I will begin to offer links and notes in advocacy of peace in the Iraqi Bush War.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/gifs/032003benson332.gif
Steve Benson, Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/032003benson.html)

(I'll spare you the Freedom Poodle (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/031603benson.html) ....)

Labor contingent marches against war (Workday Minnesota) (http://www.workdayminnesota.org/daily/news/0323antiwar.php)
Humanitarian disaster must be averted in Iraq (Balochistan Post) (http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3577)
Vladimir Titov: War in Iraq is a grave political mistake (Novinte) (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=20909)
Iraq War Raises Doubts About Bush Doctrine (NNS) (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood032503.html): The Bush administration also has firmly jettisoned the idea of ensuring security through international treaties and agreements among big-power states. Those "strategies and policies and institutions were built to deal with the conflicts of the 20th century," and are irrelevant to the "kind of threats we face now," Vice President Dick Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16.

So the United States must act alone, Cheney said.

If that provokes protests, he added, it's because "the rest of the world hasn't really had to come to grips with that yet." Of critics who advocated a different approach to disarming Iraq, he said, "They don't have the capability to do anything about it anyway." That's a questionable context. I mean, it's proper, but it's definitely slanted.

Meet the Press, March 16, 2003: Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney (MSNBC) (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886068.asp)"And, now, as we go forward and look at the threat of rogue states and terrorists equipped with deadly weapons in the future, the only nation that really has the capability to deal effectively with those threats is the United States. The Brits have got some capability, and they?re great allies, and we badly want them on board in any venture we undertake, but the fact of the matter is for most of the others who are engaged in this debate, they don?t have the capability to do anything about it anyway." Nonetheless, I would say that this is the challenge.

Editorial comment:

In Desert Storm and its aftermath, the West and particularly the United States underestimated the Hussein regime. Resolutions intended to operate for a period of months stretched into years; a casual blunder at the negotiating table enabled Hussein to crush postwar uprisings while the US and international community stood by and watched.

In the present Iraqi Bush War (IBW), it seems that the United States has once again miscalculated its opposition. Word in from this morning's BBC broadcast is that the officers in the field consider the force of Iraqi resistance unexpected.

As we have debated the merits of the IBW at Sciforums, ideas toward peaceful resolutions of the Iraq situation were typically scoffed and discounted as unfeasable for various reasons, most of which were invented. My own idea focused on the simple fact that the resolutions following Desert Storm seemed to focus more intently on punishing Saddam Hussein than assisting the Iraqi people in any significant way. As reports of American and UN teams restoring water service to Iraqi communities filter (literally) in through the newswire, I recall an interview Peter Jennings of the American Broadcasting Corporation had with the Reverend Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches. The Reverend spoke of his group's tour of Iraq and even shocked Jennings when he suggested that despite the fact that the people loathe Hussein, many would still take arms against the US simply because they want our help, but not like this; nobody likes being invaded.° But Reverend Edgar also suggested that the sanctions against Iraq had left the water system in disarray--perhaps 25% functional--because basic equipment such as valves was restricted. ("Stop hitting yourself, Saddam. Stop hitting yourself. Why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourself ....")

So the UN ought to assert its authority and pass a host of new resolutions pertaining to Iraq. After World War II, Japan was essentially emasculated. Why not Saddam?

So the UN ought to declare Hussein's regime illegal insofar as they can do that at all, and spell it out. The UN will, under the auspices of the US, Britain, Australia, and anyone else who wants to play, simply move into Iraq under the pretext of humanitarian relief. Essentially, spend the billions of dollars spent on war and reconstruction on reconstruction without the war. As the economy grows and the UN constantly breathes down Hussein's neck, something will give. Either the people will do what they need to do and toss him, or else Hussein will lose his temper and lash out at the UN. In the meantime, the oil flows, the UN is all over the place looking for weapons and following up on corruption charges, and when the seemingly inevitable war comes, at least we can say that we tried.

Now, apparently this needs to be a five-hundred page presentation of details, details, details. Which is why I find the miscalculations of warfare ironic.

