institutions of coersion and terror. No matter how evil one man is, he can do nothing, unless millions of other people choose to obey him. 4. Almost everyone says I am hopelessly Utopian, to think that non-violent Gandhian non-cooperation can overthrow Saddam. My response is, that's just what everyone thought about the Soviet Empire. If I had suggested in 1985, that unarmed masses of Russians and Germans, through non-violent protest, could overthrow the Soviet and E. German regimes, I would have been told (by virtually everyone on this thread, and 99.99% of Americans), that I was hopelessly Utopian. Yet that's exactly what happened. A series of Stalinist governments, regimes with a history of repression every bit as bad as Iraq's, were overthrown. And almost no blood was spilled, except in Romania. Message 18682682 5. for specific real-world examples, look at Gandhi's long campaign for Indian independance, in addition to all the more recent anti-communist revolutions.