A good read on some of these issues was posted in a series of interviews in the Guardian daily paper published in the UK. The following is a description:
If not war then what?
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 48 high-profile opponents of the war to tackle the question.
Comments
<strong>You left out the part about Bush and morons. I thought that that would be your favorite part.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm trying to be a little more... er, a little less... of a, you know.
Anyway. Hairgrease and peace. Or vice versa.
If not war then what?
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 48 high-profile opponents of the war to tackle the question.
This is the link:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,903942,00.html"; target="_blank">Guardian Interviews</a>
People interviewed include: Julian Barnes, Woody Harrelson, Noam Chomsky, Terry Eagleton, JG Ballard, Will Self, etc, etc, etc...