But since it would take me about fifteen years to get the whole thing put together .... You see the problem.

So let's figure out how this whole damn thing should work. It seems the first and most fundamental stumbling block will pertain to issues of Iraqi sovereignty. We probably have better pretext for declaring Hussein's government illegal than we do for war, but who wants to go get a law degree so you can spend ten years proving it? Anyone? Anyone? Come on ... I've already got a future in international affairs that I have to tend to in order to have my opinion taken seriously. I can't do everything ....Ach! We've got to get out of this trap
Before this decadence saps our will
I've got to be strong and try to hang on
Or my mind may well snap
And my life will be lived for the thrills...

(Dr. Everett Scott, Rocky Horror Show) :m:,
Tiassa :cool:

People have been killing eachother since before they were even technically people, but for some reason now it has to stop, the death of a few iraqi's has pushed you over the edge and now you decide to make a stand, why is that?
What is it about this particular natural occurence that made your mighty heart sink lower than usual?
I would really love to understand anti-war people, not with all the political jargon, but why does it sadden you personally? Forget the "violation of laws" and all that crap, how is this really the tragedy you all like to bill it as?
Is it not just another tiny chapter in the story of mankind? Does the fact it "makes you sad" really matter?

americans don't care about 11.000 of there own people killed by guns every year

So beacuse we've got a history of killing its wrong to decide to try to change it, we should just lie down and go ok kill whoever the heck you want we dont care nothing new???

Yes we've been killing since we crawled out of the sea and probably even before then but from the first days we developed our so called intellegence along with the advocates of Violence there have been those that advocate peace or abhore violence.

Intelligence?
I would argue that the people who abhore violence aren't a direct product of advanced intelligence but rather of the comfortable lives that the progression of the human species has provided for them.
If you look at civilisations throughout history the general view on violence seems to correspond with the lifestyles of those people, me and you are no more "intelligent" than the original human beings, violence used to be applauded when people lived harder lives, its all just a matter of perspectives.

Dr, Lou

I deplore the presumption that warfare is a necessary part of human existence. For instance, we don't have a choice about whether or not it rains; rain is a part of life. However, we must choose to go to war.

Specifically, Lou, what turned me was a lifetime of hearing about the nobility of unfortunate necessity while nobody has given me honest justifications for our combats. We bombed Libya: it seemed pretty straightforward, and it seemed generally to work. We invaded Grenada; Reagan called that one of the greatest achievements of his public service. We invaded Panama apparently to stem the cocaine flow (ha!), and George Bush took out the criminal mastermind he had previously aided and abetted. Trading arms to the Iranians, supporting Hussein's regime, abandoning the Iraqi uprisings, waiting too many years to go to Kosovo, waiting until Pol Pot was dying to do anything, waiting until Pinochet was decrepit and in poor health and well-removed from his office before seeking justice, the Cold War itself, inept Hitler comparisons ... you'll note that this is only the tip of the iceberg, but what actually turned me was a lifetime of hearing about the nobility of unfortunate necessity while watching a nation of rabid war dogs seek any reason for a fight. I'm not purely pacifist; an honest war would, by its circumstances, require my support since an honest war would have sought all possible peaceful resolutions first. Furthermore, I believe in the right of the people to rise up and destroy their political oppressors. As it is, we care so much about the future of the Iraqi people that we're leaving potential allies (e.g. Iraqi resistance against Hussein) out of the battle, at least in part in deference to our NATO ally Turkey.

And no, Dr. Lou, the fact that it makes me sad doesn't matter to anyone. However, the reasons it makes me sad are important. And the fact that most Americans don't care about the fact that the United States has willingly revoked its claimed position as the "good guy" and a noble world leader actually scares me as much as it does sadden me. We're sacrificing our ability to do legitimate good in the world in exchange for an old-fashioned Texas ass-stomping.

And yes it's another tiny chapter in the story of mankind. Of course, it is my own problem. Parents, schools, politicians and civic leaders, and even the average citizen you run across on the street hopes to break the cycle; it's just not profitable enough to compel our leaders to do so.

But I do thank you, Dr. Lou Natic. Thank you so much for your embodiment of a vital problem preventing peace: I would argue that the people who abhore violence aren't a direct product of advanced intelligence but rather of the comfortable lives that the progression of the human species has provided for them.When it rains, do you just stand there on the street corner and hope it stops raining? Do you launch a missile at the clouds?

While the general history of humanity does show violence to be the standard prescription, what's with all of the rhetoric from churches, civic leaders, political and military figures, and so forth which seek to break the cycle? Are you claiming, Dr. Lou Natic, that violence is a good thing? That simply because it is a part of history it's right and proper?

(You do realize, do you not, that the age of consent for a girl to give her virtue away in Massachusetts used to be ten years old, and you could win her consent with bribes; that's right, child prostitution used to be legal in Massachusetts. Does its place in history make it right?)

Why would we try to stop Saddam Hussein at all if violence is so acceptable?

I thank you kindly for your input, but here in this topic we seek ideas toward peaceful resolutions. I find your input valuable because it helps to further define the serious lack of intelligence and human dignity we peaceniks face when addressing the dogs of war.

(It's not just a matter of perspectives. It is also a matter of priorities, which affect perspective.)

Let us know, though, if you have any useful ideas.

Oh, and Dr. Lou Natic, it would help if in the future you tried discussing the topic instead of arguing against posters.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Enumerating the issues which compel us to the Iraqi Bush War

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction - existence, production.
(1a) Weapons of Mass Destruction - Use, willingness to use.

(2) Repressive regime - existence, practice.
(2a) Repressive regime - human rights concerns

(3) Noncompliance/Violation of UN Resolutions - past, current.

(4) Potential Threat to World - potential for immediate and chaotic destruction
(4a) Potential Threat to USA - potential for immediate and chaotic destruction
(4b) Potential Threat to Immediate Neighbors - Kuwait, danger to Saudis, war w/Iran

(5) Spreading Liberty - (dubious inclusion of this point)

General commentary

In order to establish the peace, we must account for the factors which compel people to war. In the age of modern mass media, the reasons on the table are generally known, but who pretends that our mass media represents anything accurately anymore?

So it might do us well to get the reasons out on the table, as some might disagree with others, such as #5 above. I consider it a dubious inclusion because in itself, spreading liberty has not been held up as a cause for war, merely a side effect of the new American foreign policy strategy.

But if we're going to build a plan for peace, we need to establish what peace is; more specifically, we need to establish exactly where and why peace is absent.

Any other reasons? Any we should take off the list?

Notes aside:

Spuriousmonkey: I know; it's not particularly encouraging, is it?
Psycho-Cannon: Thank you very much for asking directly a vital question; sometimes it seems I'm the only one to see this point. Turns out I might not be crazy ....
Dr. Lou Natic: I would much prefer to find ways to peace. If you do not find a peaceful state among humans objectionable, perhaps I might ask you to consider the above list of factors pushing us toward war? It would seem that the best thing to do when seeking an enumeration of the reasons for war is to ask the war dogs themselves. Your participation in the pursuit of peace would be greatly appreciated.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I don't enjoy violence by any means, I just don't think there is a future for this world unless people are killing eachother.
Maybe one day a strict international law will be put in place that limits each family to one child, until then I can't tell myself world peace is a good thing.
For me the reasons killing is occuring are trivialities. I just know that, at this stage in the planet's life, it has to continue.

Thank you, Dr. Lou Natic. That's ... well, that's something to think about.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Very well, then, I'll figure it out myself. I'll probably get back to you on a peace plan long after it's irrelevant to this war, but who knows, it might be applicable to whatever hell we create after this war.

There's always hope.

But I offer general applause all around. I'm very proud of you all.

Psycho-Cannon ... Any ideas? At this point I'm unwilling to formulate a plan because, as you can see, I'm only working with my own perceptions here. I suppose I can consider, for instance, the factors compelling us to war complete and uncontested, but that would be presumptuous.

Apparently, the answer is a resounding, "Yes," it is wrong to seek to change our warlike nature. I admit, I'm surprised.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: