Soundfountain is a multi subject site.
News & Views

BACK

 

How to eliminate Saddam Hussein


Rudolf A. Bruil, July 30th, 2002.

The best way to eliminate Saddam Hussein is not to bomb Bagdad but trying to isolate him further. This is best done by recognizing the Arab culture and the formost important thing to do is to establish peace between Israel and Palestine and give the Palestinians their own souvereign state.

The Arab countries want to have peace in the region. They want to cooperate with Israel because Israel has technology and only by living in peace and cooperating the region of the Middle East will prosper. A peaceful coexistence will have its effect on the entire muslim population.

In order to avoid further bloodshed in Israel as well as Palestine, Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories and dismantle the illegal colonies. That is the only way to bring peace. There never will be peace if the spiral of violence is not broken. How to break this spiral, how to stop the violence? How can this be done in the case where two cultures that are based on religions which advocate "an eye for an eye"? There should be real and effective help from outside. The USA and other powers should alter their views and start interfering.

The actual position of the USA does not help Israel at all. On the contrary. Not only the economies do suffer, not only the influence of the radical muslim governments like that of Saoudi Arabia will grow in Palestine (damage done by Israel is repaired by Saoudi Arabia), but especially hatred will grow eventually to a non reversable degree.

There is only one way to safeguard Israel's existence and that is to walk the path of peace. Only if peace can be established, cooperation will be possible. The result will be a new impulse to the region's economies and growth. Only by prosperity these people can coexist. The effect will be the further isolation of the regime of Sadam Hussein because Iraq will not take place in this new order and the elimination of Saddam Hussein by the people of Iraq could be the result.
This is a long term strategy which can only be effective if Ariel Sharon's government is replaced by a government which has as goals the wellbeing of all Israel.

The alternative is to wage war on Iraq. But war means taking a great risk, not just for the peoples in the region, but also for the rest of the world. Possibly a war will not be limited to the region but will have an effect on all muslims and their fight for an own identity: Kashmir, Indonesia, Egypt, Algiers. It is also possible that Russia, now an allie of the West, could choose the side of the Arab countries and again will be the opponent of the USA. And then the war will be so severe that the river Jordan will be filled with blood as was written in the New Testament (Revelations).

There is an important risk for the United States. If the US intervention results in a large scale war, the world will not be grateful and as a consequence the US can loose their prominent and dominant position in the world.

Would not it be wiser to recognize the State of an Independant Palestine and aknowledge the existence of its people and safegueard the peace for Israel? By doing so it not only means the recogmition of Israel, but the recognition of the muslim culture. This recognition is a first step to the modernization of this culture. The West should strive to be the allie of the Arab World, not its imperialistic adversary. If not, the fight against Western Imperialism will go on and intensify.

Rudolf A. Bruil, July 30th, 2002

 

This is how I viewed the situation in 2002 at the time when the inspectors of the United Nations went to Iraq at various occasions to investigate and search for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and each and every instance returned to the UN and reported that there was no evidence of the existence.

The Blair Dossier:

Saddam is in the Way.

Most if not all wars are begun because of economic reasons. In most cases the country which starts the war wants to expand its power in order to secure the wellfare of its own people by controling others. The USA has many reasons to wage war. The same is true for Iraq. Israel will wage war only when it is attacked.

The USA started the war on terrorism which is a continuation of all previous wars which were fought to implement or defend the democratic principle (that was the motto) but the wars were factually fought to safekeep its own dominant position and safeguard the luxurious lifestyle for which oil is the fundamental basis. In most cases (not in all though) the entire western world is benefitting from the outcome of these wars.

Israel fights a war against the Palestinian people and other countries naturally to safeguard the existence of its own people, and it will do so with the support of the USA and allies. It is not sure that the dominance of the United States (read Western World) in the Middle East will result in an expansion of the territory of the state of Israel which will then include the Westbank.

Iraq is not on the warpath yet but could soon start a war if it is further restricted and humiliated and will increasingly be unable to feed its own people and cannot safeguard its existence. War is the only way Iraq can escape from the stifling restrictions put on by the United Nations and the surveillance of the airspace of Northern Iraq. So the question is not so much: Does Saddam Hussein have ABC weapons which are weapons of mass destruction? No, the important question is to be ahead of a mopve by Iraq.

All the intelligence and satellite surveillance cannot indicate - so it is presented - whether Iraq will start a war and when it will start a war. That shows the inefficiency of the intelligence services. That Iraq will start a war is not very likely. It certainly should not be eager to commence a war because starting would mean the complete destruction of Saddam and his people. The USA and most governments which will join in waging a war on Iraq - which is advertised as an expansion of 'the war on terrorism' - have the keyword 'oil' on their agendas: Texaco, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Agip, and many more. They want full control over the region and they want stability.

That is why Saddam has to get out of the way. The USA may have a second item on their agenda: the probable expansion of the State of Israel. For each and every state involved there is in itself nothing wrong with wanting to safeguard the existence and prosperity of one's own country and people. The question however is: What is the logical and legal sequence to follow in order to reach that goal. And: who will strike the first blow.

September 23rd, 2002

 

TOP OF PAGE