Well, yeah. And? Speaking as an anarchist, all I can say is that frankly, if the western powers (UK, USA, the usual suspects) hadn't created Saddam, then the 'cradle of civilisation' wouldn't be in this mess now. As it is, they did, and it is. So what do we do about it? I suggest removing our troops and replacing them with engineers, with volunteers, with helpers, and let the Iraqis rebuild themselves. Better yet, take the opportunity to set Iraq on its feet without interfering at all in terms of politics. But they won't. So my response? Revolution.

But back to your post. Fair enough, Greenpeace didn't comment on Saddam's human rights violations. Amnesty International's comment that using a report on human rights violations to provide an excuse for more is in itself immoral seems to me to be fairly normal. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was entirely in line with its principles. Back to Greenpeace - it's remit is environmental, not humanitarian. Greenpeace DID condemn Saddam Hussein's draining of the marshes. Also, Greenpeace is not actually a soothsayer. So they were wrong in that the marshes are being re-flooded - but were they wrong in that war is environmentally destructive? No. The Coalition of the Sycophantic fired millions of rounds of DU, which causes cancer, environmental ruination and so on.

Lastly: I'm not a member of either organisation.
No, that's a lie: This is the last: Did you consider that, perhaps, if we'd left Saddam alone he would have gone? The Soviet Union collapsed. The Tsars went. The Roman Empire went. The British Empire went.

Peter... the Soviet Union did NOT "just collapse." Look into the history a bit deeper, and you'll see that it was led to the cliff and then pushed, Not a moment too soon, either... 60 million+ dead is enough, and opportunities like that don't come along every decade. This is true of revolutions as well - so take it while you can, I say.

The thought that "everyone collapses, so let's just wait" to justify inaction... to most people, its foolishness is self evident. Do you promote your own beliefs that way ("oh, it'll all collapse eventually anyway - no point attending that demonstration")? Yeah, right.

None of this, of course, grapples with the moral abdication at the heart of both Greenpeace and AI's positions. The marsh ecology can't be restored UNTIL Saddam is gone, for instance. So even in strictly environmental terms, the damage done to the environment by Saddam's removal must be balanced by the opportunity that presents. Otherwise, it's not really about the environment at all, is it?

I'll add that Greenpeace's remit explicitly includes politics beyond the environment, including weapons of mass destruction. And once again, its record of protesting only Western regimes' plans in this area vitiate its moral standing.

Peter's prescription for Iraq is an anarchists' expected prescription, but except in very unusual circumstances it's utterly inappropriate for a society in which Saddam's Ba'athists are still attempting to enforce their power at the end of a gun barrel.

So what does work? Well, I think Peter is partly right.

It will amuse you to hear this, but I support the Cuban Intervention Model. The engineers and helpers go in, but they're all paramilitary and backed by troops. That has a pretty decent history in conflict-ridden regions of Africa, and while I generally despise Fidel, a good idea is a good idea.