If not war then what? (30 leftist answer this question)

In the early 1990s I wrote a series of articles arguing that the only way out of the bloody impasse in the north of Ireland was for the British government to start talking to Sinn Fein. What seemed to me a sensible, not to say obvious, course was angrily denounced in some quarters: it would reward the "men of violence", it would be immoral given their unspeakable history, it wouldn't provide a solution. Indeed, I can remember in 1993 an up-and-coming Labour politician earnestly explaining to me that the Irish problem was intractable (none other than Tony Blair). The only thing to do was to continue the 25-year-old policy of military intervention and defeat the enemy.

Now I find that I and the dozens who signed the petitions against war in Iraq, along with the millions around the world who marched on February 15, stand accused of more or less the same things: playing into Saddam's hands, lack of moral judgment, stubborn failure to understand that bombing is the only answer. And we are pressed to answer the question: well, what would you do? It seems to me the question is itself dubious: first, it assumes that Iraq currently poses a threat of major proportions, that we take at his word the prime minister when he says that Saddam is capable of hitting British targets, and Bush when he says that Iraq poses a danger to the US, and that a greatly militarily enervated Iraq would repeat its strikes against its now much more powerful neighbours.

Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, in their report to the UN Security Council on February 14, said that they had uncovered "no evidence" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I support military sanctions against Saddam and a strengthening of the UN weapons inspection teams. But until evidence of his weapons capability is forthcoming, I reserve the right to question the accuracy of what the British and American governments tell me.

But even were we to concede that Saddam is capable and willing to invade, nuke, pillage, it is usual and only right to expect governments to justify what they do when they set out on a course of action. The waging of war is no exception: the onus lies firmly and unequivocally with those who are about to unleash the terrifying power of modern weapons to prove not only that they have no other option, but that what will emerge from the smoking ruins will be demonstrably beneficial to the people who survive the bombing, to the country in which they live, to the region, to the world. Will war make the world a safer place?

These are the critical questions, and they are for Blair and Bush. In place of satisfactory answers we have what is essentially a classic three-act Hollywood movie scenario: Act One, a terrible crime is committed, stirring the forces of good from their complacent slumber; Act Two, the good guys hunt down the bad guys and some of the minor ones get their just deserts; then, in Act Three, the chief of the bad guys is finally taken out. Problem solved, happy ending, roll credits. Remove Saddam and all will be well - this trope has become the Anglo-US "solution".

In Ireland it used to be said that only chemists have the right to talk of solutions; alternatives are what the real world works in, and war, if it is to be used at all, must be the very last of these. Like all those who signed the petitions, I find the Ba'athist regime abhorrent. I would like to see Saddam toppled as quickly as possible and replaced by a democratic and just government, and I believe there are alternatives to war.

Let us begin with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. The focus of the west's attention has been on the US-friendly opposition in exile, supported and generously funded by Washington, and now being groomed to replace Saddam (the potential difficulties arising from the installation of a regime imposed by rich, powerful nations that have been bombing and starving the country and its people for more than a decade are too obvious to need stating here). Because it does not suit the west's plan for the country post-Saddam - get the bad guy out, put some good or at least biddable guys in - politics within Iraq are ignored.

But if the collapse of authoritarian, anti-democratic governments in South Africa, Latin America and eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s taught us anything, it is that such regimes cannot endure. Their lifespan is limited because it is simply impossible for even the most brutal dictator to bring all political life to a halt - there is always political life: in the palace itself, in the universities, the coffee houses, the street and workplace, even if it is conducted under threat of torture and death.

I hope it can be taken as a given that it is preferable for Saddam and the Ba'athist regime to be overthrown by popular opposition than to have the country "liberated" by force. The issue then becomes how to encourage and empower those within Iraq who want to see the end of Saddam. Funding those groups, turning them into clients - the traditional American approach - would obviously compromise them and be the political kiss of death. If the British and American governments are to have any role in this they need first to prove to the Arab world that they are genuinely on the side of democracy and justice. They need to stop supporting oppressive and totalitarian regimes, like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, about which Blair has been strangely, not to say hypocritically, silent.

Regional problems require regional policies, which means, of course, a complete rethink on the Israel-Palestine issue. Since Sharon's re-election, Israeli attacks on Palestinians have left more than 40 dead. There has not been a word of protest from Washington or London. No surprise there, of course: no one would pretend that the Anglo-US attitude has ever been even-handed, and with the conflict raging, Saddam can continue to pose as godfather to struggling Palestinians. A revamped peace process leading to a Palestinian state would undercut support for Saddam. The withdrawal of US troops from the Arabian peninsula is likewise a necessity.

A just and democratic approach to Iraq would also lead to the lifting of sanctions. Even leaving aside the morality of allowing thousands of civilians to die every month of (primarily) waterborne diseases, it is clear that sanctions have enabled Saddam to cement his regime in place. Instead of being able to earn their own living, millions of Iraqis have been forced by the west into dependency on hand-outs from the regime. We know that authoritarian regimes do best in climates of isolation, that openness is anathema. Sanctions help the regime to keep the country closed.

Creating the conditions for change is never easy, as the peace process in Ireland has shown. It requires greater vision, statesmanship and courage rather than the quick fix of military action. Any fool can make war. Blair and Bush have marched their men up to the top of the hill and are damned if they're going to march them down again. So it will be war. War is by its nature horribly unpredictable, but one thing is certain: the death and destruction we will shortly see on our television screens will be felt in the pit of the Arab stomach. Just as Bloody Sunday in Derry propelled thousands of young men and women to take up the gun so there will be a renewed flood of recruits to take the places of Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah and the other 9/11 hijackers. After Saddam is taken out, we will have to ask: what comes after the third act? My guess is greater bitterness, instability and anger. Which is why I will continue to march, and sign petitions, and, when Blair and Bush embark on their war, join on the streets those who feel the same to make our voices heard.

'We proceed in Iraq as hypocrites and cowards - and the world knows it'

The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause. The case against is clear. To begin war on Iraq would be to launch a pre-emptive strike on a country we fear will attack us on a future unspecified date, in a future unknown manner, with weapons we have not been able to find. It would be to set the most remarkable international precedent. It would be in contravention of international law and the UN charter. It would be to consolidate a feeling of injustice in the Middle East, the consequences of which we will reap for generations. It would be, simply, illegal.

It is telling that where the pro-war discussion becomes most urgent, most passionate, is precisely where it is least tenable, that is, as a response to September 11. It cannot be simultaneously unconnected (as has been admitted) and the engine of all action (as is endlessly inferred.) Again, it is for the pro-war contingent to clarify their position. We are told that we shall "sweep in and out of Iraq", "set up shop" there, and then proceed in "sorting out" the Middle East situation.

The reality is that we will be told by television that we "swept in", but, as in the first Gulf conflagration, there will be massive civilian casualties, unavoidable in a military attack on a nation where children make up more than 50% of the population. If we are committed to the idea that a civilian death in the west is of equal value to a civilian death in the east, then we proceed in Iraq as hypocrites and cowards - and the world knows it. This is what people mean when they say "Not in my Name" - it is not liberal tosh or soft-headed fantasy. It is a repudiation of the responsibility of that blood. It is the pro-war contingent who become fantastical when they imagine a quick or a "smart" war.

The anti-war contingent is accused of being without alternatives, which is rather like being told by a young thug: "I'm going to rob this house, and I'll be justified in doing so, unless you have a better idea as to how I can make a thousand quid in an hour." The lack of alternatives to an illegal action does not legitimise that action. "Why now? Why here?" are not idle questions, they are requests for explanations on why a pre-emptive, illegal war has become suddenly become more palatable than the diplomatic stalemate that preceded it. Rather than insane cowboy rhetoric, political fact is requested. The following questions were asked by Senator Byrd two weeks ago in the senate, a speech which made no appearance in any form in the American press. To whom are we handing power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war create chaos in the region and result in a horrific attack on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which, after all, has far closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

I hope it is not considered anti-American to suggest that when significant questions like these go unreported anywhere in the American media, the pro-war contingent appears to need to add suppression of information to this extraordinary descent into illegal, irrational procedure. Why are the answers to Senator Byrd's questions being fudged? Why are the questions themselves not discussed in the American press? What exactly is going on here? Anti-war movements are often sentimental, muddle-headed and politically naive. This one merely requests an explanation.

'If Saddam were to be removed, it should be by M16 or the CIA'

Richard Rogers
Part of our argument has been "Why now?" This is the first war where we have gone in where there has been no immediate crisis. Wars usually start because someone has been invaded or people have been killed. I don't see these things happening, but if you did see these things happening, I would see a reason for entering. I'm not a pacifist, I'm a near pacifist. I say that the facts don't justify a war, but I don't say facts never justify a war.

It seems to me that Blix is doing terrific work. I would add to that an investigation by the UN on the social and political conditions inside Iraq. And I'd like to see sanctions lifted if Iraq was willing to accept such a social force.

Katharine Hamnett
No matter how repugnant the Iraqi regime may be, the international community has no right to attempt to topple it. That is for the Iraqis to do.

There are many repugnant regimes in the world, none of which attract the threat of invasion like Iraq. What steps were taken to overthrow Stalin, or Mao? Why do we not urge the invasion of Zimbabwe or any of the other despotic regimes in countries in the world?

If Saddam were to be removed he should be taken out by M16 or the CIA. The US flattened Afghanistan but failed to catch Osama bin Laden. Weapons inspectors should be given the extra time they are asking for. Saddam has already decreed that no more weapons of mass destruction are to be manufactured or imported into Iraq.

Sanctions must be enforced. Saddam is withholding medicines from his people himself trying to blame the west for their suffering. If sanctions had applied in 1998 after he gassed the Kurds instead of the US pumping in more aid, none of this would have happened.

War should only be fought as a response to present danger, and as a last resort. How many dead Iraqis are going to thank us for "liberating" their country?

Simon Jenkins
For 10 years the containment of Saddam was enough but now, all of a sudden, it isn't. We are being led to believe that there is no other way anymore, than total all-out war with Iraq.

I think that the weapons inspectors must be given the time to do their job. After that time, if Saddam is found to be hiding weapons of mass destruction and if the UN agrees there is no other way, then military action on some scale will be necessary. If you feel the big stick must be used then so it should be - but not without exhausting other possibilities.

Bella Freud
The way this question is constructed is grotesque. It gives credibility to an argument, which no one in the current debate has accepted as valid, reasonable or authentic. It is deliberately changing the goal posts to abstract this specious concern about human rights from Blair's war rhetoric and present it to us as our dilemma.

The majority of people on the anti-war march have been against Saddam's human rights abuses and for justice in the Middle East an awful lot longer than Blair's hypocritical five minutes.

The other problem with how this question is designed is that it tells you, you have to either be a policy expert or you have to shut up. The UN is set up for collective security. Let the inspectors get on with their job, without being bullied.

Robert Fisk
I wouldn't say I was part of an anti-war campaign. Both my parents fought in wars and I was taken to the fields of Ypres, Passchendaele and the Somme as a child. I was impressed at a very young age at the amount of graves. I think a war against Iraq would be catastrophic - maybe not in the first instance, I think the US could get to Baghdad in a few days - but in the end there would be too much bloodshed.

We should make weapons inspectors have real teeth. They should be given time to do what they were sent there for. Why are we being told that they must come out? When it was said that the inspectors had to go in, no one stipulated the terms of Saddam's behaviour and what he would have to do. It was assumed, in fact, that they wouldn't get in but they did but now they say he's not complying.

What we should be asking ourselves is, what should we have done to prevent this situation? But it's always what shall we do now? We support and nurture tinpot dictators all over, just as we allow the wound of the Middle East to fester and people need to realise that these situations and the one we now face in Iraq are intertwined.

Michael Martin
The international criminal court has been put on the back burner entirely. The endeavour is to bring those who contravene international law to justice, whether for genocide, possessing illegal weapons or whatever. The US has blocked this initiative, and has refused to ratify, and is encouraging, with various forms of inducement and seduction, to get states to either not ratiyfy or at least exclude the US as a potential defendant. Until the nations of the world, and America in particular, countenance the rule of law, I am not prepared to countenance the rule of the gun, or bomb.

I want to prioritise the establishment of an international - not American - police force, backed by the world community. The only nation standing in the way is America. If we don't do this now, we'll allow the law of the jungle to pervade for the next million years. The ad hoc tribunals, like Rwanda, at the Hague with Milosevic, and Pinochet too, are beginning to work. We didn't bomb South America. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Saddam has committed offences, we need to send in inspectors, backed up by an international police force which, through the international criminal court, or the UN, would then have the power to go in. But we're nowhere near that. All we have are a few nations saying they think he is guilty. This is what civilisation is about. Otherwise we are back in the stone age.

Hanan al-Shaykh
We should adopt what the French government is suggesting. We should continue with inspections and increase their power by forcing Iraqis to accept that they have to look around more, and increasing their numbers, and selecting inspectors who have years of experience of working with arms and chemicals - the best, like in Mission Impossible. We should be patient, and gain more respect from the Arab community.

The Americans and Europeans should concentrate on solving the Palestinian conflict. If they do this, they will win over the whole Arab world and every Muslim. Then Arab countries would support any coalition. I'm not suggesting war, but they will give legitimacy for any action taken. If all Arab countries are against Iraq, Saddam will be cornered, and more likely to disarm. And the Iraqis against him will get stronger and stronger. And other Arab countries will become stronger in standing against Saddam. Why the rush?

Benjamin Zephaniah
I'm no politician, I'm just a citizen, but I could just as well be one in Iraq. We're going there because of Bush's macho politics. We should not set a preemptive precedent. I say let's put inspectors in there, for a long time, and let them do their job, on their own. If, after some time, they are judged by the international community not to be working, then look at other options. I may consider sanctions, but not how they have been administered so far.

This idea that if you're anti-war, you must be pro-Saddam is wrong. I felt that Saddam should have been out even when the British were friendly with him. I had writers from Iraq, in the 80s, who had been persecuted, but no one wanted to know. Saddam wasn't an issue. I'm against him, I'd like him out. But if the second resolution is achieved by America bending people's arms and bribing them, is it worth anything? Yemen voted against America last time and, they immediately stopped all aid and trade with Yemen. We keep going on about resolution 1441, but they forgot about resolution 242 - which is about Israel getting out of Palestine. To many, 242 is as important as 1441.

Suzanne Moore
I think that Peter Tatchell was right when he questioned how we could go to war without trying other methods first. I read today that in France, they have been in contact with soldiers and other people who they think might break away from Saddam but why has this not been tried before? There seems to be no will to find other ways.

For a start, the weapons inspectors should be given more time to do their job and, while I accept that weapons inspections are unlikely to work without some threat of force behind them, there are still other ways of saving the Iraqi people without bombing them.

I am not so naive that I don't think that there are weapons or that he hasn't hidden them but we were all laughing at Bush's "axis of evil" a year ago and now we are asked to believe it. On top of this, there is no evidence that, even if he has got these weapons and held on to them for 12 years, that he has done anything with them in that time. I think all other ways should considered before we move onto considering the next step.

Ian Jack
I have been quite persuaded by the argument that containment of Saddam has been a success and I cannot see why we shouldn't continue that policy. I am inclined to the French and German policy of allowing the UN inspectors more time to do their job but it seems inevitable to me that we will go to war.

The easiest way to influence Iraq would be to make friends, we've had relationships with unpleasant regimes before and sometimes they have become more pleasant because of it. Why not throw money at it, as they are about to in Turkey? To form a political friendship and bring Iraq back into the fold would be the easiest way of dealing with the problem and a way of developing a better society there. I cannot understand why this way has not been considered at all when it seems like the sanest options.

John Hegley
The point is that it is wrong to go to a war against terror and create just that. So, what do you do? All I think is, don't kill children. I saw someone preaching from the Bible on the street near my house and I thought of going up and asking what Jesus would have thought about all this? As I understand, it seems the reasons that have been given is that Saddam has weapons that go at 97mph instead of 95mph so why doesn't he just damage the fins, kick them or something? Or someone do it for him?

Weapons inspectors should be kept in for longer and there should be a permanent presence there, monitoring the situation. The problem with going to war is that it's too high a price to pay. It sounds so wishy-washy to say, "just keep monitoring the situation", but there is no definite solution and what do I know, I just write poems about love and potatoes.

'It's not our job to pull Arab chestnuts out of the fire for them'

Giorgio Locatelli
Who am I to answer these questions? I don't know how we can take this man out. I am just a chef. But the people who pay the highest price are people like me and you. That's why my opinion is valuable. The alternative to war is to stop the regime some other way; modernisation of the area, giving people access to information and promoting the democratic process. Saddam's charisma is immense. We have to overcome that. There are thousands of people like you and me in Iraq - who want to open restaurants, be happy, have children - for them we shouldn't make war.

If Mr Blix is asking for missiles to be destroyed, we should wait to see if Saddam destroys them. I don't like John Major, but he made sense when he said that you have a lot of different peoples in Iraq. If you topple him, how do you stop other dictators getting into power? So it's easier for us to throw a few bombs down, let the Americans walk in, put them on a McDonald's diet and off we go.

Let the inspectors keep going, don't threaten them. If we threaten him, he'll go for armageddon. What's he got to lose?

Michael Berkeley
It's just possible that Tony Blair is being extremely clever, and that this is posturing and brinkmanship. After all, if we weren't convinced he was serious, how would Saddam be? But I still believe that we must try to force him out without war.

Is it really not possible to topple Saddam through the use of covert operations, in conjunction with those people who live in the region and oppose him? We cannot afford to imbalance the whole of the Middle East and should rather be concentrating on solving the Israel\Palestine problem.

Senator Robert Byrd recently asked the American senate if a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation, where more than 50 % of the children are under the age of 15 is in the highest moral traditions of America. We should be asking ourselves that very question. The answer will surely stay our hands and remind us of the virtues of time and patience.

Mariella Frostrup
Of course there has to be an implicit threat of some kind of follow-through in the event of unsatisfactory results from the weapons inspections, though my arguments against war are not based on the repulsive Iraqi regime and its possible store of weaponry. There are many irresponsible regimes in this world who have built up terrifying arsenals; North Korea is at present a case in point. We are not, however, building up troops on its border, destroying the credibility of the UN and setting the rest of Europe against us in order to attack the North Koreans.

I would be happy to rid the world entirely of weapons of mass destruction but I am not interested in some personal vendetta of George Bush's which has absolutely nothing to do with the event that supposedly inspired his renewed interest in Saddam Hussein, ie September 11. I'm not naive enough to believe that war is never the answer but I don't believe in a war where no act of aggression has been perpetrated and where the potential outcome is at best confused and at worst completely ill-considered.

On the sanctions question, South Africa is the perfect example of a regime which eventually crumbled under the weight of international sanctions. I think sanctions are preferable to an ill-conceived and as yet unjustifiable war, the outcome of which is uncertain. As to whether I should feel better about sanctions because they are opposed by the left too, it's not a question of left or right, it's a question of trying whatever avenues there are available before we decide to embark on a war with no clear purpose except to get rid of one of the world's many tyrannical dictators.

The price of war will be high not just for Iraq but our relations with the entire Arab world. America's current "colonisation" plan following victory is vehemently opposed by most of the opposition groups to Saddam. But of course what would the Iraqis know... it's only their country.

Kamil Mahdi
It is not in the interest of the Iraqi people to simply go back to the position before this crisis. War, comprehensive sanctions and containment are all damaging to Iraqi society and detrimental to people's ability to challenge tyranny. Here we are, possibly within days of a cataclysm and certain military defeat, yet the regime's structures are intact.

The alternative to war is not the threat of war, which is implicit and understood. The alternative is to start a political process that empowers the people of Iraq and shifts the domestic balance in their favour. War and sanctions both write off the people and target them. The way to empower the people is by both shifting the agenda and establishing the credibility and authenticity of international concern. Propaganda and spin in the service of war will not convince Iraqis that this is not an imperialist project. The way out of the present impasse is:

3 Lift the economic blockade and demand professionalism and transparency in economic affairs under UN monitoring.

5 Genuinely support Iraqis, not by imposing an agenda and stooges on the opposition.

9 Curb Ariel Sharon and move immediately towards a just Middle East peace under resolution 242, with recognition of Palestinian rights.

The Saddam regime is now in retreat and its project is doomed. This is an opportunity to undercut its domestic power base and also to curb extremism. The alternative to a political process is a devastating imperialist war, followed by a bloody liberation struggle.

· Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter.

Hans von Sponeck
I was in charge of the UN humanitarian programme in Iraq, and I resigned in protest over what I perceived to be a criminally faulty UN sanctions policy. It is now well documented that the policy of sanctions are a main cause of the death and destitution in Iraq. The evidence is there to prove it. Plus, sanctions haven't weakened Saddam one bit, and we know it.

To say I am against war is an understatement. What is required is dialogue and disar mament, with a concurrent lifting of economic sanctions, as well as very strict controls at Iraqi entry points. The best way is to continue with resolution 1441. I totally agree with the French and Russian and German proposal to continue with the disarmament and monitor thoroughly.

Iraq is the most X-rayed country in the world. We need to accept it is a threat to nobody, even if it would be good to have a new government. What is required is a continuation with the disarmament process, a strengthening of monitoring, and the lifting of a punishment from the Iraqi people who have done nothing wrong, while scrutinising tightly what the Iraqi government will do with the greater economic freedom. But there is absolutely no justification to consider Iraq as an imminent threat that would justify a pre-emptive strike - which in any case is against international law.

Sir John Killick
One of the things that makes me most cross about this debate is the suggestion that we are friends of Saddam if we oppose war. I think Saddam is a murderous bastard, but that's not to say we should go to war with him next week.

What we need to be doing now is concentrating on containing him, applying the sanctions forcefully, and leaving the Iraqi people and their Arab neighbours to get rid of Saddam. It is simply not our job to do so. The best we can do is to continue to apply sanctions, tighten them if necessary, and to pursue a policy of deterrence and containment. Saddam needs to know that if he were to use any of his nasty weapons, he would be nuked. That deterred him sufficiently in the Gulf war, and it should be allowed to do so now.

I accept that tightening sanctions may well cause ghastly suffering, but that is Saddam's own fault. I'm not swayed by the humanitarian arguments, though I hope I'm not heartless. But we don't have a right to go to war on those grounds.

My belief is that we have got to have a fairly limited objective: to limit his expansionist ambitions, while keeping a close eye on his weapons development. We should establish agreements with neighbouring countries like Kuwait, in order to have a small, strike-ready force stationed to keep him in check, while weapons inspectors contain his weapons programme.

I believe military action has to be an essential component of the world order. But it is not the best way to deal with Saddam's crimes to decide, unilaterally and without UN support, to invade. In the end, I don't feel it is our job to pull Arab chestnuts out of the fire for them, particularly when they seem unwilling to do anything for themselves.

Glenys Kinnock
It is not too late to reject the view that "we have gone too far to turn back". I do not believe that we are hearing a persuasive case for war. If that case was effectively made, then I would support it. Until now, however, all possible avenues likely to result in a peaceful solution have not been explored, and the consequences of war are neither defined nor understood.

As permanent members of the security council, the UK and the US must continue to live up to the responsibility we have to defend the authority and legitimacy of the UN.

The call for speedy and comprehensive disarmament still has to be made because the fact is that, until now, we have simply not seen any evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Short of finding and removing the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, there really is no option other than to continue along the UN route. We should ensure that the weapons inspection system is strengthened, that it is more coercive and given time to work.

Will Self
I think that doing nothing is a perfectly good response to the current situation in Iraq. British foreign policy resulted in the arming of Saddam's regime and helped to unleash the Iran-Iraq war which cost the lives of hundreds and thousands - if not millions. British policies of "containment" toward the regime have resulted in the past 10 years in the loss of many more lives.

Britain's foreign policy objectives in this region are to honour the arms industry's "servicing agreements" on the armed forces of the Gulf states (which are supplied and trained by the British army and British defence companies), and to prop up an outmoded concept of Britain as a player on the international stage.

The use of a "pre-emptive strike" against presumed aggressors has terrible consequences for the future. I don't support the idea that it is our role to intervene in sovereign states with manifest human rights abuses, but it's worth noting that if this were indeed the case, that many of our supposed allies - Saudi Arabia, Syria and Israel - to name just three in this region, would be suitable candidates for regime change.

'The US and UK don't care about Iraqis - they've been killing them for years'

Julian Barnes
Odd, isn't it, how late the humanitarian argument is popped into the shopping basket, how close to the deadline those intent on war spot, say, the oppression of Afghan women, or the fascistic nature of General Galtieri? Like most of the February 15 marchers, I find "anti-war equals pro-Saddam" mendacious bullshit. I am anti-war in the sense that I am anti this war now, there, by us, with the justifications so far stated. If Saddam is a threat to his entire region, should we not wait for his region to ask our help? If a threat to his people, there is always the old system of assisting an uprising - except there was one after the last war, wasn't there, and we hung its participants out to dry.

I decline to buy the sudden idea of a "humanitarian war" when it will be conducted on current American guidelines: keep US casualties below the level of an average supermarket-mall massacre, bomb from high altitude, road-test the latest hardware, and oops, sorry about that wedding party which just went up in smoke. If, on the other hand, we are now announcing a new and truly ethical foreign policy, in which filthy oppressors worldwide are to be removed in order of filth, I would say that this should be done only with a very high majority vote in the UN, and that former - and current - imperial powers should be extremely cautious in their use of hectoring cant. Those who are anti-war have not somehow been cornered by the question, So, peaceniks, what would you do now? It's quite legitimate to answer, well, we wouldn't be here now, because we wouldn't have started from there then. Instead, a question in return. Saddam disarms voluntarily: do we then invade on humanitarian grounds?

Mohamed Heikal
In the atmosphere of hysteria in the area now, and with the massive build up of men and arms in the region, and with the feeling of widespread frustration engulfing the Arab world, I think what I will say now could seem like a fantasy and yet I dare to say it. Put the breaks on that horrible machine of war. Keep the inspectors. Ease the sanctions. Give the Iraqi people a chance. Using force would be very dangerous. It will unite Islam, Arab nationalism, Bin Ladinism, terror, the Israel-Palestinian conflict - the frustration in the Arab world will be brought together in one charge.

As for sanctions, the problem is that they are helping the regime. I would leave it to the Iraqi people who are coming to the end of their patience. If they were left alone they would take their destiny into their own hands. Sanctions make people dependent on the regime for the distribution of food. If you lifted sanctions you would find that so many things would change. As for the inspectors, they should stay, even though I am completely sure Iraq doesn't have anything. The Americans are all over the area with their U2s and all that and we saw from Colin Powell's presentation to the UN that they are listening to everything; they simply don't have anything.

How do you stop them getting the weapons again? They were quite far away from having the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb, probably 10 years. With the biological and chemical weapons, they have the knowledge but any third-world country has the knowledge. If you ease the sanctions, I don't think there is any harm keeping the system of inspections for a long time to come.

Harold Pinter
"What should we do?" The question should be: "What have we done?" The US and the UK couldn't care less about the Iraqi people. We've been killing them for years, through sustained bombing and the brutal sanctions which have deprived hundreds of thousands of children of essential medicines. Many of them are dying and are dead from the effects of depleted uranium, used in the Gulf war. The west has shown total indifference to these facts.

What is now on the cards is further mass murder. To say we will rescue the Iraqi people from their dictator by killing them and by destroying the threadbare infrastructure of their country is an insult to the intelligent. We have no moral position in this matter whatsoever.

The impending war is about testing new weapons of mass destruction (ours) and control of oil. The arms manufacturers and the oil companies will be the beneficiaries. The United States will be making a giant stride towards controlling the world's resources. The whole thing is about "full spectrum dominance" - a term coined by the US - not me.

Noam Chomsky
Exactly the right question, and in my opinion, we know exactly the right answer to it. It's useful to remember that Saddam Hussein is not the only monster supported by the present incumbents in Washington until he did something contrary to their interests. There's a long list that they supported right to the end of their bloody rule - Marcos, Duvalier, and many others, some of them as vicious and brutal as Saddam, and running tyrannies that compare well with his: Ceausescu, for example. They were overthrown internally, despite US support for them. That's been prevented within Iraq by the murderous sanctions regime, which has devastated the population while strengthening Saddam, and forcing the population to become hopelessly reliant on him for survival.

Solution? Give Iraqis a chance to survive, and there's every reason to believe that they'll get rid of him the way that others have. Meanwhile, strengthen measures to ensure that Saddam, or some replacement, doesn't develop significant military capacity. Not a very serious problem right now, since as is well known, Iraq is militarily and economically the weakest country in the region, but it could be down the road, and in his hands, it would be likely, even without the US and UK to supply him.

· Institute professor at the department of linguistics and philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Margaret Drabble
Weapons inspections must be part of the answer, and they seem to be having consider able effect. It is true that they are backed up by the threat of force, but this must come from a united United Nations, not from the United States, which is recklessly and deliberately doing its best to undermine the UN's authority.

The unilateral threat of force from the US is arousing global hatred and untold potential violence, with implications far beyond the present situation, and it is putting us all at risk. I see no justification for declaring war on Iraq. The human cost of sanctions is high but less incalculable than the human cost of war. We are told that Saddam is uniquely evil, and his regime uniquely wicked, as though this would justify pre-emptive action against him. But he is also 65 years old and frightened and he and his regime will not live for ever. Nobody expected the Berlin Wall to fall, but it did. And so will Saddam fall. His grip on power must by now be tenuous. The fewer innocent lives he takes with him, the better.

JG Ballard
I think there are great dangers in going to war now and one has to accept that the world is not a perfect place. It may be that we have to accept that Saddam's Iraq represents one of the world's blackspots that we can't do very much about. This notion that we need to replace all the world's unsatisfactory, unpleasant or cruel regimes, if put into practice, would destabilise the entire planet. We pay our diplomats and economic experts huge sums of money to come up with sanctions, economic pressures, bribes and economic and political threats. Saddam has been contained with them for the past 11 years. As far as I know he's not feeding dangerous weapons (assuming he's developed them) to terrorist groups.

As for the sanctions: some things can't be justified. But a million or more people were killed in Rwanda and as far as I know we did absolutely nothing. Some of the more unpleasant regimes in the world today have deplorable human-rights records - China, for example. But we're only too eager to get enough McDonald's into their country.

There's no council of perfection. One has to accept that in an imperfect world, but leaving Saddam where he is, under the sort of economic pressures that he is under, would be more effective than launching a full-scale blitzkrieg against the man. That's going to have huge repercussions.

In a paradoxical way, Saddam may be a force for stability in the Middle East, in the sense that the playground bully - like the drunk on the aeroplane - concentrates the mind of everyone else.

Michael Atiyah
The people of Iraq should be saved from war, from sanctions and from Saddam Hussein - in that order. By all means let the UN keep its inspectors there, increasing them if necessary, and widening their scope to include humanitarian objectives. At the same time, we should lift sanctions on all except the most obviously dangerous materials. This would show that the outside world was genuinely interested in helping the Iraqi people. With the relaxation of tension, with outside aid and with a firm UN presence in Iraq there would be the prospect of internal liberalisation and change, leading in due course to a peaceful change of regime.

Meanwhile relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds would be transformed by a fair settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. All this should be the real UN objective, and it would carry the full force of undivided world opinion.

I am glad that Tony Blair, realising the unconvincing nature of the threat posed by Iraq, has shifted to the high moral ground. I, too, am all in favour of helping the Iraqi people but I would prefer not to kill them first.

Woody Harrelson
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a brutal, evil, genocidal tyrant who has pursued weapons of mass destruction and probably lies awake at night dreaming of his own little stockpile and eventual world domination, starting with the Middle East.

The US and British governments understand what weapons of mass destruction he has procured because they sold them to him. They understand that he is the most brutal kind of terrorist - because they created him.

Stop the sanctions. If we believe in human life, then let the Iraqi civilians have the medicines and things they need to survive. Don't let 5,000 children die per month and add to the 500,000 that have already lost their lives because of the sanctions that have been in place since the Gulf war.

Let the inspections continue. The UN was designed to deal with situations just like these. Let them do their job. What's the hurry? This mad march to war is because the Bush oiligarchy doesn't want to take the time to potentially discover that there are no weapons of mass destruction. No matter what Iraqi's level of compliance, no matter if the UN is with them or not, no matter how many millions take to the streets, they want war.

And most of all, we need to sift through the fear-based media and distinguish between propaganda and fact. Propaganda: this is a war on terrorism. Fact: this is a war for oil. Propaganda: George W Bush declares: "Of course, we prefer a peaceful solution." Fact: 77,000 body bags were just ordered by the Pentagon for potential American "casualties".

