It's amazing. These people just won't go away. Same damn anti-war protestors every time.

But for an answer now, why DO people not learn from history. WHY?

Err... 2nd!

Oh, Good Lord!

These people are worse than I thought. Clueless Idiots. Too ignorant to be "useful".

First!

Drat!

That is a sign I can imagine going to a peace march and holding up...

So for that reason, I sense that it has to be a parody of the marchers.

#2 -- People don't learn from history because they've never bothered to read any. They might not even watch the TV docudrama unless it had "celebrities" like Madonna, Brad Pitt, etc. starring in it.

This is just another symptom of the coming dark age.

You can think our education system and "enlightened" media for the encouragement of blindly taking rhetoric from certain sources, without checking facts or reading and knowing history. Even then, true history after about 1960 is harder to find than one might imagine.

Bah! yes, I know I need to use the preview button, but it should be "thank" not "think."

The irony is overwhelming, almost.

Ow! Call the Irony Police!

Irony of ironies...

Good one Mr. Norman! Damn! wish I'd thought of that!
(Please don't copyright it or anything... I'm sure we'd all love (or need) to use it.)

I still like the idea of attending one of these rallies, in full protestor get-up (cause it's all about image), with an "End Women's Sufferage" sign, and measuring the reaction (or lack of...).

It's been pointed out before --- these people can't even get their slogans factually correct; what does that say about the essence of their message. (Case in point: "At least Hitler Was Elected" when in fact he never was.) This has very little to do with being anti-war and everything to do with being anti-Bush.

Viva la Saddam!

I just got back from a great anti-war, pro-Saddam rally. Man, you could feel the love for psychopathic dictators at that rally! It was so awesome! There were alot of different people there, (Communist Marxists, Lefty students, Socialists, Muslim fundis, Palestinians, CND fruitloops and beardy university professors etc.) but we were all united by one thing: our hatred of America.

If only we had a flag to burn! Then some guys broke out the mary jane, and things got even better! I was like, dude, this is awesome! Getting high and supporting Saddam, what could be better?

I think this dude is the coolest Bush hating, anti-American, dictator lovin' march I have ever been on.

I was expecting a "Hussein in 2004" sign. I'm so disappointed.

Then again, he did get 100 percent of the 'vote' last time...

To which Winston Churchill (he of happy memory) responded: The nation had to choose between shame and war. We have chosen shame. We shall get the war as well."
Later: "There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if when it comes it will be a worse war and harder to win."

#13-well said Ima

Hey, is that the Lebanese flag I see in the background?

Another pity--if that is the Lebanese flag, and if these flag wielders are purported Lebanese sympathisers or purported Lebanese nationalists, they should NOT be with this crowd; American victory in Iraq might be the first step in finally and genuinely liberating their homeland from Syria (and Hezbollah). (Note: as I've said before [and as some of the Clueless Idiots have, in fact, noted], we've ALREADY been at a de-facto state of war with Iraq for the past 12 years.)

Incidentally, Syria is also a Baathist state.

(Maybe those flag-wielders are with counter-demonstrators, I hope?)

Charles,

What a fantastic post. As the "old" European arguments for appeasement have become more strident, the parallels between 1938 and now have also become more stark. Your posting of the Chamberlain speech made this all the more obvious. We can only hope that the outcome is different: a decision to neuter the madman before global conflict envelopes the world. (Beyond, of course, our own war on terror).

Just for the record, everyone should be aware that "peace in our time" is part of one of the Anglican prayers used in their liturgy. The phrase has a meaning which is a little deeper than we Americans see in it.

So while to us, the phrase is associated with rank appeasement, with the English, it means something more like "give peace a chance."

In other words, the Reuter's editor just suffers from a little cultural blindness, as do we all.

Still, the irony is so sweet that I have to really hope some guy snuck into the parade with that sign in the deliberate attempt to do, well, what has been done.

I always look for Palestine flags in the background and I always find them.

Palestine Flags Highlighted

I was there today. I went along to see how the anti-war/ pro-Islamofascism crowd would present their case.

The atmosphere was "bubbly" but I would say that the vast majority of people were ignorant of the facts of the situation due to the disgracefully inaccurate slogans on their banners. NO TO WAR FOR OIL!! BLAIR IS EVIL!! DON'T DROP BOMBS ON IRAQI BABIES!! The people were not as vocal as their banners which seemed to have been mass-produced as they littered the floor like a carpet of Iraqi flags. Jesse Jackson tried to get them to chant with him but failed dismally, then he drew heckles from the many atheists due to his turning of his speech into a sermon.

The high point of the whole afternoon was when a heckler grabbed the microphone from Ken Livingston (Mayor of London) and shouted "SAY NO TO THE CONGESTION CHARGE", which is THE issue in London at the moment. The crowd shouted their agreement and much laughter was heard.

The scariest group were, of course, the Islamofascists, dressed in Palestinian flags and scarves with long straggly beards and shouting "Allahuakbar" repeatedly. One of their speakers turned his speech into a rather annoying chant of the type seen on terrorist recruiting videos. This did not go down too well with the crowd who looked around nervously.

All in all the rally in Hyde Park was a bit of a damp squib, or perhaps I just thought that the crowd would be passionate about their beliefs.

3/10. Must do better next time :)

Copy and paste the link

[Link: www.webspawner.com...]

Peace in our time? Sorry but it will never happen. There exist too many despots who for whatever reason will try to push the envelope and take what doesn't belong to them by force.

The peaceniks need to understand that for the US to be at peace we need to prepare for war. Only by being the biggest, strongest country on the face of the earth can we maintain a semblance of peace.

If there are such vast numbers who do not know what "peace" means, there are also too many who do not know what "liberate" means.

Sadly, these include even such certified anti-idiotarians as Mark Steyn and James Taranto -- et tu? talking about "liberating" Iraq. (And Bush-2 actually speaking of the "brave Iraqi people".)

Hey -- This is not Tibet and Tibetans you are talking about. The British invented Iraq in the 1920s, and its history since then has been an unmarred record of viciousness.

Even Feisal I, the Hashemite the British made King of Iraq, before he died in 1933 wrote of his despair that Iraq could ever be turned into a nation.

In all the Arab attacks on Israel, the Iraqis were the most brutal of all. In 1951 it ordered all of the ancient Jewish community out of Iraq within one year -- a community that had been there since the 6th century bce -- that is, 1200 years before the Arab invasion.

180,000 got out -- robbed of everything they had. (No. the UN did not set up an agency to take care of them -- Israel alone took them in and settled them into Israeli society.)

Some Jews did not get out in time -- and it was a public holiday in Iraq when they were hanged in a public squar of Baghdad.

And all this before anyone had ever heard of Saddam Hussein.

So please -- let the US have a realistic idea of what it is heading into, in the expectation of a "liberated" Iraq becoming a peace-loving democracy in about 18 months.

It ain't going to be that easy, and delusions won't make it any easier.

Why not give the real reasons for going in -- they are strong enough without the flimflam about "liberation" of these "brave" people.

Nice work Zachary (22). Many of these fools have no idea who they march alongside, and as say it (21) has reported, tend to show a bit of uneasiness once they begin to realise the discomforting truth...

No doubt Saddam is quietly chuckling to himself at the stupidity of these so-called "peace" campaigners. Maybe he'll send them a message of thanks for all their efforts. It really is amazing to think that the largest protests in living memory are all about keeping a psycopathic dictator in power.

Scrooge, little of your summarized history is news to most of us. And NO ONE ever said that liberating/democratizig Iraq would be "easy"; why do I keep hearing or reading that charge all the time?

Neville Chamberlain was right. The WWII started because of Czechs raping German virgins and Gleiwitz radiostation attacked by drunken Poles. And all lefties and jihadis are right too - Saadam Hussein is a peace loving father of the Iraqi nation. What are you saying - gassed Kurds, invaded Kuwait, weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Queda?

Despair. Frustration. Were Bush & Associates the only ones to stay awake during history class? I can understand the anti-war protests before WW2, they had been hurt so greviously by WWI. But they should know better by now than to hold up such a stupid sign...

I'm sure that I've mentioned it in the past, but most people, certainly most americans, have no clue about WWII history. Back when we first started bombing Iraq in 1990 I had a library school classmate, who was going into school librarianship and was stridently anti-war. When I compared ignoring Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to the ignoring of Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, she responded "Well, we never should have been involved in World War II either". I was left speechless, which takes some doing for me.

I went to secondary school in Ireland, and am a lapsed Catholic/practicing Anglican/Episcopalian. "Peace in our time" may be used in the Church of England liturgy, but certainly even after years of Church of Ireland, and Episcopalian services, all that phrase makes me think of Neville Chamberlain.

Hi I'm Casey Al-Kasem. Here's this week's Top Ten Hajj hits:

10. "Yes, we have no vials of Anthrax" by Tariq Aziz
09. "I am to be throwing my AK in the Air, and waving it as I just do not care" by Crazed Palestinian Gunman
08. "Let's go blow up the Bat Mitzvha" by Polly Stinian
07. "Honor Killing" by Stone Ya Once
06. "See ya at the Kabba" by the Pilgrims
05. "My dad met Nasser once" by Yashur Hedid
04. "Marhaba, Ana ismi..." by Slim Al-Shady
03. "Death to America ('03 remix)" by M.C. Ayatollah Hoe-meni
02. "No Blood For Oil" by The American Liberal and his gang of Useful Idiots.
And the number one hit for the tenth week in a row:
01. "Lilililililili" by the Ululatin' Jaddahs

Changing a society takes between 30 to 50 years today. Governments can rise and fall in a fortnight, but societies change after the last generation has died and the new generation is brought up in a new world.

I don't know what the scariest part about #31 J-damn's post is: the humor, or the fact that I could see some of those song being written.

#31...LOL!

As I was getting into town I saw some guys with the usual No Blood for Oil signs. It seems the anti-war mvt. is not original.
Earlier I was watching a BBC debate. Richard Perle pointed out to the French ambasador that had it not been for the destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor which was built by the French, the Iraquis would have had nuclear weapons by now. Perle got a few claps but was cut off by the moderator who went on to the Saudi ambassador to Britain.
I think the panel was quite balanced, though the studio audience is more to the left.

It is a fascinating replay of history. Now, we get a flavor of what it was really like in the years leading up to WWII. My respect for the "Greatest Generation" has increased all the more.

Supporters of the Iraqi people, such as most of the people posting here, need to be more aggressive in pointing out the similarities between the morally bankrupt, craven counsels of yesteryear with those of today.

Charles -

Do you (or anyone else here) have a link to that photo? Tried to find it on Reuters & no joy.

#26 "It really is amazing to think that the largest protests in living memory are all about keeping a psycopathic dictator in power."

I'm pretty sure their limited thought processes haven't allowed them to come to terms with the fact that that's exactly what they're saying. It boggles.

Never mind my last, found the link in Yahoo. Here it is in case someone wants to use it:

"Peace In Our Time" Photo on Yahoo

Past posters appear to be too dismissive of these well-organized, mass global demonstrations.

Following on the heels of Frances winning tactics - where they got Russia, China, and Angola to back them, Guiniea to lean their way, and Chile to back off US support, we don't even have a majority on the SC.

The mass demonstrations are intended to isolate the US further by making other nations and leaders take serious pause of large numbers of their citizens not wanting a US war to happen. The turnout is impressive, and pressure on Blair and the Arabs to back off from US support is enormous.

To use Bush's Dad's words, the US is currently in "deep doo-doo" from underestimating the French's knifing abilities and the depth of global anti-US resentment.

The US will have to do some serious "charm" efforts...starting with making public guarantees that we will NOT take Iraq's oil (surprise! the US has somehow avoided making that a formal assurance), that the US will cease backing the expanding Israeli West Bank colonies unequivocably...pledge to be a fair ME peace broker...and not let the US neocon Likudniks run US ME policy as an annex of the Israel Lobby and shred our global credibility in the process , and finally to make some real initiatives on global warming.

There are other domestic & global issues the US should be working on, but the whole last year has seen neglect of them...even the economy and the WoT, as Bush obsesses on Iraq and devotes more and more of his time to "The Evildoer".

We will eventually go in, but I don't want to see the US stuck alone with a 300 billion dollar Iraq bill with a dead US economy, a wasting away stock market, record Federal and local government deficits. We act alone, who else will pick up part of the tab? Japan? Canada? Germany? Saudi Arabia? Not likely.

And, a neglect of North Korea, or a lack of Presidential focus on that great threat, is foolhardy.

The US has it's work cut out for it. I support going into Iraq, but not at any price. No "nexus" has been established between Al Qaeda and Saddam to even the US Congress's (Dems and Republicans) satisfaction. Invading to "keep Israel secure" in their WMD monopoly is also not enough of a reason.

