Aya

You just can break violence if you answer non-violent.

In the way that the US trained and financed this people and this islamistic ideology has been wanted.

No. You negotiate with them and you don't stop negotiating! All kinds of "soft power"...
And if they don't care and come you capitulate and then you can start with civil defense.

None.

Not at all. You don't make it better for a country as Iran if you overthrow the democratical elected premier and install a regime.

The only issues are and were money, oil and weapons.
And it had its reasons that they overthrowed Mossadegh...the MI 6 and the CIA. And this reason was oil.

For shure. The West supports nearly all regimes in the ME. And all of them turned into democracies.

The strategy is wrong and nobody cares if this countries get democracies or not. They have to make their business, nothing else.

Nothing. We can live that, it's ok. But it's not ok to lead a war of aggression "because of this". Our governments aren't leading wars because they want freedom and democracy there. They want a pro west government or regime and benefit from it.

And really, what would you say if Iran would come and say: "hey, our values and our system are the best in the world, you have to accede it!"

And it's easy to answer why. If he would have told that he hasn't any weapons there would have been a revolt in Iraq. And how many dictators are in favour of this?

Hussein was an "ally".

No. The US wanted to democratize Iraq. But not because of the poor oppressed Iraqis. If the US (tries to) democratize another country, there are several reasons why.
1.) Installing a pro west government or a regime
2.) If this is done you get easier to your oil
3.) Iraq is geostrategical not that unimportant-> you want to control the whole ME
4.) You show your might and you are present
5.) The arm industry is very very lucky. They would do everything for war.
6.) The media are lucky

I mentioned it above. Using all kinds of soft power. Or overthrow Hussein. If the US brought him to power you could have overthrown him also.

War is the worst on earth. It combines the worst crimes and that makes it the worst.

I don't think so. It is hard to compare because we don't have any kind of politics by pacifists.
Appeasement politic means that you appease. You don't put real pressure on your "enemy" and don't negotiate, you just appease. And you let blackmail your own. When did they put pressure on Hitler? When?

A politic of pacifists in such a case would be totally different. You negotiate, you don't stop negotiating. It would mean an unnecessary loss of control. You put diplomatical pressure on your "enemy" and try to force him to stick to treaties. If all of this doesn't help and the other country is going to invade you, you capitulate. You accept the occupation of your country. And if it's real pacifism in the government, you already trained the people what civil defense mean. Now your country is occupied and now you try to get them out with civil defense, civil disobedience, (non violent) national strike and non-violent resistance.

Civil defense? Yes.

The appeasement politic has been consisted of an anticommunist policy as I already said. This was neither soft power nor hard power and had nothing to do with pacifism. They didn't act at all.

Of the Holocaust probably yes, but not in the war itself.

I'm sorry, but what means OBL? The Western countries knew exactly why he didn't deny that he (not) have had weapons.
In this case it was very simple. Iraq wasn't a threat anyways.
You shouldn't have stopped negotiating with him. It didn't mean a threat to us and Iraq didn't attack us so we hadn't any right to attack Iraq (and in my opinion even if there would have been an attack it would have been wrong to beat back).

The massacre of Tinneman Square is an example of civil defense which wasn't successful. Civil defense has as military defense some suppositions. The protesters were mainly students, that means that probably not all or the majority of the people supported them. And that's the problem. You need at least a majority and some kind of "strategy".

This doesn't mean that it will fail always. You need some suppositions that it can be successful. For example Mahatma Gandhi, the fall of the Berlin wall etc. there are enough examples where it has worked.

You can win a war militarily only. And sometimes not even this (take the war in the Gulf for example). A war is always lost if you look on the side of the humans who are affected on it.

The problem is that civil defense is very "young" and until today not really known. Because of this, nobody trains the people for civil defense. Often civil defense has to be organized very fast, so it can be successful or fail. If it would be trained, you would have much better chances.

So if you take this time it probably wouldn't have worked. As I said civil defense has suppositions also and these suppositions weren't given in this time. But if these suppositions would have been given it would have worked. It's all a question about organization.