Subject - Understanding the debate - work towards negotiation/compromise.
Author name - bigjohn005
Date - 26-2-2003
Ok
I think all of us here have heard the same opinions expressed many times over. In order to work through the issue of Iraq, peace marchers have called for further negotiations. As by trade, I am a sales negotiator, I figure to take the lead here and break down how negotiations work, and what solutions can be derived from them.
Understanding Arguments = Coming to Solution
First - The Peace Movement Point of View
1. Believe Saddam is evil maniacal mad man.
2. Believe Saddam - regardless of how evil, is not a sincere threat to the United States.
3. Believe Saddam can be contained with more weapons inspectors.
4. Ultimately feel that the UN through further talks and resolutions can resolve the issue of Saddam.
5. Believe that War with Saddam will only destabilize the Middle East region more than it already is, causing further contempt and hatred for Americans (UK as well).
6. Believe that War with Saddam will kill untold hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
7. Feel that the argument that Iraq has broken numerous resolutions is no cause for war, as other nations have broken more resolutions than that of Iraq.
8. Desire further proof from the US that Iraq is a monumental threat to the United States and her allies.
* If I have missed anything, please make addendum, but I believe I have covered all pertinent and necessary points.
Second - The Bush Doctrine (I lean more towards this Point of View - just FYI)
1. Believe Saddam is evil maniacal mad man.
2. Believe that Saddam is a sincere threat to the United States.
3. Believe that with no matter how many weapons inspectors, Saddam can not be contained.
4. Ultimately feel that the UN has given as many chances to Saddam as is allowed, and should now act accordingly to remove him from power - militarily.
5. Believes that War with Saddam could destabilize the region, and may cause contempt and more hatred for Americans, but feel that this is a mute point because terrorists from the Middle Eastern region are already willing to crash planes into American Skyscrapers to kill Americans - what more hatred contempt can there be?
6. Believes that War with Saddam will be quick, and that the lives of innocents that will be lost will be minute.
7. Believes that Iraq has broken resolutions that call for "serious consequences" is different then other resolutions broken by other nations which have no such consequences.
8. Feels that the US has made it's case for War with Saddam - and do believe that an alliance between a brutal dictator and terrorists is a marriage that will spell certain doom for Americans - and their continued way of life.
* If I have missed anything, please make addendum, but I believe I have covered all pertinent and necessary points.
Process and Steps of Negotiations = Finding Resolution.
Hard Solutions that neither side is willing to comprise should ultimately be removed from the table.
No matter how many different ways the arguments are presented - The Peace Movement View will never relent to the idea of War with Iraq.
No matter how many different ways the arguments are presented - The Bush View will never relent to the idea of more Weapons Inspectors & containment.
I come to the belief of the two above statements because all the opinions that have been formulated on this message board have either been of one view point or the other.
Negotiation works like this --> The Bush View will concede, and remove the option of War. The Peace Movement now needs to concede and remove the option of containment through inspections.
Once this is done, a solution can be found.
Ok - Both sides should agree that Saddam needs to go. This will ultimately make both sides happy.
How is this done?
New Solution Offered
New UN Resolution should be created:
UN Resolution will state that Saddam has 30 days to remove himself from power and go into exile to another country (Egypt).
UN Resolution will state that UN Peace Keepers will enter Iraq on the 31st day - this will stabilize the country from the possibility of Revolution/Civil War
UN Resolution will call for the dismantling of Saddam's current government.
UN Resolution will call for the disarmament of the Iraqi nation - Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons. This will be done through UN Peace Keepers monitored by Inspectors.
UN Resolution will call for a UN Council to be created to write a constitution for the liberated people of Iraq to choose their leaders via election.
UN Resolution will dictate that the peacekeepers will administer the elections to prevent election tampering.
UN Resolution will call for the creation of an Iraqi national guard and police force to be trained by UN Peace Keepers for the eventual hand over of keeping the peace in the Iraqi nation.
UN Resolution will state that any nation, organization, or group interfering with the Peace process in Iraq will be dealt with militarily.
Please add any addendums to my Solution.