We have to turn the issue of Iraq to a deadline....allow Iraq 1 more month to completely fill in the gaps and disarm, and the US will side with the backstabbing Frogs to allow this....In return, we extract a formal commitment each member of the SC to back force if Iraq fails to disarm, and a formal commitment of each nation with financial means to aid in the reconstruction and peacekeeping costs and troops needed.

Another protest march cartoon strip.

All the stereotypes you know and love.

That link from LGF has the wrong year.
[Link: www.semo.net...]

It should be Sept. 30, 1938
NOT
Sept 30, 1939.

By then, England was already at war with Germany.

We need to be smarter than the idiotarians.

Hey Ranbutan, maybe the US should also give formal notice it will not harvest the organs of Iraqi children for resale (Surprise, the US has somehow avoided giving that guarantee yet).

Peace For Our Time
by Neville Chamberlain

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain said in front of 10 Downing St.:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Hitler was quoted as saying, "If my first aggression is challenged, I will retreat, but if unchallenged, I will
take more. My enemies are worms. They will not challenge me. I have seen them at Munich."

Churchill in reply to Neville Chamberlain:
"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor and they chose dishonor. They will have war"

[Link: virus.lucifer.com...]

This guy is obvisously a pro-war plant who is trying to make the anti-war people look stupid. Anyone who knows history would associate "peace in our time" with Neville Chamberlain's naive pacifism. Although the other people there were too stupid to realize that the sign makes them all look stupid, nobody took the sign away from him.

#38

One of these days these ignorami will confront the fact that they -- in what I hope they think is an effort to be "compassionate" -- have become the cruelest people on earth.

Lets hope that the post-war victory celebrations will dwarf these little gatherings of astroturf (fake grass roots) peace creeps!

Ran,

We don't need a majority in the Security Council just a majority in the CVNs.

If the Iraqi people cheer our entrance into Baghdad it doesn't matter a whit how the SC voted.

As to the Arabs - they will back the stronger horse.

That leaves - the French. Who will not be looking too good once the deals between them and Saddam are revealed.

For a military man you are letting your pre-invasion nerves get to you. Steady.

As to the Stupidstinians. I believe they will be much more amenable to a little persuasion once the oil spigots are turned on full and neither the Saudis nor Saddam nor the French are as forthcoming with the $$$$$. I expect they wil get about 1/2 of what was offered in 2000. A fair exchange for intentionally killing children in their beds. if the deal does not suit them I propose the Israelis offer less and less until there is nothing left. Kind of a blue light special good for a limited time only.

Simon

This is a great batch of comments. I love how Charles through pictures and links cuts right to the quick about what this anti war business is all about.

#45, Brian, had my comment, about how I think he's an anti-Saddam sabotage and very poignant. I talk a lot about dropping in on a pro-Saddam rally, but never do it, so this guy rocks. My signs would say "We [heart] Saddam" "No Democracy for Arabs" "The Kurds Deserved Their Gassing" and "Keep Saddam in Power" but this guy's sign is much better.

And I absolutely love J-Damn's top ten list and I laughed out loud.

Matt G

The obvious reply is that today 1.5 million in the UK turned out to protest "Blood for Oil", the largest rally in Britains's history.

Largest Mass Gathering in UK History Protests Iraq War

Same with 400,000 in Bercelona, 300,000 in Rome.

None were saying that War would result in organ harvesting, mentioning your inane comparison.....but with Iraq having the second-largest oil reserves in the word, their concerns are grounded in economic fact....

There is big oil money to be made in a Post-Saddam Iraq. And, I have no doubt that the wealthiest political donors in the US - Big Oil - are pushing for a place at the Bush feeding trough once Iraq is taken.

Of course Oil isn't the reason, but it is a supporting motivation and for those opposed....the primary motivation.

From the tax cuts, you know that Bush's people feel strongly that the Richest 1% must be succored....and they have purposely left what happens to Iraq's oil vague.

I say they don't have that luxury anymore. They must state exactly what their intentions are for Iraqi Oil and bring transparency in.....that the Oil is the property of the Iraqi people, that contracts will not be awarded by virtue of US political connections, but be fair, that the Iraqis will have a voice in what is done. This is needed so the world has assurance that the US will have an open fair process in Iraq that benefits the Iraqi people first, not connected Americans in the Oil industry...which is a pervasive belief in much of the world.

It is time to dispell the power of the "Blood for Oil" libel...even, perhaps to go back on the peripheral "deals" we know transpire in Washington DC....on what was said to Exxon and Halliburton contributors to the Republican Party behind closed doors.

Ranbutan (#40):

Actually, I think we DID officially say we wouldn't "take" Iraq's oil. I remember Powell saying a couple of weeks back that it would be "held in trust" for the Iraqi people.

I think Bush made a major mistake in trying to go the diplomatic route through the UN. We have lost valuable time and support. I fear the longer we wait, the more impact these protestors will have. We are being damaged. If we don't go in now, I'm afraid generations to come will curse us for it.

#15 mpax

The nation had to choose between shame and war. We have chosen shame. We shall get the war as well.

Great quote!

What these prostestors are really saying is "Peace at Any Cost". They have no idea that the war started already - it began 9/11/2001. They have no shame. These are the same Narcissist Nitwits that made fools of themselves at the WTO and Group of 8 summits. They are lead about by the nose by Neo-Marxists and Anarchists who don't EVER let facts get in the way of the "truth". They have no clue as to the actual workings of capitalist economics, hence everything is about "controlling" the OIL. It's like that in a socialist command economy like, say, SADDAM's Iraq.

Ignorance as an Infectious Disease.

Simon - I have no doubt the US can kick Iraq's ass.

What I don't want is:

1. The obsession with Iraq to cause us to neglect a large list of other global and domestic problems .

2. If we finally spurn most of the world to satisfy the obsession, we get stuck with a massive war&reconstruction bill single-handedly - with a moribund economy, stock market continuing to implode for the 4th straight year, business investing & hiring paralysis, and financial meltdowns in just about every state and in the Fed Gov't. And, little support later for working with the US on N Korea, Kashmir, ME.

A collection of photos from around the world. Very distressing.

[Link: search.news.yahoo.com...]

I, too think the guy with the sign was having a joke at the anti-warriors expense. I also like the idea of the "Abolish Womens Sufferage" sign.
If Bush fiddles long enough, I'll have a chance to get some people together and try it.
Any more suggestions? Must be subtile, or use long words that the lefties are unlikely to understand.

That's it. Next big rally here in Toronto and I'll be the guy carrying the "Free Mumia! ...with any order of medium soft drink and fries" sign.

-Vic

#50 Jeff

You are correct, Powell is the one Administration member who has said that the Oil was the property of the Iraqi people.....

And that was after a YEAR passed with the charge unanswered by Bush.

No have credibility, it has to be stated as official US policy.....and exactly what that means, who the petro redevelopment contracts go to, which "Iraqi people" they refer to...Kurds? Those past Iraqi oil field owners in comfortable exile in London the past 30 years?

By "held in trust for the Iraqi people"...who controls the "trust"? Halliburton? Exxon?

The US is long overdue to spell out what it will do with te Iraqi Oil post-Saddam. Whose existing contracts are honored, what the royalty amounts are, will the Iraqis get funds right away...or will the Kuwaitis and Saudis get to skim their reparations claims right off the top?

And, do the royalties go straight to the Iraqi people, or all to the new-US controlled government? If to the latter, will the money go for purchases of F-16's, Microsoft office products, IBM &GM equipment, and big US contractors like Bechtel and Brown&Root?.....Or will the royalties go the rebuilding the Iraqi health care system, get medicines and food into the right hands, fix water utilities, electric grid, and horrific sanitation conditions? Will money go to bribe military officers and reward profiteers...or will it go to rebuilding the once-excellent Iraqi education system?

I want this spelled out in an official US policy statement with details, not as a one sentence aside in a Secretary of State speech at the UN.

For added credibility I'd like to see Cheney announce the policy, looking like he just ate a bad oyster.

Until then, the unresolved Iraqi oil issues add power and potency to the Left and France's opposition....and have no doubt....the US vagueness is deliberate - all to enhance the prospects and options of some Ultrarich Americans looking to get a nice piece of the oil action and get the inside track on getting their fingers on Iraqi petrodollars steered into their businesses Post-Saddam.

#57 Ranbutan - Good points which are well-argued. Kudos.

#47 M. Simon - I love your idea of "diminishing returns." Ever since Israel unilaterally pulled out of Lebanon (which seemed like a good idea at the time - take Hezbollah's biggest self-justification away and put the spotlight on Syria to explain why its troops are still there - unfortunately, since there's a double standard where the Arabs are concerned, Hezbollah promptly cooked up another phony excuse around Shabaa Farms, Syria simply ignored the questions, and the rest of the world doesn't give a shit), Arafat and the rest of those murdering fiends have promoted the idea that they, too, can make Israel capitulate if they can just use enough violence and create enough mayhem. Your idea is a great way to let the splodydopes know that instead of getting more, they'll get less and less and less...

Another way of accomplishing the same thing is for Israel to superimpose grids dividing the West Bank and Gaza into roughly equal-sized squares. After each and every attack on its citizens, Israel should declare that it's annexing pieces of the grid proportional to the severity of the attack. The worse the attack, the more pieces get annexed. Go in and destroy whatever's on that land, evict the Arabs and occupy it. Soon there will be a wide buffer zone of wasteland between Israel and her enemies which will just keep getting wider. The Pallies will get the message PDQ that the violence is completely counterproductive, and they'll be screaming for Hamas and the rest to stop faster than you could say "Allahu Akbar."

Where will all those Arabs go? That will be their problem, created solely by them. They can go to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qattar, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria... Let their "brothers" declare to the world that they refuse to take them in.

Whatever you want, Rambutan. The U.S. government is just here to please you.

Asshole.

The idea of peace in our time is dumb.
Why in the world would anyone want that?!?
I wish people would leave me and my SUV alone.
Let Bush get the oil prices down so I can get to work in peace.
The protestors are all folks who have lost their jobs because they were inefficient at work.
You would think with all the free they have they would make signs that made sense!

Huh huh huh. [Link: www.nationalreview.com...]

Ranbutan, I was mocking you. Sorry it eluded you, I guess you don't do satire. I'll dumb it down if I ever I pay attention to you again.

PS. Tom Swift really didn't want to eat the Irish children, either.

Good grief. #21: The scariest group were, of course, the Islamofascists, dressed in Palestinian flags and scarves with long straggly beards and shouting "Allahuakbar" repeatedly.

I have serious doubts about the war, but no way in hell am I going to associate with people waving Palestinian flags. That's a red line for me. Even if I did believe that the war in Iraq will be a great injustice I would never march with Islamofascists. That would be a complete betrayal of my principles, no matter what I think about Bush making war on Iraq.

The Islamofascists go to great lengths to hijack the anti-war movement and the organizers of the demonstrations are complacent. Perhaps they think that they have enough support with all the extremists on board. Wrong. If they keep alienating the center they will debilitate their movement and push more people to the right. The silent majority effects change. The extremists just create noise pollution.

In all the apPEACEment protests, not one sign I've seen so far addresses Saddam and his responsibility in avoiding war.

It's REALLY a Bizzaro world when it is Saudi newspapers that are making more sense than the (cough cough)millions of anti-US protesters. Saudi's are calling for Saddam to Abdicate or Commit Suicide.

Ranbunten is a socialist.

Holy shit! I would have sworn that was a photoshopping of a protest photo until I clicked on it & saw tht it was for real. It really doesn't matter if that was a protester too clueless to know the historical signifigance of that slogan, or if it was "one of us" who was putting one over on the peace at any price crowd. If they were clue-impared enough to let that sign be front & center, they deserve the mocking they're going to get.

The guy in the brown coat looks to me like he has infiltrated the peace march, and is enjoying making the knuckleheads look stupid, well more stupid. It cant be real, can it???

For those of you inclined to think that the person who made the sign is a pro-war plant:

There are a great many people with that person, all facing the camera. The placement of the sign is easily the most prominent feature, and it was obviously intended to be.

That means either:

1. The entire photo is a fraud, cooked up to discredit the antiwar movement... And everyone is complicit - photographer, sign-waver, and everyone in the crowd.

2. No one in the entire group of people - with the possible exception of the sign creator - did not catch the reference.

If it is not a fraud, then it is clearly indicitive of deep ignorance in at least these protestors, and possibly even a broad pathology of deep ignorance among the protesters at large.

Harmon writes:

"Just for the record, everyone should be aware that "peace in our time" is part of one of the Anglican prayers used in their liturgy. The phrase has a meaning which is a little deeper than we Americans see in it. "

You can add it to the list which is growing long. You folks have handled this sooooo badly. The reason you've ended up isolated at the table is that you used the legitimate hurt and rage of the American people over what happened to them in September 01 and the sympathy and the best wishes of the rest of us and you've tried to twist it around to fit a campaign wherein old grudges, domestic political exigencies and economic concerns predominate.

