On 14 Sep 2002 at 14:29, James Thompson wrote:
>
> > There has been a lot of debate over Saddam and terrorism and the
> > threat they pose to our security. Please take the time to read this
> > short summary on an entirely different approach to the situation and
> > perhaps we can turn the tide of the current perceptual conflicts
> which
> > seem to be only hindering us. I think that the whole discussion
> over
> > whether or not to remove Saddam is not only quite irrelevant in the
> > long run, but also the product of a self-defeating delusion being
> > initially propagated by those that wish to manipulate the minds of
> the
> > public in order to further their own agenda. If you cut off the
> top
> > of a weed, it will inevitably grow back. If we want real security,
> > why not address the roots of the problem? What social, political,
> or
> > economic factors allow such a man to rise to that level of power?
> In
> > the aftermath of the Cold War, it should have become clear to
> citizens
> > everywhere that it is not the march of armies that is the clearest
> > threat to peace and stability but rather the disaster of pervasive
> > resource loss, refugees who are forced across borders, and social
> > instability that makes war primarily an action within, rather than
> > between states. Global leaders and citizens must find a new sense
> of
> > mission and destiny, and must reclaim the security terminology from
> > war-making institutions. Social, economic, and environmental
> stresses
> > and pressures on societies worldwide call for a new definition of
> > security, and hence for a new set of priorities. Poverty, unequal
> > distribution of land, and the degradation of ecosystems are among
> the
> > most pressing issues undermining security. Soldiers and tanks are
> at
> > best irrelevant and at worst an obstacle to solving problems. An
> > understanding of security that fits today's world will require a
> shift
> > from conflicts of national security to cooperation for global
> > security. Instead of defense of the status quo, sustainable
> security
> > calls for change and adaption; instead of "green-helmet"
> intervention
> > forces, we will need to transform war-making institutions, and
> create
> > new priorities for sustainable development. - veridicus
> >
> The best solution to the problem if Saddam Hussein is to oust him; the
>
> best solution to the danger of another despot rising to power there is
> to institute democratic reforms.
>
>
> The problem of Saddam Hussein is not actually a "problem of Saddam
> Hussein." There is much more to it than that.
>
Yep; there's the military-controlled state that allowed the likes of him to
rise to power.
>
>You are
> oversimplifying the problem.
>
I am stating it in clear and simple terms.
>
> Institute democratic reforms? What
> exactly does this entail?
>
Allowing the Iraqi people to vote on their own leaders for a finite term of
office, with finite terms of re-election allowed.
>
> Something like installing another corrupt
> government that will eventually become another enemy similar to what
> occurred when the U.S. once allowed the Taliban to come into power in
> Afghanistan?
>
Nope; see above. We learned our lesson in post-USSR Afghanistan
and did not repeat our prior mistake there recently, nor will we repeat it
in Iraq.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:23 MDT