Originally Posted by al
What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.
As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer
nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more. So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?
If you really think this would work you're fairly naive. England couldn't have kept India if it tried. 2 world wars in a quarter century and the rise of a bipolar US-USSR political landscape reduced England to a second rate world power. The Vietnamese kicked the French out of Indochina w/in a decade of WW2 ending, and not with non-violence for that matter. Even had the US/UK not supported SH in any way, there were still the Soviets and French, not to mention SH using Stalinesque tactics to control his regime. It is you that is mistaken. Apples and oranges. Iraq ain't India, it's probably arguable to what extent Suharto wasn't just shoved aside at the upper tiers of power by competitors. A more apt comparison would be NK and Iraq. If KJI can be moved aside by the paradigm you suggest, then that at least would be proof that you weren't indulging in wishful thinking. Still, the rub is that any "peaceful" organization would be given that kind of latitude required for your "non-violent" solution to take hold in thuggish dictatorships. Maybe Venezuela and Cuba should go on your list for non-violent "change".
Also, Hitler wasn't "Hitler" (ie the evil boogeyman of WW2 infamy) prior to 1938. Would have been interesting to see how the world would've turned out if the "give peace a chance in our time" crowd had NOT been in a position to screw up the world through wishful inaction. An ounce of prevention would no doubt have proven more palatable than kilotons of cure. How many might still be alive if Mao and Stalin had been stopped in their tracks? We'll never know, sad to say.....
BTW, "throwing $$ at a problem" is NO solution. I believe you've countlessly brought this up with regard to the current situation in Iraq.