I support the liquidation of indigenous third world peoples. Er, wait. The liberation of indigent third world peoples. Yeah.

I support the right of Saddam to develop nukes, give money to terrorists, and wreck havoc.

Of course, if I'm being currently impeached then all bets are off...

Until the crisis is over.

Ranbutan thinks the US needs to "make some real initiatives on global warming."

That someone tried, lamely, to link War in Iraq to global warming is no real surprise. The only surprise is that it took 40 whole comments before it happened.

I support the right of Saddam to develop nukes, give money to terrorists, and wreck havoc.

Unless I'm being currently impeached, of course. Then not the mightiest condmentation from the U.N. is sufficient to stop me!...

Until the crisis is over.

Now some may criticise me for my double post. But you have to realize that this all depends on what the meaning of 'double-post' is...

We have to be careful in likening those who cheered Neville Chamberlain in 1938 and the anti-war marchers now.

In 1938 many people could still vividly remember the horrors of the First World War in which they fought in horrific conditions. They knew that if war started they would be on the front line, they would be bombed by the Germans (as Basque towns had been) and they might die.

This present lot are moaning about the possibility that someone else might have the guts to remove a dictator from power. They know (unlike the people in 1938) the full horror of the Iraqi regime, they know about the babies being murdered in front of their parents, the mass executions, the rapes, the torture and yet are willing for that to continue.

First they came for the Kurds
and they did not speak out --
because they didn't care.
Then they came for the Shias
and I did not speak out --
because they didn't care...

But when someone want's to stop the evil suddenly they care that civilians might die in the war. Well what do they think has been happening in Iraq daily since the end of the Gulf War.

All these marchs do is make SH feel more secure in power and continue his murderous rule.

I'm depressed!

#51 kathy: I agree with you--Bush should have gone long ago. I'm getting a terrible sinking feeling that he's going to back out in the end and not go. This is doing major damage to the morale of his supporters--imagine what it's doing to the fighting men and women.

If he doesn't go this week I think it's finished.

I keep hearing that our diplomatic faux pas are the result of our needing a lot of time to get all our military ducks in a row in the Gulf.

Interesting that I haven't seen anyone criticize Bush and Company for the US military's inability to get to the starting blocks in the Gulf for more than a year. How long does it fucking take to get 150K troops and equipment over there--twice as long than Gulf War I, where we had 500,000 of our guys.

And don't tell me we had to build up our munition stocks, etc.--does it take a full year to do that? At this rate, the US can be invaded by France.

Isn't US strategic doctrine to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously?

Take this rant as a response to the global ambush by Old Europe and UN dipsomaniacs yesterday. I'm tired of waiting.

Start writing to Bush and Cheney to get on the stick. The email addresses are president@whitehouse.gov and vice.president@whitehouse.gov. Believe me, they count votes.

Nearly half of Americans believe that most or all of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi -- just imagine how many more people might be on the streets protesting if they realized how deeply they had been deeply misled by warmongers.

But fortunately for our oil profits, most Americans truly are as idiotic as the Stars and Stripes flapping off the antenna of a hummer (what could be more French?)

"Nearly half of Americans believe that most or all of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi "

Source, please? Ipulleditoutofmyasspolling, Inc? Only you and your idiot friends are so misinformed.

What oil profits, Dilweed? Flooding the world with cheap Iraqi oil can only drive profits DOWN. Stop spending all your time rolling doobies and go to class once in a while.

Stockholm today:

I've never ever seen so many anti-American and anti-Semitic slogans in my life... This is like 1933 all over again.

Please, pray for the Jewish minority here in Europe!

#76 That, and the fact that he's seriously exerting our armed forces.

I don't know about other units, but my brother is a 'nuke' on the Abraham Lincoln and Bush has seriously overextended that boat's time on the water.

Now, this complaint is moot if Bush intends to do something about Iraq... fighting wars intended to defend our interests is what our sailors get paid for, and even a doubling of sea time is acceptable if our boys are needed.

But if its a bluff, then 4 carriers can bluff just as well as five can. Let my brother come home and see his family. His mother misses him deeply, and so does his sister (she's able to drive now - albeit with a adult in the car - and you know she's going to charm our sailor to be her ticket to total driving freedom)

I personally believe that Bush is dead serious and we are going to go soon. Note that Bush is really seriously closemouthed until he's made a descision and is ready to act. Its a bit tough getting a handle on what the guy is thinking as a result.

He didn't back down in the face of Chomsky's 'silent genocide' blood libel, nor the condemnation by just about every NGO, nor the screams of "Quagmire! They kicked out the Russians and the Brits!", nor the 'brutal Afgan winter', did he?

Have faith.

What does need more journalistic attention is the source of the money that is funding the protest demonstrations. An American Maoist splinter lies behind A.W.A.R.E. That has been verified and detailed. But where does the money come from? Can a connection with Arab governments or Islamic "charities" be demonstrated?Enter text to make bold

Oh, and #77:

We had to build a whole new frigging military airbase because 'Our friends, the Saudis' indicated at the time that they'd like to pull the rug out from under us.

That doesn't happen overnight.

Also, munitions DO take a while to build up... The logitical tail of manufacturing smart weapons is pretty long.

Of course, if we wanted to murder Iraqis, we could just slap old-fashined napalm and cluster bombs on B-52's and straight-run them down to the gulf.

Oh, how much easier this would all be if we were one hundreth as evil as many would like to paint us...

Source, please? Ipulleditoutofmyasspolling, Inc

Knight-Ridder poll

Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none was

Support for attacking Iraq is based on massive and wide-spread ignorance. Sorry.

And by oil profits, I mean American oil profits -- when the US military govenment is in charge of the Iraqi colony, the money for current French and Russian oil contracts certainly won't be going to France and Russia, will it?

(PS: Dilweed? Now that is a doobie-roller's kind of insult...)

Hey Gary B., we did use up quite a number of our precision weapons in Afganistan. It has taken all this time to build up a huge stock of precision weapons in preparation for the coming festivities. JDAM production lines have been running triple shifts. Likewise the dumb bomb production facility (in Utah, I believe) of which we have precisely one in this country. The ol' industrial base ain't what it used to be....

harmon writes:
>The phrase has a meaning which is a little deeper than
> we Americans see in it.
Thanks for the update on English liturgy, however, context is everything, and that in the context of European geopolitics the liturgical meaning is rather irrelevant. The phrase is has taken on a meaning beyond its original intent, and has come to have a savage irony, especially in the situation in which the protester is applying it. The cultural blindness is on the part of the soul with holding the sign. He or she must be afflicted with terminal irony impairment not to recognize
one of history's great cruelly ironic catchphrases.

In short, one would have to be a great fool to carry such a sign to a peace rally.

Laurie K.

The following is an exerpt from
from Eye on the Media by Bret Stephens at
Jerusalem Post. (Stevens is a great writer)

Check out the entire piece after you read the following:

Well, there's the Transsexual Vegan Lesbian Epidemiologist Punk For Peace. There is also - kids, stop reading here - a group called Masterbate for peace which advocates "using self-love to end conflict." At first I thought this was some kind of bogus group - a nasty little trick concocted by The Federalist Society to discredit the antiwar movement - but apparently not. According to a report in The Independent, the group has collected almost 10,000 signatures on the Internet from 82 countries. Among their slogans: "Whack your sack, not Iraq."

Clever dicks.

This is the best you can do? It's the Instapundit approach, find one dumb sign, make the predictable extrapolation, with a dollop of condescension if at all possible, and consider yourself a Righteous Man. (And anyone who thinks the protesters are rushing 'gleefully into the arms of dictators who promise peace' is either a moron or simply a bad/sloppy writer. Since when did Saddam promise peace to anyone? Since when did anyone, ANSWER goons excepted, want to rush into his arms, metaphorically or otherwise? No wonder most of the world, and most of the folks here at home, won't support a unilateral invasion. You can't make a case for war with insults and adolescent pique. And it ain't working for Shrub neither. Cheers.

"You can add it to the list which is growing long. You folks have handled this sooooo badly. The reason you've ended up isolated at the table is that you used the legitimate hurt and rage of the American people over what happened to them in September 01 and the sympathy and the best wishes of the rest of us and you've tried to twist it around to fit a campaign wherein old grudges, domestic political exigencies and economic concerns predominate. "

1. We're not isolated. Only 3 European countries are against with at least 18 in support. Many others around the world support us as well. Isolated is that other thing, where noone supports you.

2. The "at the table" comment betrays your socialist background. Don't you get that noone says that? Perhaps I shouldn't tell you, it's code for "more idiotic platitudes to follow".

3. We don't want sympathy and best wishes, this isn't a pity party. We want you to get your stupid head out of the sand and stand up for yourself. Don't worry, we can't protect ourselves without protecting you, so we'll save your ass for you.

Obviously you expected us to lick our wounds and run for cover when attacked. Sorry, that won't fly for us. If you want to sit home and beg Saddam not to come for you, that's your business. We'll handle ours.

We'll come find you under the rock when it's over.

Your words:

"Nearly half of Americans believe that most or all of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi "

Poll words:

"For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackers were Iraqi citizens."

Do you see a difference between "most or all" and "one or more"?

An oil glut would hit Texas hard. You were probably just a baby when the last one hit in the early '80's.

Dilweed.

Yo, MJ, setting aside the unfortunate spelling of the words 'no one' -- unless this was an opaque reference to Peter Noone, founder of that fab 60's band, Herman's Hermits -- you're a little short on the with-us not-with-us math. There's a very simple reason we're going to abandon the idea of a second resolution. We know it won't pass.

Excellent post, Charles. Really gives historical perspective to how frightening and violent "peace" movements have been and are.

#2 Because most people are a buch of nincompoops when it comes to history, (umm, I have to say myself included, although I'm working on it!) People DO NOT know their history, and therefore are ranting and raving conspiracy theories.

#88...

This the best you can do? Pick one argument out of the hundreds that Charles and his myriad commenters have made, paint it as shallow (even when it arguably betrays a deeper problem), and draw the conclusion No wonder most of the world, and most of the folks here at home, won't support a unilateral invasion.

Your argument only works if the entore blog except for this one post was suddenly wiped out. Which is only going to happen in your mastrabratory fantasies.

No wonder most of the voters handed the percieved 'anti-war' party a resounding defeat last election.

As you said, You can't make a case for war with insults and adolescent pique.

Have a GREAT day :)

The outburst of America hatred in Europe should not be seen on the isolate case of the war against Iraq. It just a symptom which has revealed a deep rooted Anti-Americanism preached for 2 generations at least in Europe. Europeans has not revealed it until now, at least at its most vehement shape, because until now, America had served their defense and economic interests. Now, because America must put her own self-defense above any compromising to European interests (short sighted).

American, unfortunetly, had still left "inncoent abroad" to those sobering days.

Sorry Reid, I did overstate (it think it was PT Barnum who said no one lost money undersetimating the stupidity of the public.)

You, being more sophisticated, are able to see the difference between "one or more" and "absolutely not a damn one"?

The larger point being, a massive amount of support for war is based on ignorance and misdirection.

From the same poll:

Nearly 1 in 4 respondents thinks the Bush administration has publicly released evidence tying Iraq to the planning and funding of the Sept. 11 attacks, and more than 1 in 3 respondents didn't know or refused to answer.

No such evidence has been released.

And who said anything about an oil glut? Why would the new military goveners of the Iraqi colony suddenly open the spigots beyond what they needed or wanted? As for potential effects on Texas, so what? I don't see Bush/Cheney shedding any tears for the American economy...

(and "dillweed" is still a doobie roller's comeback. people in glass houses....)

I've got photos of the NYC rally up at my blog...
[Link: www.asparagirl.com...]

...and my new photoblog...
[Link: www.asparagirl.com...]

...in case anyone's interested.

Okay, Ryan, you and the kids need to work on either your spelling or your typing skills. Or just use spellcheck and hire a secretary. 'Percieved' (I know, i before e, etc. but there are exceptions), 'Mastrabatory' (this is sorta funny, and truth be known, I may in fact prefer it to the actual spelling), 'Entore' (I'm going to assume this falls into the typo category, or maybe it's a new verb, as in 'I just entore you a new...') Cheers. Get back to class, your future is in peril.

Then, Dilweed, you are proposing that Bush and his cronies are planning to make a killing on Iraqi oil... by not selling oil??? Look. If you are going to libel the leaders of this nation, you at least have to get a story that hangs together.

And, Dilweed, are you not aware of the meetings of Mohammed Atta with Iraqi agents in Prague? Maybe you disagree with the interpretation, but that does not mean these people are ignorant in believing that links Iraq to 9-11 exist.

And, Dilweed. Dilweed,Dilweed,Dilweed,Dilweed,Dilweed.