Ken Livingstone
All the evidence is that the weapons inspection regime in Iraq is working. After three months the inspectors have found no significant evidence indicating that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening its neighbours and that would justify war. The inspections should continue to ensure this.

Implementation of UN resolutions must be maintained for Iraq and be extended to other countries in the region. This is particularly the case for Israel, which is in violation of UN resolutions to withdraw from the occupied territories. Selective, rather than general, enforcement of UN resolutions will create permanent instability in the region with global consequences.

Terry Eagleton
We must take seriously the idea that for humanitarian issues we must do this, and the left needs to take into account the fact that if the second UN resolution goes through they will lose a lot of support. However, those on the other side must face questions from us about why we didn't do this five years ago? Why are we clinging to the coat tails of the States when they have never made the humanitarian reasons a priority for war.

Questions such as these assume that there is an answer, that there is black and there is white but there is sometimes a balance of evils. I believe that there are some moral situations that do not have a straightforward answer and I don't have a pat answer for this or any other moral issue.

I am against war because, while the humanitarian argument is strong, the long-term backlash is not a price I am prepared to pay.

I believe the process of containment has worked fine for 12 years and while the things we can do might be inadequate there are options. Giving the weapons inspectors more time and more power is a start; contain and supervise him while we wait for a bullet to get rid of him.

Abe Lincoln had a few words of wisdom, that these folks should memorize and put into practice: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Ok. I read it all. Sorry, I'm not convinced.

LET'S ROLL (I wish I knew how they make the font big for the LET'S ROLL part)

All of these folks never saw 9-11 coming either. And we should rely on them for advice about the dangers of going to war with Saddam's Iraq. Hah.

What a bunch of tripe!

Let's review, shall we?
· Fashion designer
· Columnist
· Fashion designer
· Middle East correspondent
· Novelist
· Writer
· Journalist
· Poet
· Composer
· Writer and broadcaster
· Literary critic

When considering an issue it's important to hear from the individuals with a mandate from the people (elected), and a responsibility to carry out a duty on behalf of said people. These people have neither a mandate, nor a responsibility to carry out any duty.

9 posted on 02/26/2003 8:03:15 PM PST by ChadGore (Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordian)

Is it possible that any or all of these self-important a** wipes could be persuaded to go to Iraq and serve as a pre-human shields?

Maybe if we took up a collection and paid the fares for them, and promised them a sweet obit in the Guardian?

10 posted on 02/26/2003 8:07:17 PM PST by John Valentine (Writing from downtown Seoul, keeping an eye on the hills to the north.)

Dagnabit, I *went* to Berkeley. :-) Made me more conservative. COLUMBIA IS IN NYC AND FAR MORE LIBERAL (and dangerous). Pick your targets with care, heh.

On a side note, I enjoy any article which quotes Woody Harrelson as some sort of foreign policy expert whose opinion should actually be taken into account. Stop bogarting the presses, Woody!

The one comment that really makes my blood pressure rise is when these knuckleheads bring up our failure to capture Osama Bin Laden.

If they think it is so easy they should try this:

Tear a page out of a Los Angeles phone book and mark over all the addresses. Pick one name. Find that person.

Remember Osama Bin Laden is not some inner city gang banger hiding under his mothers bed evading a summons. He doesn't use credit cards. He doesn't travel via public transit. He doesn't have a license plate number registered at the DMV. If these people are so good at finding folks then maybe they should pick up a rifle and give it a shot.

I hope it can be taken as a given that it is preferable for Saddam and the Ba'athist regime to be overthrown by popular opposition than to have the country "liberated" by force.

---

It is preferable that I win the lottery tomorrow than having to go to work.

With clueless thinking like this, you can construct any "alternative" that sounds better than war.

But Saddam who is in power 20 years, will lat 40 years, like Castro, if he is not deposed. It's how dictators work, dummy.

Unfortunately, I was one of those who was fairly certain the SOB was sealed under a ton of rock somewhere until I learned otherwise. Still, he can't be living a great life, that's one consolation.

You would get a much better read by pulling 30 of the sharper posters from FR and giving a

Do we need this war? (30 conservatives answer this question)

I'd love to see what we came up with. We've got much better to tag on to our names than 'Fashion designer', 'poet', or 'literary critic'. I could just imagine the responses from Nick Danger, Travis McGee, American in Tokyo, etc, etc.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

In recent weeks, it has become the hawks' favourite riposte to mounting anti-war sentiment. But should critics of military action have to answer it? And, if so, can they offer any real alternative? We asked 30 high-profile opponents of the war to tackle the question.

'Any fool can make war. Peace requires greater vision and courage'

'We proceed in Iraq as hypocrites and cowards - and the world knows it'

'If Saddam were to be removed, it should be by M16 or the CIA'

'It's not our job to pull Arab chestnuts out of the fire for them'

'The US and UK don't care about Iraqis - they've been killing them for years'

Let's Roll!