This is how negotiations work. One side must give a little the other side must give a little; thus a mutual agreement can be found. The only thing my resolution lacks is consequences for Saddam if he fails to comply with exile - but ultimately the Peace Keepers would be able to assist in Saddam's removal if he failed to do so on the 30th day - at any rate this is the only peaceful solution that utilizes the UN that appeases both sides of the debate - at least from what I have been able to come up with.
If any of you has another solution I would love to hear/read it. As it stands now - we are only offering the same identical solutions depending on which side of the fence we fall. Neither side can sway the other from their opinion - so we must agree to a mutual middle of the road solution.
Subject - Well said bigjohn
Author name - Robert Luke
Date - 26-2-2003
I think you did an excellent job at laying down negotiations. However if millitary force is removed from the table do your realy think Saddam will just go along with it? Thats what makes the issue so difficult, its a more complex situation than just peace protestors and Bush backer's. By taking millitary force and removing it from the options available, the ability to actually exile Saddam is severely crippled.
My definition of stupidity is using the same strategy over and over and expecting different results. 17 resolutions and 12 years of defiance later we might as well be where we started. And the UN hasn't even scratched the surface of Hussein's regime of crimes against humanity. 17 times over the course of 12 years the UN has used the same strategies (sanctions and political persuasion) and yeilded invariably a consistent pattern of minimal results at best.
Saddam is undoubtedly a mad man
War is undoubtedly madness
The question is: what is the lesser of the two evils? Would the end results justify the suffering that is inseperable from war?
I am of the opinion that war is the lesser of the two evils. That stupidity is the use of the same strategy and expecting different results, the chain has to be broken. And I believe that the end result of war would be worth the price. We might then see Iraqi opinions, from Iraqi people living in Iraq -using a right that we enjoy right now, free speech- debating what should be done about North Korea.
Subject - Robert Luke - Not really man...
Author name - bigjohn005
Date - 27-2-2003
Well...It really hasn't been removed. Remember - UN PeaceKeepers are made up of military personnel from different nations. IF Saddam decides to fight the UN PeaceKeepers, he in a sense is declaring war on every country that 1) agreed with the new UN Resolution, and 2) has troops that make up the UN PeaceKeeper corp.
Ultimately, it is what Bush wants - A unified world position stating that Saddam needs to go. The Resolution would be such that it allows for "Peaceful" removal of Saddam and his croonies, and if he decides to act against it, then UN would be justified in it's exercised use of force. And remember, US troops are all along the border, and if the UN calls for help, we will be there to do so.
IF Saddam breaks my proposed resolution, then that is the ultimate proof that Saddam will never comply - and has announced to the world his contempt for the UN.
Maybe I'm wrong, but reading the same arguments over and over again never becomes tiresome. No one is going to convinence someone who believes war is not the answer to go to war, and visa versa.
Thanks
Subject - Bigjohn
Author name - Robert Luke
Date - 27-2-2003
I think you have a great idea bigjohn. Your solution is definately viable. I wonder how it would be recieved by the Bush administration, and if it makes it that far then the UN. Its worth being considered. Your idea sounds excellent, I wonder how succesful that strategy would be. Also how long this process would take to put in place. The massive build up of American troops in the middle east is extremely expensive and can't be funded indefinately, without cutting severely into federal funding to programs for American citizens. The peace keepers in this situation seem to depend on the massive build up of American troops to handle "just in case" scenerios. I also think we need more humanitarian efforts in place to handle millions of Iraqi's. We need to be prepared to handle millions not just 10's or 100's of thousands. If we can afford to pay billions to turkey in exchange for the use of Turkish bases, shouldn't we already have the billions lined up for the Iraqi people, who will most definately take more direct damages from such a war than the Turks will ever take indirectly.
Subject - Iraq for the Iraqi's
Author name - greembark
Date - 17-3-2003
i attended a recent discussion on the war chaired by sevral notable figures, journalists, mp's and iraqi exiles. My feelings on the war up to that point were that i was very much opposed for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I and a lot of people much like myself in Britain are angry that Unilateral action is proposed by Bush and Blair, which will take us outside of International Law with subsequent consequences. If there has to be action it must be validated by the UN. Bush and Blair insist they have this validation already, although why they then bothered to try to seek a second resolution only to say later that there would be no point in continuing when they knew they would be vetoed suggests to me some very devious behaviour since a veto would definetely have outlawed any further military action.