Blah. Blah.

If you believe that my not running my comments through a word processor with spellcheck before putting them here in the blog is a substantive argument, then screw off.

This coming from a guy who hasn't heard of a paragraph break.

Are you THAT desperate for arguments?

Maybe you disagree with the interpretation, but that does not mean these people are ignorant in believing that links Iraq to 9-11 exist.

These people belive definitive proof has been meade public by Bush that proves and Iraq-9/11 connection. They are misinformed and wrong. If anyone supports a war because they belive a connection has been made between Iraq and 9/11, their support is based on ingnorance.

And Mohammed Atta metting with Iraqi agents in Prague? Well, the FBI says you're an idiot, but the warmongers thank you for your deluded support.

On Aug. 22, Newsweek said that the only evidence remains the "uncorroborated claim" of a Czech informant who says he saw the two men together on April 9, 2001. But, who needs evidence? According to Newsweek, when an FBI agent recently told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the meeting was "unlikely," Wolfowitz grilled him until he agreed it was technically possible, since the FBI can't cite Atta's whereabouts on April 9

slate

Ryan, much better. But there's a more important point. You won't persuade, or even get someone to take you seriously, if you can't spell. And if you need to run spellcheck to spell 'masturbatory', you're not going to get laid either. Thanks for the feedback.

It is amazing that the protesters have no sense of history. In response to this statement by Chamberlain after returning from Munich, Churchill gave a speech in which he said:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor.
You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Ah, the poor Czech intelligence apparatus. How far you have fallen in prestige. During the cold war, mothers in your home country would tell horror stories about your terror and all-seeing eye.

Now, even the american FBI has more street cred than you... provided you say what certain people want to hear.

My, is Harley clever. He found a typo in mj's post 89! Give that man "Proofreader of the Year" award.

The things you pick up reading blogs! I've learned that when one is at a loss constructing a valid argument, the way to get around it is to focus in on a typo or misspelling in your opponent's post. Of course, if you can't find any, you can always fall back on typing "No Blood for Oil," "Bush is a cowboy," "Sharon is a Nazi" and other selections from the Top 10 list of Idiotarian catch-phrases.

Dear Ranbutan:

You're right, it's about oil. Problem is, it's the French whose foreign policy is driven by oil.

See [Link: breakingnews.iol.ie...]

The article says:

A senior Pentagon adviser today accused France of striking a deal with Saddam Hussein to oppose military action in return for a lucrative oil contract.

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

“What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

“One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support.

“It’s entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else.”

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as “extraordinarily lopsided” in favour of the French company.

“This is not your normal oil exploration contract.”

Total is currently barred from working on the oil fields because of the economic sanctions against Iraq.

If Saddam is overthrown the new regime is likely to nullify existing contracts and invite oil companies from around the globe to compete for new deals.

P.S. Last weekend you referred to "Likudniks." When will you explain who they are?

given the majority of 'pro-war...let's blow them up' mentality of this thread....maybe it is time to let it ALL go for now.

Time to build anew...in the future...with a new set of human beings that understand that the end of duality (i'm more worthy of life than you)...has come to pass.

Time to reconstruct, do away with the old, to make room for the new...a planet of EARTH based on respect and compassion. It will come, unfortunaltely at great cost.

I was just at line in the store and got into a discussion with someone about the peaceful,pacifist cultures of the Amish and Quakers etal.I was told that we should live more like them.When I asked her where in the world these pacifist groups existed,she looked at me bewilderedly.I asked if they existed anywhere other than the US and Britian,and she said,no she didin't think so.I asked her if it was because they were protected by the awful,mean warrior types so that they could live in their little fantasylands,or if thay would last 5 minutes anywhere else,and she walked away.OOPS,guess I'm not gettin any from the liberal chick tonite,

Harley Peyton (91)

I'm not interested in resolutions, I'm interested in ending terrorism: permanently. I'm really not sure what your point is about the numbers. I'm not referring to votes, since I couldn't care less about the UN. Perhaps you felt my numbers reflected SC members?

I also think you are way off base on your "with us or against us" comment. I'm not saying others should fight for us. Nor am I supporting attacking others who don't aid us. I want them to fight their own enemies. I am contemptuous of people who put themselves through extraordinary distortions in logic to arrive at the conclusion that they are not a target.

Terrorism has nothing to do with American foreign policy. Islamic fundamentalists declared war on all westerners. They believe they should be the ultimate power on this planet, as their religion teaches them. Anyone that prevents this is an enemy. Any nation that does not submit to Sharia will be a target until we end this threat.

America is merely the target of the moment since it is the most powerful symbol. If we successfully keep them out of America, they will have no qualms about attacking Europe or anywhere else. God help us all if we lose.

Dilweed (it's with one "l", can't you even spell your own name?), the Czech republic has publicly stated that it stands behind the reports of its agents. You have no basis for stating that people who believe them are wrong and therefore ignorant. You are simply acting on your own wishful thinking and willful self delusion.

Maybe you are so naive that you think Saddam had no prior knowledge of the attacks to come. Maybe you think Saddam is a swell guy who is just misunderstood. You are ignorant and wrong.

You are aware that Saddam sent a squad of hit men to kill Bush Senior, aren't you? And that Iraqi intelligence was tied to the first WTC bombing? What makes you so sure he had nothing to do with WTC II?

I'll tell you. Because you are a craven wimp who would rather stick his head in the sand than take the fight to the enemy.

This is also a fight for the liberation of the Iraqi people. You can sneer and belittle their suffering all you want, but that just makes you heartless, as well as ignorant and cowardly.

#102:

If I seriously expect to convince you or any of your ilk, I hope someone takes me away and institutionalizes me, for I will have lost control of my faculties.

And if you feel free to dismiss thoughts that haven't gone through a spell-checker, does that say anything about choosing style over substance? Hmm?

Donna, well done! But a few corrections. First, it wasn't typo, it was a repeated misspelling. As for the latter, see my previous post. And second, I already made the obvious argument re the sign. Taking a photo of some poor history-averse boob with a poorly conceived sign does not qualify as an argument or even a valid comment re the protest, it's only selective and puerile condescension. And when we're on the brink of war, we must and can do better than that. That was my point. The rest was pulling wings off young neo-con flies, which, I admit, is sorta fun. Cheers.

#62 - Matt G

Oh, not to worry Matt your intial post after I wrote we need to make US postwar oil policy VERY CLEAR

Hey Ranbutan, maybe the US should also give formal notice it will not harvest the organs of Iraqi children for resale (Surprise, the US has somehow avoided giving that guarantee yet).

Was puerile stupid....in that you seem clueless that this "oil motive is believed by 72% of Russians, 63% of Brits, and over half the Australians polled.

IT is KILLING US diplomatically.

IT has to be clarified, and clarified soon, or we may see the political destruction of a number of our shrinking allies. And, I don't care what the Republicans promised would be in it for the Donor fatcats.

Ranbutan, I was mocking you. Sorry it eluded you, I guess you don't do satire. I'll dumb it down if I ever I pay attention to you again.

Your time might be better spent admiring yourself in the mirror less, Matt G, and examining why America is failing to defend itself or position itself globally in the post Cold War era. Your knowledge of world events is as groundless as your arrogance is.

why don't we al

Ryann Waxx and Mark1:

Wasn't aware that we had to build an entire air force base in-country, nor that we needed more time to rev up the ol' industrial plant to generate JDAM's.

More fallout from our Clinton-enforced vacation from reality during the 90s, no doubt. Hopefully, we've now flushed the rest of his legacy down the tube.

I notice, by the way, that Powell is in a panic: today's WashPo had a front page story blaming Rumsfeld's one liners for creating division in the European coalition! I could tell he was freaking out yesterday at the UN while Old Europe and the Commies stabbed him in his face before the world. Now he's searching for a scapegoat. Pitiful. But, then, we have to remember that he was a staff officer for thirty years.

MJ...

Okay, we agree. I'm also interested in ending terrorism; happily, I think most of us are, including the people who marched today. What's at issue here, and it's vital that it be debated, is whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will in any way bring us closer to ending it. I believe it will do the opposite: increased terror threats abroad and at home, increased instability in the region, and disasterous economic repercussions to go along with the geo-political ones. You want to end terrorism? Ask the President why he hasn't said the name "Osama Bin Laden" out loud since July. Or better still, why he let him get away at Tora Bora. Oh, and one last point? If Saddam gets within a year from minting nukes of his own? I would then, without hesitation, suggest we blow his ass to hell and back. Cheers.

#112:

It wasn't just that person... he is surrounded by pther protestors, and often these people get together for making signs (share the paint, etc its part of the prepreation).

So, IF the guy made his sign where no one else could see, and IF none of the other protestors looked up at his sign, and IF the camerman was in on the act...

THEN you could say that only one person made a mistake. But I see an aweful lot of people there. And you'd think that at least SOMEONE was reading the signs, otherwise a counterprotest could infiltrate.

Oblivious, or ignorant? Occam's razor chooses 'ignorant': it requires less miracles.

Ranbutan - the oil argument is a stupid one for reasons I have stated here, mainly that, economically, cheap oil is anathema to oil men.

That said, it is a powerful argument to ignorant people, of which there are many, as you have given several examples. Your point is well taken, at least by me.

More fallout from our Clinton-enforced vacation from reality during the 90s, no doubt.

The airbase at least was not Clinton's fault. And although the low stocks are partly his fault, he didn't totally neglect rebuilding the stores. Remember: Bosnia, then Afganistan in close succession. Both used a lot of ordinance.

Harley, you're an asshole in the grip of an ideology called anti-Americanism.

All the Euro-trash imperialist countries have lost their empires and won't ever regain them. Ever. Your birthrate is cratering, your Muslim populations are exploding, and you're living in a utopian fantasy of pacificism you literally can't defend except through surrender.

You're conceited, patronizing, and just plain fucking rude. And we Yanks don't like it one little bit. You think you parasites can use us for 95 years and then give us the finger?

You are in deep gumbo, Mr. Anal Retentive. We are going to pay you back in full for a long time to come. You heard it hear first. In living juvenile technicolor.

The FBI says the Czech report is unproven rumor at best -- and in this case, I'm afraid the FBI has a point. Why do you want to follow your goventment to war but not believe your government when they say there's no tie between 9/11 and Iraq?

There is no tie between 9/11 and Iraq. Even the Bush administration's own CIA and FBI says there is no apparent tie.

And yet a huge part of the American public in favor of war is with you in your ignorant delusion.

Dream of war for whatever reason you want. If you wish to have war in the name of creating an American military colony in Iraq, say so. If you want to join in a Bush clan grudge, fine.

But you are a coward if you do not honestly examine the evidence for war. And you are far worse if you repeat lies that even a warmongering administration cannot support.

(By the way, Osama bin Laden is apparently in favor of a US attack against Iraq, even while he attacks Saddam as a socialist... just who are your allies?)

It´s about Oil? This argument has one advantage: you don´t have to think about it; every idiot understands it. People said the same thing about the first Gulf War. Did the U.S. get any credit for NOT occupying Iraq then?

I remember: during the war in Bosnia, Germans were joking that America would not intervene because there is no oil there. I heard that from quite a few colleagues, journalists and entertainers, too. Later they opposed military intervention and many blamed America for indiscriminate bombing. And so on, and so on...

For the majority of my German co-workers and acquaintances, criticizing America is as normal as talking about the weather, and has been for many years. Why? Because it´s cheap. They don´t talk passionately about the future of Iraq. They don´t care about the Iraqi people and certainly not about the threat from a Saddam with nukes, mainly because they still feel quite safe. It is hardly a moral or courageous position. It is hardly a position at all.

In short, one can think too much about "the world community". When countries like France, Russia or China defend their interests, they don´t ask for permission - and "world opinion" doesn´t matter.

#106 - Leslein

Of course the French and Russian positions are in part based on oil and America telling them that all bets are off post-Saddam.

Or, I should say the Bushies - not America - are telling them that because the tax cuts for the wealthy are just the beginning of campaign donor payback.

So, it is very important we back off on the intended Halliburton, Exxon, Brown&Root bonanzas and instead say that we will do X, Y, and Z with the oil...and the beneficiaries will not be Lukoil, TotalElfFina, BP, or Mobil - but the Iraqi people.

Likudniks refers to those neocons inside and outside gov't that see America's interests aligning precisely with Ariel Sharon and the Likud on all ME matters. They are Gentiles like Rumsfeld, Jews like Perle. They strongly seek war against Iraq, urge us to treat Saudi Arabia as a mortal enemy, and Israel as America's sole indispensible ally. The tag "Likudnik" is gaining currency in DC, especially in Congress.

