On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:03:42PM -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: > > I'd like to hear an anti-war proprosal for removing Saddam from power > > in Iraq. I would very much support such a course if it sounded like it > > had even a fair chance of success. > Paul? Are you going to defend your statement with a proposal? Or is it > just hot air?
Er... I do have things to do other than answer Brin-l email! Giving someone slightly more than an hour before hassling them is considered polite, I believe... I also haven't anywhere said that I'm anti-war, if you read. If we're going to start taking dictators out, then fine, Saddam's one place to start. > the chance of him being removed is much less than P. You have effectively > increased Saddam's chances of remaining in power. Sounds pro-Saddam to me. The problem here is that I just don't agree. The main bits that concern me are possible consequences - for example, the fires that he started last time actually used up a noticable amount of the worlds oil reserves, actually in the %ages (rather than 0.000x%), and that the follow-through won't be sufficient to hold things together in there. It's also going to make things somewhat dicey in that region for a while to come, since people understandably get upset when foreign powers decide to change governments in someone elses country. But, if you really want a proposal for getting rid of him without bombing the country, sending in the SAS (or Green Berets, I think you have?) would be a good start, I'd have thought. Taking people out with minimum collateral damage is what they train for. Somebody on another list also had an interesting idea - airdrop food and supplies. Don't send them through the government, as is the normal practice, but give them direct to the people. Attach labels (pamphlets, whatever), saying where they came from - "US food drop", etc. No other strings. Now, of itself this probably won't get rid of Saddam - with the best will in the world you need something more than a rock-cake to oust a dictator. But it should mean that you're better received when you do eventually go in. It'd also be interesting to see a measure of consistency. For example, if we're going against Saddam because he's an Evil Overlord - as opposed to "because he has bad weapons", which I believe was the original reason - then okay. As long as we then follow up for all the other countries with regimes which are equally repressive. Saudi Arabia is actually extremely harsh, for example. Iran, where people have recently been sentenced to jail-time for dating online. (Those are ones I can remember, I make no statements about how far down or up a list of potential next targets they should be. Shares may go up as well as down. And so forth.) -- Paul Unless you dumbed down the rule set, [the firewall] would scream "eek! mummy!" and sit gently gibbering in the corner at the first hint of trouble. "You're a nasty internet, and I'm not talking to you!" -- Chris King _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
