So how do we work towards removing $evil_dictator from power?

These are some strategies not requiring military threat. I'm not saying anything about their morality, nor the issue of attempting to depose leaders of other nations, nor am I aware how many of these have been tried against Saddam.

Oh, you meant Saddam. Sorry!

If we're going with the "let the inspections work" idea, there need to be more steps like the U2 flights, whereas Saddam's strategy of obstruction and deception gets a lot harder.

Massive civil disobedience with majority participation could theoretically turn Hussein out, but such a movement must have leaders and communication and Hussein's secret police prevent the slightest chance of such a movement starting.

Economic sanctions can help to contain him, but not remove him. Sitting on top of the world's second largest proved oil reserves makes it just too hard to starve him out, since oil is the world's most valued commodity - even more than South Africa's gold, diamonds, titanium, chromium and other minerals were.

An honest assessment of the situation requires acknowledging that Hussein is unlikely to be removed short of armed invasion. The next question is what principles of international law are you willing to shred in order to mount that invasion?

target and assassinate?
capture and exile?
encourage civilian uprising (think Romania '89, although obviously the regime and fear here is greater so perhaps not viable at all?)

if the Saddam regime is such a nuisance to its neighbours as much as the STates, can't they do more? i'm not sure what Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia ARE doing to oppose Saddam assuming they do but would like to know.

Iran, Saudi & Syria et al. play the game of "thank god for daily allied patrols of the NFZs" while talking shit about the USA over dinner. They have also been known to play "don't piss off the giant firebreathing dictator with poison fangs" game.

A panda walks into a bar and sits next to the beer nuts. He grabs the nuts in handfuls and polishes the whole bowl off, then gets up and walks back to the door. Just as he reaches the threshold, the panda pulls out a Glock 9 and opens fire on the room, killing everyone except the bartender.

"What the hell are you doing?" screams the bartender.

"I'm a panda. Look it up."

The panda exits and the bartender grabs a dictionary. He finds "panda":

"Eats shoots and leaves."

How would Americans feel if some other country decided that their ruler was an unfit-to-rule-lying-cunt-faced-fuckwit who did not represent the majority and did not have the welfare of the majority as his prime interest (oh gosh, fancy that - that's what he actually is!) and tried to move in and remove him and his with miliatry force?

I wish someone would hurry up and do so. Then maybe the rest of the world can carry on without America's fucked up terrorism anymore.

its all cos America saved the world a couple of times and is the bastion of democracy or something, and if we dont appear to them to remain grateful to them for that then we incite their hatred in addition to that of the Islam-related fanatics/extremists...but despite the distaste i feel at the Bush regime's seemingly outdated and disturbingly arrogant stance there remains a modicum of admiration for the initial ethos that that stance is supposedly founded upon (upholding freedom etc.) - i just hope that people can keep it balanced and remember that the US and UK may have fucked a lot of things up for civilisations around the world (including their own) but some good was done here and there and continues to this day too - grated its very debatable how far the scales are really tipped against the good these days.

you guys are too slow. Come on, we've got endless old canards to tread out all over again - Where's my Colonialism? Where's my Kyoto? Why does America get to have nukes but not Iraq etc. etc.

the 'U.S. as the lesser of two evils' argument has probably been done on other threads too

Interesting article on what the Iraqis themselves think about all this from the Sunday NYT. They basically want us to do what may be impossible.

Why does America consider Iraq's "political system" its business? Because America is the only superpower and therefore the best actor to oppose repression.

Iraq's rule should be deposed by an outside power, and America's should not (tho I can't wait until we beat him in 2004) because Iraq's leader is unelected (well, dictatorial) and apparently overwhelmingly wanted dead by his own people..

When it comes down to it, I see this as a utilitarian question - which option is most likely to produce the least death/suffering? Given what the public has been told about the risks, I don't think they are worth taking. That means that I would allow Saddam to continue torturing and murdering his own people (beyond the basic repression of expression, etc.) because of 1) the possibility that we would have to kill a lot of Iraqis, both civilians and unwilling conscripts, to prevent it, and 2) the possibility that American action in Iraq could turn sentiment even further against us, inspiring more current or future acts of terrorism against Americans than are already planned. It is also possible, of course, that "regime change" would produce neither of those results but somewhat or very much the opposite. But I think this could be a naive view.

Classic!

("That argument," in short, reads: if a group of people honestly believe, on purest principle, that a particular person makes the world a devastatingly worse place for everyone involved, they have a "moral" right to oppose that person. This principle is the basis of all rules ever: it's the principle that allows us to put someone in jail for assaulting one of you, as opposed to saying "you have no right to tell him not to assault whoever he wants.")

Note that this post has nothing to do with the current situation w/r/t Iraq -- it's just that I see you both questioning the very principle of whether anyone has any right to try and restrict the behavior of others. Actually, only Mary's doing that. Toraneko is complaining about the U.S. winding up the arbiter of it all: to clarify, Toraneko, what would you say if, in theory, everyone in the world voted representatives into a body that drew up and enforced international laws? (This would, in principle, be the same as having laws in any given country, just abstracted to a larger level.)

One thing to consider about the use of force is that a dictator, by definition, controls a given population by force already.

Also that "divine right" annoys me, since I've been trying to explain on this thread and the other how no one claims any "divine right" to do this. The claim -- which you and I can agree with or disagree with -- is that certain people make the world worse for everyone but themselves, and we should try to prevent that from happening. Similarly the government has no "divine right" to put me in jail just because I robbed James's apartment (just now): they do it because they've decided on principle that robbery should be prevented.

The question is, in any given case, whether we're making the right decisions about what to do (and in the case of Iraq I think we're making the wrong one). But we have to talk about the individual case to decide that.

but should it be prevented preemtively? should all possible theives be jailed? should wide public oposition be put aside in favour of this? at all costs? what actions are reasonable to prevent you from robbing james?

stabbing is a different matter, it took me too long writting this.

not that Bush is a dictator (see nabisco's post for why), but I did think this thread would be a 'impeach Bush' thread, a sentiment I'm surprised I haven't seen voice more often (especially considering...).

"that certain people make the world worse for everyone but themselves, and we should try to prevent that from happening."

this is the propoganda that allows americans to feel good about what their government is doing

your desert island scenario contains none of actual power dimensions of the current situation

What I'm been trying, maybe badly, to say to you, Mary, is that answering that "more important question" necessitates talking about the specifics. Does that make sense? I'm saying it's not a very powerful argument to say "what right do you have to make that decision?" -- because we all have the right, day in and day out, to make decisions about what we can do to uphold different principles, to prevent bad things from happening. The powerful argument isn't to ask "what right do you have to make that decision," it's to say "that's the wrong decision."

That's why I react badly to your saying "what right do some nations have to call other nations evil?" Because it doesn't really matter who's saying it -- what matters is whether it's true. And it doesn't matter whether they have the "right" to do something about it -- it matters whether they're doing the right thing by acting.

I'm against war in the current situation. But I would never argue that we simply don't have any right to act, sometimes forcefully, against Bad Things. I would argue that in this particular case, rights or no, it's just not a good idea, and in the end stands to make things worse.