We understand all too well the realities and dangers of people like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but are also very concerned that the current war, and talk of war, could escalate out of control and envelope the world in an unstoppable cycle of violence.
Saddam Hussein is a serious threat to humanity and must be removed if the world is to become a safer place. Please consider, however, before military force is used, that there may be a better way to remove him.
• A war against Iraq could cost as much as $100 billion (even up to $200 billion by some accounts). This same war could also cost:
• collateral damage bringing death and destruction to thousands of women, children, the elderly and other innocent civilians;
• more anti-American sentiment among the nations of the world, who are likely to see the U.S. as the aggressor, and as a possible violator of international law;
• the high probability of the war escalating out of control, with the whole radical Islamic world retaliating against any group or country seen to be allies of the U.S.;
• the high probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction being unleashed on the world.
In short, the price of this war under the current paradigm is much too high especially if there might be a more effective alternative! Yes, Sadaam Hussein is evil. But overwhelming "goodness" can defeat him and his legions of radical terrorist admirers.
Before launching a dangerous war, consider what would happen if the U.S. and its allies issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein (and others in his junta guilty of crimes against humanity) to step down peacefully and turn themselves over unconditionally to an international war-crimes tribunal.
Then, in return for Saddam’s compliance, the U.S. government would spend—not $100 billion on a war which could escalate out of control but at least half of that amount on international "goodness." For example:
• $10 billion to help eliminate the national debts of the world’s poorest nations (not allied to Iraq so no one could say that terrorist tactics have enabled him to achieve any of his objectives);
• $10 billion to fight the international scourge of HIV/AIDs;
• $10 billion to fight other humanitarian scourges such as hunger, displacement, homelessness and poverty;
• $10 billion to help develop true democracy, human rights and the resolution of conflicts around the world;
• $10 billion to provide compensation to victims of transnational corporations that have caused displacement and loss of life or health to suffering people in developing nations.
There are only two possible outcomes of such an offer. Saddam could accept the offer (highly unlikely). Or he could refuse to comply and invite war with a seriously diminished fan club.
In the eyes of his own people and supporters, Saddam would be seen, not as a 21st century Salahudin (which is what he craves), but as the man who deprived the poor and needy of assistance. America would lose many of the constraints of international condemnation...since the U.S. would have clearly offered a generous and just alternative to conflict.
As people who value freedom, peace and justice, we hope you will consider this suggestion. Even if there is only a remote chance this will work, we would be irresponsible not to put it to the test.
"Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good."
