|
|
Subject:
Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
Category: Relationships and Society Asked by: justaskscott-ga List Price: $3.17 |
Posted:
17 Mar 2003 05:34 PST
Expires: 16 Apr 2003 06:34 PDT Question ID: 177278 |
I have a related question at: http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=176963 I am opening this new question for those who did not notice the intitial question. I'm interested here in collecting the best arguments against war in Iraq. I'm looking for arguments that we can use to persuade government officials, friends, etc. As with the original question, please post comments, not an answer, for a while. I hope that you'll keep posting comments to the original question as well. And I hope that you'll use these ideas, so that you can look back and say that you did something. | |
| |
| |
|
|
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
Answered By: mvguy-ga on 21 Mar 2003 12:58 PST Rated: |
Dear Justaskscott-ga, Obviously, the decision to go to war has already been made, so nothing any of us say now can change this. So the best I can hope for at this point is that both sides will follow their utmost to follow international law on the conduct of the war, such as by minimizing civilian casualties and by not taking any steps that would needlessly complicate reconciliation after the war is over. I am saddened by the term of events, because I don't believe it was necessary to go to war, certainly not yet. The presence of the no-fly zone and trade restrictions, plus the threat of a war, were leading to disarmament -- a slow disarmament to be sure, but nevertheless an improvement. I'm pretty much in accord with the principles that form the just-war doctrine; among them is that war should be a final resort. As I said above, one of the problems that the antiwar movement had was that it was not able to do successfully present alternatives to war. President Bush, with his "if you're not for us you're against it" and his apparent tendency to things in black and white, was able to successfully convinced the America public (or most of us) that we basically had two choices, war or letting Hussein continue to be a menace. In this case, I do believe there were alternatives. The main one was letting the process continue -- if we had waited longer, certainly more Al Samoud 2 missiles would have been destroyed. Hussein certainly wasn't in a position to be developing more weapons. The article I linked to earlier suggested a variation on the policy in effect before the ultimatum. (It should be noted that the alternative presented in the Sojourners piece wasn't a strictly pacifist approach, but one that fell far short of war. But it seems to be that it was a plan that might have worked with a much less destructive application of force.) It's difficult to turn the clock back the say what else might have worked; the answer partly depends on how far back the clock is turned. (Turn the clock back far enough, and we could have averted this by not being Hussein's ally at one time.) But it is worth noting that, so far at least, a more grave threat involving North Korea is being approached through diplomacy, and that the liberation of South Africa took place through primarily (although not completely) nonviolent means. One might argue that any nonviolent approach has its drawbacks and isn't guaranteed to work. That's absolutely true. But the same is true of war. We don't know if this war is going to achieve its goals. (Most of the stated goals are worthy ones, in my view.) In all likelihood, the country will disarmed and Hussein will be powerless (if he lives). But we don't know if indeed the Iraqi people will find freedom. And certainly we are taking big risks with military action. So any method of approaching the problem of a brutal dictator such as Hussein is fraught with difficulty. My plea is that the try the nonviolent approaches first, leaving war as a final resort. Thanks for asking this question, Mvguy |
justaskscott-ga
rated this answer:
and gave an additional tip of:
$3.23
A thoughtful commentary. All I can add is that even if Bush and Blair do accomplish all of their goals in Iraq, they will have created problems elsewhere in the world. I hope that your views on nonviolence, with war as a last resort, are followed elsewhere and in future disputes. |
|
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: mathtalk-ga on 17 Mar 2003 10:48 PST |
President Bush said last week that there would be a vote in the Security Council on a second resolution (besides 1441) authorizing the use of force in Iraq. If such a motion were voted down, any imminent invasion of Iraq would clearly be unauthorized by the United Nations, and thus illegal. If the motion were approved, such a use of force would be authorized under the UN Charter, to which both the US and Iraq are signators. What if there is no vote? Despite Pres. Bush's earlier pledge, statements issued by his administration indicate a desire to spare the UN from "unnecessary" effort. It is an established principle of international law that the Security Council is itself the proper interpreter of its own resolutions. President Bush lacks any authority to substitute his own judgement for that of the UN, yet this is tantamount to his claim that resolution 1441 already authorizes him to use military force to invade, overthrow, and occupy Iraq. -- mathtalk-ga |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: jackburton-ga on 17 Mar 2003 11:32 PST |
http://www.bigthumb.org/wav01//Odds_Ends/shotdown.wav |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: mvguy-ga on 17 Mar 2003 16:01 PST |
One thing that hasn't been done enough by the antiwar movement is to offer alternatives to war. Here's one possibility: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.speak_out |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: jackburton-ga on 18 Mar 2003 02:41 PST |
Everyone sends a postcard to President Bush --NOW!!!, preferrably via registered post, with a brief anti-war message. Mark the postcard "urgent". Because a postcard is physical and tangible, it will make more of an impact, especially if the White House has to sign for each postcard they receive. The messages will be visible (not like a letter), so everyone will be able to see these messages. If enough people send him a postcard, it's bound to get noticed. Postal services around the world will get flooded....the White House would have difficulty sweeping it under the carpet. The postcards will be traceable, so they can't go astray or be destroyed, as they'll all have to be individually signed for. Just an idea! |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: jackburton-ga on 18 Mar 2003 02:46 PST |
...here's the address: President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 USA |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: badabing-ga on 18 Mar 2003 11:17 PST |
For those wishing to send a telegram to the White House: http://www.westernunion.com/info/faqTelegram.asp |
Subject:
Re: Preventing the War in Iraq (continued)
From: imahusband2000-ga on 17 May 2003 15:26 PDT |
It should be duly noted that this is not the first time the authority of the U.N. has been usurped.. witness serbia/kosovo and nato. only then it wasnt so contreversial because many u.n. countries were involved in it. |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |