Random Thoughts on War and Peace

• Even if anti-war protesters think that the United States is a menace to world peace; even if they think that Bush is Hitler; even if they're worried about Iraqi citizens--why don't anti-war protesters also put their energy into opposing Saddam? Why don't millions take to the street in favor of a free Iraq, and demand that Saddam step down for the sake of Iraqi children^TM? Why not protest human rights violations by the Iraqi government against its own citizens? In other words, there are two ways to avoid war: one is for the U.S. not to go to war, the other is for Saddam to step down. If someone is opposed to war for humanitarian reasons, why not work to bring about either scenario?

• Of course, there is another way of avoiding the war: by ignoring U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and allowing Saddam and his ilk to do what they wish. But then anti-war activists need to explain why the United Nations should in any way be taken seriously. They can't have it both ways; if the U.N. is a moral-political authority in international affairs, then it has to have some teeth.

• Why is the anti-war movement so in favor of the status quo? It's amazing that so many anti-war groups see themselves as progressive and that so many critics of the Bush administration, especially celebrities, think of themselves as enlightened defenders of human rights, when in fact they want much of the world to remain the same as it always has been: governed by thugs, dictators, psychopaths, despots, warlords, anti-semites, genocidal loons, tribal chieftains, absolute monarchs, führers, and theocrats. One might object that the U.S. would have to go to war against much of the world in order to establish democracy--and even then, a lot of cultures may not want democracy. I agree with this, but my argument here (and above) is a non-fallacious ad hominem against those who oppose war on humanitarian grounds but end up only criticizing the U.S and never Saddam, the Taliban, the Soviet Union, and so on.