I'd say the case for war was being made on very dubious grounds. In the first attack on Iraq, where they had clearly invaded the sovereign territory of Kuwait, there were grounds for defense of a nation, and there was full international support for taking action. Now we have a situation where support is very much divided, and not just by governments but by the populations of those countries.
I'd like to point out that a great majority of those who marched in the peace protests were fully aware that saddam is a tyrant and were not supporting his continuing rule, but were anxious that even after 12 years of sanctions, there was suddenly percieved to be a 'rush to war', which came not long after the dust had settled on afghanistan after the war on terror there had failed to capture 'bin laden', - the real perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks and not as the bush administration would have you believe, in league with saddam hussain. No, saddam hussain is a seperate issue, and especially since the nationality of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, there was not one iraqi, they were all drawn from yemen, saudi, kuwait, eygpt etc. Bin laden hates all secular leaders who oppose islam and saddam has in iraq's history been responsible for wholesale slaughter and oppression of the shi'as muslims. Saddam is a 'secular' leader, he has no interest in bin laden's mission, only to perpetuate his continuing existance as the despot of the iraqi people. Bin laden on the other hand is very much on a 'jihad' to get all US forces and influence out of the middle east and to overthrow the corrupt rulers who are opposed to his values.
Seeing as how one of the arguments that the US uses is by inading Iraq they will secure peace in the middle east, what do you think is the likely consequence of a US led unilateral invasion to secure iraq bearing in mind what i've just outlined is bin ladens main objective in the middle east? Surely action in this regard will only accelerate the drive to recruit yet more members to Al Qauda's cause. Terrorism will increase not decrease as a result of a US presence in the region especially since it bears no UN mandate.
Whether or not the US is after the oil, the question is, what do the iraqi people have to do with this? Do you really think they are behind saddam? Saddam is often compared to hitler. Forget hitler. Saddam is very much more like Stalin, with his secret police. I've heard the voices of iraqi exiles, and they say that inside Iraq, the reality is that every member of a family is ordered to report on every other member of a family so that nobody dares say anything against saddam. I've heard it said that whenever anyone spoke up against saddam, he sent in the army to erradicate not just the dissenter but his whole family or even his whole village. Everyone in iraq lives in terror so i'm led to believe. But i get angry when someone says to me that when i march for peace i march for saddam. It's not for saddam that i'm marching, it's for a just solution to the oppression which the iraqi's have suffered for 12 years. It's for a sane and responsible action by the International Community. And I'm opposed to what i see as a chain of events starting with pre-emptive action that will undermine world peace to bolster the paranoid fears with which we are being bombarded on a daily basis to undermine reason and sanity. There are families of the World Trade Centre victims who are calling for reason and restraint, to answer the challenges of terrorism not with more brutality, but with a call to governments who authorise military action, 'Not in my Son/Daughters/Husband/Wife/Uncle/Aunt's name'.
The iraqi exiles are entreating people to understand that they have no illusions about the motives behind the US reasons for invading iraq, although invasion is a hotly disputed term since the US say they are coming to liberate the iraqi's. Some of the iraqi exiles say they long for the united states to come and overthrow saddam as they cannot do it on their own, weakened by 12 years of sanctions, and notably becuase the republican guard that US forces were on the point of destroying in the last gulf war, were allowed to go free when the order to stop the attack came from the whitehouse. The republican guard duly went home and destroyed the rebellious opposition forces the US had urged to rise up and overthrow saddam. What a betrayal. They were all shot and their families along with them.
It is clear that something must urgently be done about saddam, but when i see the six point plan that Britain ludicrously put forward as a last ditch buy out for saddam to avoid war i laugh at the stupidy of it. The first directive calls on the Iraqi leader to come forth and publicly admit on Television to the world that he has been lying all along and to publicy own up he has weapons of mass destruction.
There is 'nothing' remotely 'diplomatic' in such a stupid request. Instead of opening a dialogue, Uk and US are merely pouring fuel on the fire. I don't believe there is a single leader in the Arab world or for that matter any western leader that would agree to such a bizarre request. It's a question of pride. How can anyone fail to see that such a plan is only intended to fail while making Britain and the US look good for having supposedly tried diplomacy at the eleventh hour?
But yes something must urgently be done about saddam. The iraqi exiles call for justice and say that further weapons inspections will not help them, even if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had none, how would that help the iraqi people? So, what are the options now?
Firstly to break the deadlock between those for war and those against war and to get away from the whole issues of weapons of mass destruction over which this whole sorry episode started.
Since the attacks of the terrorists on 9/11, there has been a war on terror but also a war on truth.
Truth must be the first principle under which the publics of the United Nations must be served.
Justice, is that principle under which the people's of the United Nations are also served.
There may be a case for force in Iraq, but over the past 12 months, there has been a lot of rubbish spoken by a lot of people in defense of a dubious war for dubious reasons. The case has not been made for war unless you consider that paranoia, circumstantial evidence, media manipulation and national self interest to be a deriding factor.
For a start, lets see a responsible press reporting the issues not on how sensational the news can be made to look but on the professionalism that dictates a responsible committment to society on such an important debate as this. (Sun Editors take note.) [[ not that the sun is a responsible press anyway]]
Secondly, lets have a democratic parliamentary debate, which was largely absent for most of the build up to war and fuelled the wholesale resentment of the british public who could not make their voices heard.
Thirdly, some options other than a mere deadlock, weapons of mass destruction or not, we should know that after a bombing campaign that devasted iraq's infrastructure and with no post war help to rebuild their nation (which germany had the luxury of after the second world war) and after 12 years of sanctions, Iraq is in no way remotely the threat that nazi germany was prior to the second world war, and does not now have even remotely the weapons of mass destruction capability that it did prior to the start of the first gulf war. Wake up People! That there are stocks left is not in doubt, but that these stocks and that this country poses an immediate and clear threat to the west at this time certainly is.
There is an agurment that if it were not for the mass of troops on his borders now, Saddam Hussain would not have co-operated at all, well i agree with that actually. it seems that the imminent threat of force does indeed work wonders, and i have no illusions about the slippery tongue or actions of saddam. However at the moment the threat is contained, and while the threat is contained, the plans for a post war iraq can be discussed in detail until International Support is much more forthcoming and the proper UN authority can be granted for whatever is required as a next step. If some want a few more weeks for weapons inspections fine.
So lets have some constructive suggestions where we should be clear about what the outcome of should be.
Firstly, to liberate the people of iraq using an International Force and offering Saddam Hussain either some kind of exile package or to indite him for crimes against the iraqi people. (bear in mind that to remove him in the first instance where his survival is as threat is likely that he will use any chemical weapons as he's nothing to lose)
Secondly to use such force as is neceassry to liberate the people of iraq by helping any resistance forces by deploying key personell, ie. sas, special forces.
Thirdly to actively involve arabic muslim countries in using all diplomatic means and backing up any International actions with army support.
At all times this is to be seen as an International force and no mention shall be made of 'US interests, UK interests' or anybody else interests with the exception of the Iraqi people which means i don't want to hear about oil companies negotiating contracts for control of iraqi oil before a force has even been started. ~ wrong message to rest of the world!
Does anybody see what i'm getting at here?
And finally, the post war Iraq to be monitored and assisted by the International Force in keeping the peace and reporting to the United Nations in the setting up of and governing of an Iraqi democratic assembly which after an interim period of say five years will be allowed to thereafter determine the course of Iraq's future. Furthermore, the United Nations to help raise funds for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and the immediate distrubution of medical assistance to the Iraqi people.
As to the war on Terror, i'm certain US and UK will continue to persue the members of the Al Quaeda organisation.
However for all that i've said it looks like i'm a bit late posting this because war is imminent now that a second resolution to authorise war has been abandonend and the US and UK along with SPAIN are going it alone.