Geesh, Gary B, good to hear from you. I'm a little confused by your post. First, well, I'm an American too! (Great, huh? That we can both live in the same country.) Second, I made myself fairly clear -- and it had little or nothing to do with pacifism or anti-Americanism. I don't think a unilateral invasion of Iraq helps us fight terrorism. I do think, and said so, that if Saddam gets his hands anywhere near nukes, we should take him out and take him out fast. As for the 'juvenile living color', you give yourself too much credit. And please oh please, stop with the bi-polar thinking. This isn't about who's the best and truest patriot, it's not I'm right and you're wrong; this is about the best way to move forward in a world that gets more treacherous by the day. And don't you have homework? Cheers.

Re Kathy (#51) and Elizabeth (#76):

I'm pretty down about the whole situation as well. After 9/11, I was heartened to hear President Bush's first speech to Congress - remember the "we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail"? That was probably one of the greatest wartime speeches ever given by a Western leader, and I, like many others, assumed that there was...well...actually some real leadership behind it. At that point, almost the entire public was behind the Administration's efforts, and Bush seemed to be making no false moves. We all wished 9/11 had been prevented, of course, but now that war had been forced upon us, it was good to know that "the adults were back in charge" after eight years of Clintonian fecklessness and cowardice.

Then it became clear that after Afghanistan, Iraq would be the next major target...and lo and behold, the Palestinians went forth to shoot and bomb innocent Israelis - just a coincidence, of course! - the Arab potentates worked overtime (sometimes via willing-idiot media types like Thomas Friedman) crafting monkeywrenches to toss into the works, and "world public opinion", which had shown us about 15 minutes of sympathy the previous September, promptly swung in favor of our enemies. Colin Powell started trying to craft his own foreign and defense policies, leaking critical comments to his friends in the liberal media, allowing his State Department underlings to sabotage our attempts to garner support against Iraq, and working to set the phony "Middle East Peace Process" as a prerequisite to further progress in the war against Islamic terrorism.

President Bush's first major failure of leadership was in not making it clear to Powell that the shots are being called by the President, not the Secretary of State - and making it brutally clear that any repetition of policy freelancing would result in an immediate and unceremonious firing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I've been hoping for months now that Bush would channel Harry Truman - "that son-of-a-bitch isn't going to resign on me, I want him FIRED!" Bush's refusal to deal harshly with Powell's sabotage of his war objectives has led us straight to where we are now - virtually zero public support in the rest of the world for any of our anti-terrorism efforts, eroding support here, and the clock ticking toward the hot season in the Iraqi desert.

The U.S. "mainstream" media has acted exactly as I figured they would in the weeks and months after 9/11 - first acting overtly patriotic, then (within literally days) reclaiming their so-called "objectivity", then progressing rapidly to an outright fifth-column posture. Make no mistake - the "burgeoning antiwar movement" is largely a whole-cloth creation of the media. Our troops overseas are hearing about the "massive antiwar protests sweeping the country", and this news has to be heartbreaking to them - but that's okay with the media; if they can sow disaffection among our soldiers, so much the better.

This rant is only part of why I'm feeling less than certain about our chances of even avoiding another mass-casualty attack, much less winning an eventual victory over Islamic fascism. President Bush has allowed himself to be painted into a corner. The appeasers and the apologists have seized the microphone and are screaming into it at every opportunity. And somewhere, either in an Iraqi laboratory building, a warehouse in Karachi or a ratty apartment in a Muslim suburb outside Paris, a "package" is being readied...

Justin Weitz is in Paris and he reports on the saintly, nonviolent sophisticates of Frogland:

The rally today was hysterical. Iraqi and Palestinian flags were everywhere, and signs openly declared that the United States and Israel are Nazi regimes. One sign showed Bush with a Hitler mustache, and another featured Ariel Sharon slaughtering a Palestinian baby at a chopping block, with the words "Israel wants Palestinian blood." One of the rallying cries was "Kill Bush." Another, delivered in English, was "Hey Hey Ariel, Your stinking ass should go to jail." I kid you not. This rally was a display of anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments the likes of which I have never before seen. But I had the opportunity to see French soldiers, which was nice. After all, there are no French soldiers on battlefields.

[Link: www.americankaiser.blogspot.com...]

[sarcasm on]Clearly, they are a role model the rest of us should strive to emulate.[sarcasm off]

At the end of WWII the phrase "never again" was bandied about.
They believed that the Euros had learned their lesson.
And it is happening again.
A new evil, claiming to be oppressed (The Nazis frequently claimed Britain as the aggressor) is rising up.
Many university students supported the Nazis.
Now they support Marxism, Nazism's evil twin (and that says a LOT!).
The communists now say they support environmentalism, but look at the horrors in Eastern Europe...the only reason they have not been found in Cuba is because they have not collapsed yet. I am beginning to really fear that the West (Civilization) is going to lose this one. The Barbarians are already inside the gates: They are the no-brainers that go to university and take Liberal Arts courses that provide no skills other than the ability to ignore reality. They are also the non-assimilated communities that refuse to adapt to their new homelands and outbreed the natives.
What happens when Muslims become the majority in Europe? Do you think that the precious Euro democracies will eb allowed to stay? The last act of every democracy is to vote itself out of existence.
This is our last act.
The curtain is drawn.
The Dark Ages (and the terror that implies) begin.

There, there, my pro-war friends,

Just think--if Saddam Hussein actually had nuclear weapons, we'd be dealing with Iraq diplomatically, just like we are with North Korea. And wouldn't that suck? No war for all you bloodthirsty folks. How would you make it through the day?

Hussein is not Hitler folks. Get over it. He's an evil dictator that poses no threat against us. Why else is it so easy for us to go to war against him and his people and twiddle our thumbs while North Korea flaunts its capabilities? Besides, this only motivates other evil dictators to get their hands on nuclear weapons fast--so that we'll seek diplomacy before invasion with them.

But what do I know? I'm just an evil leftist who finds things like North Korea and Al Qaeda to be far more serious threats against the US then a bunch of anti-war protestors. Agree with them or not, at least you realize that there is still freedom of speech in this country. Makes sense to me. I don't know why.

You should find something better to do on this site than mock people's right to free speech. Forgive my un-American way of thinking.

And yet a huge part of the American public in favor of war is with you in your ignorant delusion.

You heard it here first! Last year's history-making elections were all a collective fantasy!

Harley says:

First, it wasn't typo, it was a repeated misspelling.

Thanks for clearing that up. At first I thought that you were just being petty, now I understand your deep concern for the English language.

Also, the preferred spelling of “Geesh” is Geez.

Can it be that none of these idiots ever heard of Santayana since we have purged the curicula of dead white males? Students should sue colleges for fraud in that they were promised an education.

Christ, Jeff, take a breath. If you keep confusing invading Iraq with fighting Islamic fascism -- and Saddam is a secular dictator despised by the fundamentalists, including Osama -- you'll never get the sleep you clearly need, and more importantly, a little space in which to consider the issue without all that bile and hatred. Again, and my fingers are getting tired repeating it, this isn't about your higher brand of patriotism versus some shadowy fifth column. This is, for the most part, a policy/tactics dispute. The goal is one we all share -- and that's that we find the terrorists and kill them. Right?

Geepers, I'm giving up the whole spelling crusade and saving it for another time. Though I prefer 'geesh'. And by the way, isn't it 'jeepers'?

I love Harley's "unilateral" leftist rant. Uni, doesn't that imply singular, sole, only, etc? The nations who support us out number the ones who are against us (some just scream louder). Even if we "ignore" the countries who just give moral support, what about the countries that have given troops up? Oh wait, I forgot, they're our lapdogs so they don't count, right Hardly? Oh, sorry, I meant Harley.

"Just think--if Saddam Hussein actually had nuclear weapons"

And the troll thinks this would be a good thing why? And how are these people's actions going to prevent this from coming about?

"You should find something better to do on this site than mock people's right to free speech. "

And the troll thinks these people should be exempt from any criticism for these "opinions" for what reason?

A right to free speech doesn't mean others are required to listen respectfully to the rantings of the self-destructive and the irrational.

# 96 asparagirl

Servus, ich bin auch aus Salzburg, allerdings Salzburg-Stadt ;-))

Liebe Grüße nach Zell am See

zuckerlilly

Harley:

And by the way, isn't it 'jeepers'?

No.

reaganite...

By unilateral, I mean without U.N. sanction, and not some bullshit 'coalition of the willing' that has no international standing. And not, by the way, based on the evidence at hand (see my previous post re Saddam and nukes).

As for that UN sanction, this will come in handy when we have to occupy the place for ten years and pick up the tab. That's just pragmatic, and it has nothing to do with rants, lefty or otherwise. The 'hardly' bit was funny, tho'. Sort of.

Just think--if Saddam Hussein actually had nuclear weapons, we'd be dealing with Iraq diplomatically, just like we are with North Korea. And wouldn't that suck? No war for all you bloodthirsty folks. How would you make it through the day?

That is one of the most atrocious things I have ever heard. Lets assume for a moment your whigged out fantasies came true... in 1991 after Isreal decided to let France's nuke plant alone in respect for world opinion and U.N. authority.

So, Saddam has Kuwait, his soldiers are raping the civilians, the scuds he threatens to launch are nuclear-tipped and he demands that the U.S. withdraw from Saudi so it can be next.

And we'd just have to suck it up and deal with Iraq diplomatically while all this raping and plundering is going on.

Yeah, that would suck. Almost as much as it sucks that you walk on two feet almost like a human, instead of sleazing about like a steaming pile of bitter rat feces who wishes we would be 'forced' to horse trade with a mass-murderer.

You animal. You DARE lecture us after that?

Re: smallish peace demonstration in LA earlier today, while driving home, at a major intersection the traffic had slowed down. As I drew nearer to where I wanted to turn, there was a very blonde white man waving a plaquard around and bellowing that we should not go to war, but should let the UN decide it (yeah. right. the UN). On the other side of the street were a couple of overweight women waddling around waving "No blood for oil" signs, surrounded by their ratty looking children.

In the middle of the intersection, causing the traffic back-up, were two seriously smashed up cars.

And I thought to myself what a snapshot of the peace movement: ignoring a real emergency right under their noses (which they had probably caused by distracting the drivers) while ranting about a problem on the other side of the world which hasn't even happened yet.

Harley,
What part of "cease fire" and 16 UN resolutions don't you understand? The US doesn't need a new resolution to go back into Iraq, under the cease fire agreement from the end of Desert Storm, which Iraq has not abided by, we can go back in today and be justified under "UN law"

Harley,

I tend to make a lot of typos since I'm not a very good typist. I know that you on the left are more tolerant of us folks with disabilities, so I know you'll understand.

I've spent a lot of time with the elites and I've spent a lot of time with regular folk. One thing I've learned is that regular folk tend to have real good instincts about bad people -- perhaps since they are the ones left holding the bag so many times, usually by ambitious assholes of every political stripe. And you know what? I've learned to trust their instincts. They may not be able to articulate clearly what it is about Hussein that bothers them so much, but they know that he needs to go away.

In these times I am reminded of Orwell who said that in 1939, the majority of the English upper class favored apeasement, but the majority of the working class was in favor of fighting to the end.

The working class was right.

Classic photograph! Sometimes a single picture really is worth a thousand words.

Reference #57 Ranbutan's comments about the need for the US and UK (and Australia) to renounce any attempt to control or profit from the oil and gas fields in Iraq:

1) Revenues from current and future oil/gas production should be used to subsidize the costs of occupation and the costs of re-building Iraq's infrastructure. A security and administration fee of $8-10 per barrel is appropriate for 3-5 years. During this time, a democratic civilian government will be established with a revived, free-market economy. Note: The cost of extracting most Iraqi oil is in the $1.50 - $2.00 per barrel range. World oil prices normally range between $20 to $30 per barrel, so that should permit oil companies to make a healthy profit even after paying for distribution and refining costs.

2) All previous oil and gas contracts made by Saddam Hussein's dictatorship should be declared null and void. All contracts will be re-bid and re-negotiated by an Iraqi Oil and Gas Trust. The Trust will be administered by an international board with representatives from Iraq, the US, UK, Australia, and Turkey. Only a small explicit preference should be given to energy companies from the liberator nations such as a 5% to !0% preference on bids. However, energy companies from nations that opposed the liberation of Iraq should be explicitly barred from competition for a period of twenty (20) years. The composition of the Trust's board will initially have a majority of non-Iraqi representatives and be chaired by an American. However, within 5 years the majority of the board members will be Iraqis and the board will be chaired by an Iraqi representative.

3) Iraq should be offered immediate membership in NAFTA or a new Globa Free Trade Area (GFTA) created by the US, UK, Australia, and other interested countries. This will increase the competitiveness of Iraqi exports and stimulate Iraq's integration into the world economy.

4) Reference any objections to points 1&2, above:
a) It is entirely fair to financially compensate the nations that liberate Iraq and secure it during post-Saddam reconstruction. This effort will require 50,000 to 100,000 military personnel and thousands of civilian personnel to stay in Irag for several years. An $8 to $10 per barrel fee will not fully cover these costs but it will greatly reduce the burden on the taxpayers of the liberator nations.
b) It is also entirely fair to reward the energy companies of the liberator nations while punishing the energy companies of the nations that supported the survival of Saddam's dictatorship. This will also enhance the economies of the nations that bear the burden of liberating and re-building Iraq.
c) Opposing American foreign policy should carry a stiff price. We have been remarkably forebearing about imposing penalties on our opponents. This is a foolish policy that leads to dis-respect and cheap, political opportunism by leaders of nations that call themselves our allies and/or friends. Americans expect opposition, deceit, and hostility from nations that are our strategic rivals or declared enemies. We do not expect that from our allies and strategic partners. We have a right to expect that declared allies will support us in any confrontation with a hostile nation just as they have a right to expect that we will support them in any confrontation. The recent betrayals of the US, UK, and Turkey by France, Germany and Belgium at the UN and in NATO violate this core understanding of the mutual obligations of alliance partners. They, and our so-called friend/partner, Russia, should pay for their opposition and deceit.

Best regards,
Jim

Harley, you're the one who's confused. While Saddam is a "secular dictator", he's been more than willing to wrap himself in the mantle of Islam when it suits his purposes. That Arabic script on the Iraqi flag? According to the Iraq entry in the CIA World Factbook, it's "Allahu Akbar". So much for him being strictly "secular".

So what if Osama despises him? That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be willing to use each other when it's opportune. The cooperation wouldn't even have to be direct - pass the nuclear or biochem components to a cutout in Pakistan, who sends it on to al Qaeda. Cooperation between terrorist elements sometimes takes strange and interesting forms - remember a few years back when the IRA got a ship full of explosives and small arms from Libya? Or how about the "Japanese Red Army", who carried out the Lod Airport (Israel) massacre about thirty years ago? They were effectively mercenaries, under contract from a Palestinian group.

Anf finally - the strategy has to be about more than just finding and killing individual terrorists. It has to involve draining the "swamp" of state support that enables them to function. And that means Iraq - it also eventually means Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan. Don't like that idea, Harley? If you don't, do you prefer more smoldering piles of rubble in the middle of American cities?

11A5S...

Your point is well-taken, and I agree with you to a point. I grew up with regular folk, was educated with the elites, and also learned the difference between assumptions born of privilege -- hey, wait a minute, that's our President! -- and hard-won knowledge torn from real life. But I'm not sure your Orwellian paradigm fits our current dilemma. There is no monolithic class system in the USA, at least not when it comes to political opinion. And the regular folks you talk about? Some support an invasion, some don't. But they, and we, agree on one thing. We will find the terrorists wherever they hide and we will kill them. And if invading Iraq had anything to do with that goal, I'd support it.

All these lefties and their "bloodthirsty" epithets. Hey, lefties, how come you didn't have any significant contingent of Iraqi expatriates at your self abuse rallies today?

How about because they want to get rid of the bloodthirsty tyrant in Iraq, too?

You weak-kneed, hypocrites. You don't give a damn about people who are suffering, so long as they are far away and ignorable and you can sit on your high horse and act all superior looking down your pig noses at the "warmongers" while you pee in your pants at the thought of facing down your enemies.

Don't imagine you are doing the Iraqi people any favors. You are the most morally bereft people on the planet and the Iraqi people hate you.

Cowardly scum (yeah, I mean you too, Dilweed).

It really makes you think. I mean, what if Hitler had been able to take control of a small, oil-rich nation with a primitive military force that could be attacked with impunity by superior world powers? Right.

As for a connection with terrorists, it is there for anyone who is not willfully blind to see, you lefty contemptible swine.

Jeff...

Like the think tank pimps who came up with this idea, you're putting ideological wet dreams ahead of real world considerations. (Tho' it was nice of Ari to loan you the 'drain the swamp' mantra.) This isn't about reshaping the Middle East in our own image because we think we can. This is about taking down terrorist cells, taking down terror camps, and yes, making sure they don't receive support from any nation. But any attempt at a Second Crusade will end in disaster -- and a great deal more smoking rubble than your young mind can imagine.

#146 FMF -

How about if the same Hitler lived in an era when a suitcase could level a city? Or carry enough toxic biological material to infect and kill millions?

Wake up, dude. Hitler was 60 years ago! A lot has happened since then.

Harley (#131), you're the one who's confused. While Saddam is a "secular dictator", he's been more than willing to wrap himself in the mantle of Islam when it suits his purposes. That Arabic script between the stars on the Iraqi national flag? According to the Iraq entry in the CIA World Factbook, it's "Allahu Akbar". So much for being strictly "secular".

So what if Osama despises him? That doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to use each other when it's opportune. The cooperation wouldn't even have to be direct - pass the nuclear or biochem components to a cutout in Pakistan, who forwards them to the al-Qaeda end user. Cooperation between terrorist elements has in the past taken interesting forms - remember a few years back when the IRA got a ship full of explosives and small arms from Libya? Or how about the "Japanese Red Army", who carried out the Lod Airport (Israel) massacre about thirty years ago? They were effectively mercenaries, acting under contract from a Palestinian group.

And finally - the strategy has to be about more than just finding and killing individual terrorists. It has to involve draining the "swamp" of state support that enables them to function. And that means Iraq - it also eventually means Saudi Arabia, Syria, and possibly Pakistan. Don't like that idea, Harley? If you don't, do you prefer more smoldering piles of rubble in the middle of American cities?

Sorry, Jeff. You're not going to fool me by posting the same thing twice.

OOPS - sorry for the double post. Got an error message the 1st time I tried to post it!

Oh, and just for the record? You'd all be a lot happier if you were listening to the new Ted Leo and the Pharmacists CD while you were sloggin away at this.

Harley Again (115)

1. Judging from the organizers and speakers, most of the people that marched today believe terrorism is a result of American foreign policy. Furthermore, they generally believe that the solution is more foreign aid and similar policies. That is, those that have a solution. Many others seem to believe we just have to live with terrorism. These beliefs are completely baseless.

My opinion is that they believe this because it fits their pre-9/11 belief system. They simply cannot fathom the nature of the threat because it is too convenient to use terrorism as support for pre-existing policy goals. A more honest assessment of the cause of 9/11 would not support their goals, so they distort facts to arrive at a conclusion that does. I have a vision of Patty Murray claiming more schools and day care centers would have prevented the problem.

Of course these are general statements, but if we don't generalize we can't have a meaningful discussion.

2. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are already doing everything they can to harm us. How, then, can an attack on Iraq make it worse? A more realistic reading is that Saddam's actions embolden the terrorists by showing we lack the will to act. It's pretty easy to recruit in a Middle East hellhole when there is no consequence to joining al-Queda, but their buffet table is full.

3. My prior post had nothing to do with Iraq: it was about Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.

4. As previously pointed out, it will be a multilateral invasion of Iraq. Exactly how many countries are required for your definition of multilateral?

5. The invasion of Iraq is not solely limited to ending terrorism, but to enforce the internationally mandated disarmament of a man who seeks nuclear weapons and has shown through past actions that he is willing to do anything to increase his power. I see no solution for this in any anti-war spokesman's rhetoric. They seem to take our safety as a matter of faith.

6. Middle East instability is a bad thing? I'm always astonished to see these sorts of nebulous ideas used as a reason not to solve this problem.

First, it doesn't matter. Over the long term, meaning a decade or so, there is no way to prevent SH from getting nuclear weapons. Virtually any state that is willing to spend enough money and suffer international sanctions and isolation can do so as North Korea already did. International sanctions are not 100% effective, and until 9/11 it looked like the sanctions would be lifted. Inspections had already ceased with little to no public concern.

Secondly, there is virtually no government that would be worse than Saddam.

Lastly, your predictions of dire economic consequences are also comic. Were you perhaps one of the many that predicted mass starvation in Afghanistan? We always hear these predictions no matter how many examples we see that prove them false. Shouldn't lifting the international sanctions help their economy? Let me just say that clearly in the long run Iraqi's will be better off even if you allow for a turbulent transition.

7. At least you remembered to throw in the proforma denunciation. Unfortunately, we don't get a report from Saddam detailing when he expects to have nukes. Perhaps if we could convince him to supply one your idea would have a hint of merit

Conclusion: All I see is someone for whom the status quo is fine. I'd like to hear any idea you have to prevent SH from getting nukes or to defeat terrorism. Let's try to do better than attacking only if he announces he intends to build a nuke.

Harley, what crusade? What disaster? You think terrorists will attack us because we take out Saddam? News flash: they already attacked us! Hello! Were you out of the country Sept. 11, 2001? Attacking Saddam will make them no more inclined to attack us than before, but it will take away a major supporter of terrorism and get rid of their most potent recruiting tool (the sanctions? Remember those?).

The Iraqi people are desperate to be liberated. Saddam is a bad guy. And, there is no reason we can not take on other terrorists simultaneously!

Jeez, just 'cause you lefties can't walk and chew gum at the same time doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly spastic.

Harley (insert something here)

Sorry, Jeff. You're not going to fool me by posting the same thing twice.

Well he didn’t make any typos for you to dismiss his argument out of hand. Why not try refuting his contentions?

By the way, nice proclaiming from on high in #148, but got any fact, figures, quotes or reasoning?

I've never been able to understand a number of things:

1. Why anyone would think that demonstrations like this prove anything.

2. Why people think that the way to bring about peace is to make themselves sheep.

3. Why people think the French should be our guide in anything other than cooking.

4. Why people still think that anything useful can be achieved through the U.N.

5. Why anybody pays any attention at all to Noam Chomsky.

6. How appeasing the likes of Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler is going to result in anything other than more deaths and longer wars.

7. How unarmed "inspectors" or "peacekeepers" can either conduct meaningful inspections or keep the peace.

8. Why people think that Americans don't understand the horrors of war or believe that we take any joy from sending our youth off to war, especially to liberate cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

9. Why a war on Iraq is trading blood for oil, while leaving a murderer in power so that he can pay his IOUs to you and continue to sell you cheap oil is not.

10. How anybody can claim to care about Iraqi lives and not want to bring them freedom.

Any answers out there?

Okay, first off, MJ? You're exhausting. Now point by point.

1) Anyone who believes that terrorism is a result of American foreign policy is an idiot. We agree!

2) Attacking Irag without UN sanction, which is to say, a unilateral invasion, will act as a recruiting poster for wackjob fundamentalists all over the region. It seems obvious to me. We disagree.

3) If Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism is your game, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

4) Multilateral means nothing without UN sanction. And while I'm all hot and happy that Albania is on board, who do you think is going to pay for the Day After?

5) Our safety need not be taken on faith. Continued and escalated inspections will make a nuke program impossible. Continued inspections with the threat of invasion, by the way, will lead to greater cooperation. My point is not that we should never invade. My point is that at this time, the risk is not worth the reward. At this time.

6) Your interpretation of my economic consequences comment is, well, comic. I was talking about our economy, and I'm not talking about the cost of war, but the cost of occupation.

7) 'Pro forma' is two words and there's nothing pro forma about it. I believe we can combine escalated inspections with the threat of invasion to force Saddam into increased compliance. I believe we can make it impossible for him to mount a nukes program. And if the first two fail, then the risk of invasion will be well worth the reward.

For the record, Harley: I'm 46, graduate-level education and veteran of 12 years' military service. I didn't say a damn thing about a "Second Crusade" as a policy objective - I have no desire to see us occupy large swaths of the Islamic world for decades.

"Draining the swamp" (say what you will about Ari, it's not a bad metaphor) can take the form of a missile through the bedroom window of a presidential palace, or a succession of Saudi financiers found floating down various European rivers - anything that will discourage others from following their example.

And, oh yes - I'll also throw in an energy policy dedicated to independence from Mideast sources by the end of the decade. How many centrifuges can you purchase when your only commodity doesn't have much of a market?

I've never heard of Ted Leo and the Pharmacists. I prefer to write marathon comments to the accompaniment of Miles Davis myself.

#146

It really makes you think. I mean, what if Hitler had been able to take control of a small, oil-rich nation with a primitive military force that could be attacked with impunity by superior world powers?

Germany is SMALLER than Iraq. And Germany's forces were smaller than France's before their surrendur.

So, what would have Hitler done with a military bigger than any of its neighbors, vast oil resources which Hitler didn't have, and all these smaller neighbors with even more oil, and a massive population whose popular myths include a Saladin to unite them all in war against the infidel? What would he have done without a nearby Russia to get his ass kicked invading? What would he have done with nuclear weapons?

An arab Hitler might have indeed conquered the entire planet.

It really makes you think? No, it doesn't make you think apparently, else you would not have suggested the scenario. Because you don't worry your pretty little head about what happens if the next Hitler comes, because that'd like SO much mess up the anti-war partying, dude.

Hi from Canada again,home of appeasers in the government and the CBC. As I posted several weeks earlier, history is repeating itself. The choice today is between confronting evil or letting it expand until it destroys us. Today on the CBC they had another "town meeting" replete with the typical CBC crowd- blame the U.S. for attempting to "control" the world. On the panel was a typically representative group- anti-U.S.Pali ,...who blamed the U.S. for not "solving" the problems in the region.Of course,if the U.S. attempted to "solve" the problems, it would then be accused of unilateralism,etc... the CBC is a gutter like the Toronto Star where hatred of the U.S. makes them feel the sanctimony of the pious appeasers. Thank goodness for the National Post which confronts the evil-yes, Churchill said target the enemy-as in Islamofascism and the 22 Arab/Muslim dictatorships with a 23rd one to be established by the world's oldest and appeased terrorist-Yasser! I wonder not why Islamofascism has metastasized around the world - when the French, Germans,etc.... cater to the likes of the PLO-remember them blasting away at European airports in the 70s only to be granted status on the world stage . The Arabs remember that violence PAYS BIG TIME. The Romans went to Carthage. The U.S. and all those who believe in a future where dictators and terrorists do not determine the world's agenda must confront the EVIL NOW. " Peace in our time "will only lead us to a peace of the grave. Yours in freedom,Canucker.

Why do the lefties (i.e. Harley) think this is a new problem with Iraq? I noticed he ignored my previous question by the way. This is not something that was "dreamed" up by the president, this is a problem that is OVER a decade old. It's the same old arguement, "give inspections a chance" Koffe Asshole said last week, "let's give Iraq one more chance" how many f*cking "one more chances" do we give? When is enough enough? Why do you leftie limp weenies want him in power?

Jeepers:

I made the point and tried to keep it brief. Richard Perle and the rest of the neo-cons want to turn the Middle East into an oil-giving fully Democratic version of Iowa. They want to invade Iraq today. Then, as Jeff helpfully pointed out, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. If you want to sign up for this, fine. But you might want to read up on the Roman Empire first. Again, because you keep forgetting, we agree about the terrorist threat, we simply disagree about the best way to fight it.

Jeff...

I agree with every word of your post. (#159) Particularly the missile thru the window. More importantly, which period Miles? Ted Leo was a punk, now he's not, his music sounds like a weird combination of the Clash, XTC, and Ben Folds. Which helps with all the typing.

#122 (Ranbutan)

"Of course the French and Russian positions are in part based on oil and America telling them that all bets are off post-Saddam."

"Or, I should say the Bushies - not America - are telling them that because the tax cuts for the wealthy are just the beginning of campaign donor payback."

Pure nonsense. A lot of Americans are pointing out Europe's grubby financial interest in keeping Saddam in power.

It's hard to see how tax cuts for the wealthy are a motive for war. For what it's worth, a lot of the tax cuts will benefit anyone who wants to save or invest.

As far as national security goes, it was the Democrats who held up the Homeland Security department so that they could get contributions from government employee labor unions.

"So, it is very important we back off on the intended Halliburton, Exxon, Brown&Root bonanzas and instead say that we will do X, Y, and Z with the oil...and the beneficiaries will not be Lukoil, TotalElfFina, BP, or Mobil - but the Iraqi people."

You don't seriously think that the status quo benefits the Iraqi people?

By the way, it was Brown and Root that put Lyndon Johnson in Congress. One oil company you didn't mention, Occidental Petroleum, was owned by Armand Hammer. Hammer was a major benefactor of the Gore family. In addition to Occidental, he owned the Order of Lenin.

Richard Perle is a neo-con? I just fell of my chair laughing! Hey Harley, don't answer any of my questions, your sir, ignore history, thrive on conjecture, and base your opinions on dubious "facts" You're just a better educated version of Tyler troll.

What's a Tyler troll? Sorry about the chair.

#142 - Good follow-up, Jim.

I would say a little Russian payback is in order, as well as a real hard lesson on the Froggies getting their noses rubbed in crap by disclosure of every sleazy deal we can find documentation on inside Iraq.

Adding - the Oil from the outset must have acknowledgement, of the eventual sovereignity over it by the Iraqi people....and in the early period...the US must bend over backwards not to be seen as thieves ripping the Iraqis off when the people of Iraq have less control (ie price follows OPEC price for determining royalties....and monies go first to correcting desperate conditions inside Iraq, second to occupation costs, third to well-off Kuwaitis seeking reparations, and lastly..if ever to the wealthy Iraqis who have been lollong about in London, Paris, and the US for the last 30 years in their Saville Row suits waiting a good time to start hiring shysters to get their cut of the action)

But the "it's all about the Oil" libel is so widely believed throughout the world, so adversely affects the US diplomatic position.... that the US does have to make a clear statement of exactly WHAT we will do with it once we are in. (and, it's 80 or 90% bullshit.....but there will be anguished squeals by the Richest 1% who happen to be in Big Oil, oil services industries, or the Big Infrastructure contractors that were all but promised by the Republicans to have a peice of the Iraqi pie)

And, we HAVE to have ME followup...and that doesn't mean having the US neocon Likudniks rubberstamping Bush and members in Congress on the forehead with "I'm an Ariel Sharon Greater Israel Dittohead, and Proud of It!"

Re HwW (#159):

Pre-electronic Miles for me (Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, etc.).

Jeff:

We agree re Miles. I wore out Kind of Blue in college, wore it out again after that. Then the CD. Which I haven't worn out yet. Any Clifford Brown on the shelf?

Harley,
Tyler would be your protegee if he were smart enough. He has the same "hate conservatives" train of though. I have to give you kudos for your rant, you don't blindly spout propaganda, you "interpret" it. You're still wrong, but at least you rationalize your argument.

#143 Jeff,

Excellent point!

"And finally - the strategy has to be about more than just finding and killing individual terrorists. It has to involve draining the "swamp" of state support that enables them to function. And that means Iraq - it also eventually means Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan. Don't like that idea, Harley? If you don't, do you prefer more smoldering piles of rubble in the middle of American cities?"

It also means cleaning out Lebanon, which is a protectorate of Syria and major base for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Iran may be a bigger state sponsor of Islamic terrorism than any other country but we may be able to overturn the Islamic theocracy with a popular revolt. If not --- they are big supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, not to mention the PLO. They are also quietly harboring hundreds of al-Qaeda escapees from Afghanistan. Iran has very active programs in ballistic missile technology and nuclear energy research. This is "purely for peaceful purposes" but they announced last week that they are opening up uranium mines inside Iran. This will make it much more difficult to monitor how much

And last but certainly not least: there is that wonderful friend of freedom, peace, and human rights, the glorious Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il. He already has production versions of long range ballistic missiles and one or two nuclear weapons. More are under development and he will happily sell the missiles, the nukes, and any other goodies to anyone with enough cash.

Best regards,
Jim

Reaganite...

Thanks for the kudos. Call me wrong, fine. I'd just prefer that this was a debate and not our own ideological version of a Holy War. And I don't hate conservatives. My father was a conservative. The dinner table was hell on wheels in '68. But I never hated him or anyone else who has a different opinion than I do. (Okay, yeah, I'm a little too eager with the insults and spelling bees, but hey, I've got to keep myself amused if at all possible.)

Harley Again.

O.K. I'll bite. I'll bend the knee to your greater Moral Compassion. So, if we stay the hand of resolute action, what then?

All the troops come home, the anti war crowd get to feel good about themselves, re-inforcing their convictions of moral superiority; the Iraqis continue to suffer; TotalFina's oil contracts are safe (for now), the UN proves beyond all shadow of doubt, it's total uselessness, (remember Resolution 1441 was supposed to be the LAST CHANCE); and best of all, the real clincher here, SADDAM gets a free hand to continue on with development of his weapons program: or do you harbour the illusion that Saddam will follow through with that little piece of legislation he passed last week, ie. banning all weapons of mass destruction from the country of Iraq.

From post 115 you state: "If Saddam gets within a year from minting nukes of his own? I would then, without hesitation, suggest we blow his ass to hell and back."

What if America decides, after such a humiliation on the world stage, to turn isolationist once again? After the events of the past few months, do you seriously think that Saddam would be intimidated into compliance with more useless UN reslotutions, only this time, intimidation to be supplied by several brigades of blue helmeted peace keepers, or terror of terrors, a division of FRENCH troops.

The point here is that finding someone with not only the 'will to persue resolute action, but also the means and determination to carry it out', and given the 'Peace movements' preference for conditions and time frames, that might not all come to fruition at the appointed time. Or put another way, by the time you guys percieve the danger and are ready to approve action, the responce from the Americans may be a heartily deserved - 'GET STUFFED'

Now given the stated hostility of the Islamic fundamentalist movement to all things Western, it is fairly reasonable to expect that sometime in the not too distant future, terrorists will indeed get their hands on a nuclear device or two.

Tell me Harley, when that day dawns, will you come before us, with head bowed and in a truely penitant manor beg forgiveness for your folly?

Or as the more cynical among us suspect; point fingers; apportion blame, and obfuscate to the Nth degree to cover your culpability in a disaster of unimaginable proportions!

As a saying from the Talmud goes: "He that is merciful to the cruel, shall ultimately be cruel to the merciful". I suggest you ponder that one.

Ranbutan -

I think you would be less abusive of the Israelis if you had spent the last 5 decades fighting for your life against people who fight with no rules. Do the Israelis overreact at times? Maybe, if taken in total isolation of everything else that has happened over the 5 decades since the state of Israel was declared.

You need to walk a few miles in their shoes before you so cavalierly dimiss their legitimate security concerns. They are a mere 6 million people living on a tiny sliver of land. The Arabs have vast lands and lots more people. The Arabs' obsession with that little sliver, and the reason they allow and even encourage the continued suffering of the Palestinians can therefore be for one reason and one reason only. Do you know what that reason is?

Okay, I'm exhausted, I've got manic friends coming over to the 'penitent manor' -- shout out to Richard! -- and I'm not sure we've got enough vodka. And frankly, staring at this screen has given me a much-deserved headache. Which the vodka will help, I think. Good night and good luck.

Harley,
Amused? This is about amusing you? I retract my kudos. I've served this country for 22 years. I'm protecting your right to be a dumbass. I've spent YEARS deployed to various hotspots around the world. I had to give two dead boys back to their father during the liberation of Kuwait, and this is all about amusing you? I watched first hand what people did to supporters of Saddam. And you are amused? I was shot at by Palestinians in another deployment. And once again, you're amused. I'm so fucking glad you are amused. I don't know the poster, but his/her description fits you quite well, ASSHAT

Reaganite...

What a lovely post to end the night on. First, get your swinging dick back in your pants. Second, the 'amused' was my way of apologizing for comments that were not necessary ie the whole spelling tangent. That has nothing to do with the seriousness of terrorism, or dead boys, or your service to our country -- which I honor and respect. Now get your head out of the meth lab, and cool down.

Harley,

You should drop the word unilateral from your vocabulary until you know what it means. I get a spell-check from you and you do this crap. It figures. That's ok, I'm sure it adds to your sense of superiority, and you're welcome to it. Are you reluctant to write what you mean because you know it will be rejected?

You misunderstand the situation, perhaps innocently and perhaps willfully. We can't keep an invasion force where it is to enforce inspections for the rest of Saddam's natural life, and then Uday's. Without the threat of invasion there would be no inspections, as we already found out. Once the combat force leaves, how long will it be before Saddam kicks the inspectors out? Even if we move the invasion force back later he'll just let the inspectors in for a couple of months until the troops are again removed.

Let me guess. We'll tell him that we really truly will invade if he does it again. Like we really truly meant that resolution 1441 was his last chance. I know, you really, really mean it this time even if SH doesn't believe you.

Many who support this solution know it is impossible but support it anyway, as their true goal is simply the prevention of war without regard to SH's acquisition of nukes. You seem more than ever a member of the head-in-the-sand crowd.

Your denunciation is entirely pro forma. You propose nothing to prevent him from acquiring nukes.

Signing off.

Harley,

Stop being rude. Debate all you want but stop antagonizing everyone with your insults. You're making this unnecessarily stressful.

Where are the protesters pointing out that France's weaseling is "all about oil"?

Harley (#163) if we take your assumption for granted, i.e. that the Arab states are soon to be transformed into multiple versions of Iowa, what exactly is it that you would object to? constitutional government? individual rights? freedom of expression? freedom of religion? economic progress? absence of torture? universities? science? please explain how sharing the blessings of liberty with the Arab people would be bad.

The USA have brought freedom and prosperity to former dictatorships (Germany, Italy and Japan) and helped save many countries occupied or threatened by dictatorships (South Korea, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, etc.). What kind of delusional hatred makes it possible for various people to now oppose the USA doing the same in the Middle East? which parts of freedom and prosperity do you hate the most?

To Harley, aka Dilweed,
You mention that your method of fighting terrorism is different. What is your method of fighting terrorism? All you seem to mention is more inspections. So you want to have a de facto occupying army watching Hussein? That sounds pretty imperialistic to me. Infringing on his sovereignty and all that. And it doesn't fight terrorism.

How does the UN convey legitamacy on anything? It's made of more than half dictatorships and exactly none have any document like our Constitution. If you want to argue that fact, all I have to say is that you can go to jail in most of Europe for denying the Holocaust.

I am a little embarassed that I am actually responding to a troll, but sometimes it makes me feel better.

"How about if the same Hitler lived in an era when a suitcase could level a city? Or carry enough toxic biological material to infect and kill millions?

Wake up, dude. Hitler was 60 years ago! A lot has happened since then. "

EXACTLY MY POINT. This war is VERY different than WWII, which undermines the validity of analogies to it.

We don't have to tell anyone it's not about oil. We already proved that after the Gulf war. If we wanted the fucking oil, WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT!

This is what's so stupid about the protesters. Their entire point is refutable based on our actions, not words. You have to tbe a blind college student to fall for this crap.

Harley,
So now I do meth? Do me a favor, go volunteer as a human shield, I for one will gladly make you a martyr for the cause.

#184

The situation is merely amplified, not diminished.

Okay, at least give me some credit for hanging in, despite being surrounded by self-selected True Believers who refuse to listen to a word I say (write). MJ, for the last time, when I used the word 'unilateral' I'm referring to an invasion without UN sanction. The latter bothers me because of the economic implications, among others. And no, I do not believe we can play the inspections game in perpetuity. I simply said, more than once, that I do not believe we should invade until the process has been exhausted of its value. We disagree about that value. As for nukes, I suggested blasting his ass to hell and back. This feels like a solution to me, and yes, I understand that continued inspections -- as well as continued intelligence gathering -- is the only way to know when that time has come. Hey, nobody said it was going to be easy. Zulubaby, you're right, I'm sometimes rude, and enuf insults. Kalle, I love freedom and prosperity, and got my first taste of its opposite when I visited the half of my family that lived in Prague in 1964 (my Mother fled before they shut down the Czech borders). However, I don't believe we can conquer, occupy, and reshape the region without great and bloody cost. Veeshir, my methods re fighting terrorism are no different than yours, we just disagree about the timing the the target. And again, is 'troll' some kind of right wing insult? I don't get it.

I just have one question for the trolls, why is it a "just" war when we save the french, but not just when we save anyone else?

Reaganite, maybe you do, maybe you don't. But you've got all the raging anger of a crank freak, which would explain the death threats, etc.

Your "amusement" is justifiable to what I have seen and experienced? And somehow I'm the badguy? ASSHAT doesn't even fit you. Please, please, please go be a human shield.

To all idiotarians,

Saddam plans a scorched Earth to counter allied invasion...

We are exahustively planning to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties. This prick fully intends to exploit them. Explain to me again how "we" are the bad guys in this equation?

Nice alias. And who said we're the 'bad guys' in this? Nobody in here.

#158 Harley:

1) Anyone who believes that terrorism is a result of American foreign policy is an idiot. We agree!

Cool. Will you PLEASE go out and tell that to these protesters? They don't believe me...

2) Attacking Irag without UN sanction, which is to say, a unilateral invasion, will act as a recruiting poster for wackjob fundamentalists all over the region. It seems obvious to me. We disagree.

Since when is attacking Iraq with the help of dozens of other countries "unilateral?" And, while we're on the subject, do you honestly think that even if an attack has UN sanction the wackjobs WON'T be recruited? A rubber stamp by the UN isn't going to change their minds. I've heard these arguments before; just after 9/11, I was repeatedly told that if the US attacked Afganistan, it would cause wackjobs to be recruited in record numbers.

3) If Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism is your game, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Heh heh... don't tempt us. ;-)

4) Multilateral means nothing without UN sanction. And while I'm all hot and happy that Albania is on board, who do you think is going to pay for the Day After?

Why should the approval of a few countries on the UN Security Council (with their own agendas, often oil and currency-related) define what is unilateral and what is multilateral? Remember the way things work in the UN; the US could get every other veto-wielding member of the SC on it's side, but a single veto from a country like France would still send the measure down in flames. ONE COUNTRY. When you're talking about "UN sanction," you're really talking about the sanction of the US, France, Britain, Russia, and China. The others are there for window dressing. In the end, why should US policy be dictated by the likes of China or France?

And as far as who's going to pay, well, the US. We're usually the ones who pay. But, should Saddam get and use a nuke, the cost of rebuilding Iraq after an invasion would be pocket change. Look at the damage 9/11 did to the US economy and mutiply it by an order of magnitude.

5) Our safety need not be taken on faith. Continued and escalated inspections will make a nuke program impossible.

I'm sorry, I'm far more cynical about such matters. Read Khidhir Hamza's book, "Saddam's Bombmaker." He was in charge of Saddam's nuke program, and says that inspections were meaningless. The current inspections are even moreso. When he defected, he found that the inspectors were utterly clueless about the progress of Saddam's bomb program. It continued to operate under their very noses. A few hundred, or even thousand, inspectors are simply not going to make a difference. Also keep in mind that in the next few years there is going to be considerable pressure put on the US and UN to scale back such activities and remove sanctions, as there has been in the past. All Saddam has to do is outlast them and he wins. Given Russia and France's behavior of late, do you expect them to fight to keep a strong sanctions and ispections program going years from now?

Continued inspections with the threat of invasion, by the way, will lead to greater cooperation.

The US can not keep this invasion pressure up forever. It takes time and money (LOTS of money) to gather troops, base them, and keep them prepared for war. The current deployment is a strain that can not be managed in any long term without causing immense problems for the US; considering that WE'RE the ones who would be mounting such an invasion should the UN need more than a "threat," you're asking that the US act as an arm of UN policy. You ask above who's going to pay for a post invasion Iraq... well, who is going to pay for the US to keep an invasion force in the Gulf for years, if not decades?

My point is not that we should never invade. My point is that at this time, the risk is not worth the reward. At this time.

Basic military doctrine is that you strike when an enemy is weak, not when he is strong. It's unlikely Saddam has a bomb (he'd be going the North Korea route if he did). IF YOU ARE WRONG, and he gets one, invasion become virtually impossible; it will be too late. Nukes are the great equalizer; why do you suppose Saddam has let his country rot under sanctions while attempting to obtain them?

6) Your interpretation of my economic consequences comment is, well, comic. I was talking about our economy, and I'm not talking about the cost of war, but the cost of occupation.

The cost of occupation will indeed be high. We've done it before, though, and on a larger scale. Iraq has one advantage: oil. It can be used to bring immense amounts of money into the country to help rebuild.

The cost of miscalculation, though, would be much higher. Picture the economic cost to the world if New York were destroyed. Picture the worldwide depression that could result if Saddam nuked the Saudi oil fields.

7) 'Pro forma' is two words and there's nothing pro forma about it. I believe we can combine escalated inspections with the threat of invasion to force Saddam into increased compliance. I believe we can make it impossible for him to mount a nukes program. And if the first two fail, then the risk of invasion will be well worth the reward.

Please read Kenneth Pollack's book "The Threatening Storm." He addresses your points step-by-step and states that inspections would ultimately fail because they never worked in the first place. In addition, as I state above, the cost of keeping an invasion-level force in the Gulf is staggering, and can not be sustained. It creates bad feelings in the Gulf region, feeds fanatics, and relies on fickle "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And how long do we do this? Decades more? Saddam is an old man, but his sons are psychos, and even if they don't end up with power someone in his circle of fiends most likely will when he kicks it.

In Hamza's book, he recounts a chilling episode: on the eve of GW1, Iraq had almost built a nuke. The only thing missing was the uranium needed to make it go off; otherwise, it was functional. Saddam (through one of his lieutenants) demanded that the uranium be finished before hostilities broke out, and that the bomb be reduced in size so it could be mounted on a missile. Neither thing was possible, thankfully, but the implication was clear: the bomb was to be used as a last resort, most likely against Israel should Saddam be threatened with death or removal from power. One bomb. Hamza writes that it was obvious that if Saddam was going down, he would use it. The whole of Iraq would burn in retaliation, but that didn't matter to Saddam Hussein.

Trust me; read the above two books. They spell it all out far better than I can in such limited space.

O.K. you got me on a stupid spelling error, coupled with the use of the wrong word. Shame on me. I suppose this destroys my credibility? Well at least in the mind of someone convinced of not only their moral superiority, but obviously, intellectual superiority as well.

Your right about one thing though. I think I'd agree to a drink myself.

Harley troll,
GAZE

Otto: I bought the Pollack book yesterday and will read it just as soon as I finish the Richard Price book on my bedside table. Many of your points are well-taken. I disagree with some (if you think maintaining an invasion level force in the Gulf creates bad feelings and feeds fanatics, what do you think an actual invastion will do?). And I think you underestimate the cost of rebuilding and occupying Iraq if we do it on our own.

Richard, I apologize for the snarky spelling bullshit, and I'll do it again. I'd buy you that drink if it was possible. It's not the credibility I respond badly to, it's the anger I guess. Oh, and Reaganite, apparently my human shield location is at the corner of Apu Boulevard and Allah Akbar Place. See you there. GAZE. (Whatever that means.)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Churchill had it right, and Chamberlain and the majority had it wrong. Appeasing evil creates no peace in our time; it only delays the ultimate confrontation as evil becomes more emboldened. We are now reaping the whirlwind that began in the 70s with the PLO blasting European airports and being rewarded for their efforts with status on the world stage by the likes of France,Germany... A leader of the Kurds in Iraq was asked why his cause had not been given the world's spotlight as has shone on the Palis. His response- "We do not massacre Europeans."I do not wonder at the metastasizing of Islamofascism around the world. The 22 Arab dictatorships with a 23rd to be established by the world's oldest,appeased terrorist-Yasser, have made terrorism pay. The Romans went to Carthage. The U.S. and all those who believe that the world's agenda must not be dominated by dictators and terrorists must not allow those who crave "peace in our time" to lead us to a peace of the grave. Yours in freedom and democracy,Canucker.

I am going to san francisco tomorrow morning for the anti-war rally. It should be good for a few laughs. Any suggestions for a placard from lgf's? Thanks in advance to any who suggest sayings.

Harley (whatever)

Actually I wasn't referring to you. It was more of a universal appeal to idiotarian trolls. I would love for someone to try to answer that question though.

#197 Harley

Otto: I bought the Pollack book yesterday and will read it just as soon as I finish the Richard Price book on my bedside table. Many of your points are well-taken. I disagree with some (if you think maintaining an invasion level force in the Gulf creates bad feelings and feeds fanatics, what do you think an actual invastion will do?). And I think you underestimate the cost of rebuilding and occupying Iraq if we do it on our own.

Fair enough. I think you'll find Polack's book eye-opening, even if you disagree with his main point. You may be right about the lunatics, but in the end we can't let that stop us from doing what is in our best interest. Fanatics are dangerous, but Saddam is moreso. We'll just have to deal with them as best we can. As far as rebuilding Iraq goes, like I said, it will be expensive. Nothing about this is cheap.

If you get the chance to see it (should they repeat it), Hamza was interviewed on Fox News tonight. I'm not sure of the specific program (anyone reading this who can tell me?). Catch it if you can. He discussed several of the points we've talked about.

Yeah, I know, good riddance. Anyway, thanks for the back and forth. I apologize for the insults, at least for most of them. Richard? It's a Ketel One martini for me, some rock and roll, and a lot of good friends, many of whom agree with you and godknows not me. Otto? I'm looking forward to reading the Pollack book, he's persuaded a number of people I respect (Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, for one). I'll look for the Hamza interview. As I said before, we all agree about terrorism; the conversation, the debate, is about the best way to combat it. An old friend of mine, someone I hadn't seen in years, was on her way back from Martha's Vineyard by way of Boston on the morning of 9/11. We all miss her, and we are all full of rage, and payback is necessary, and justice is too. But for the life of me -- at least until Reaganite wrings my neck -- I don't see what that has to do with Iraq. There's the doorbell, I'm off. Cheers everybody. See you next time.

RE #40 Ranbutan

"The US will have to do some serious "charm" efforts...starting with making public guarantees that we will NOT take Iraq's oil (surprise! the US has somehow avoided making that a formal assurance),"

And there is reason to avoid that “formal assurance”: The first rule of logic, although not necessarily useful in a hysterical debate, is never attempt to disprove an unproven hypothesis, it cannot be done. I have had the "all its about is oil" thrown in my face a score of times during the past month and each time when I ask them to make their case I get an incredulous stare as if I had asked a Mormon how do they know that Jesus is alive. When I press further for any evidence of this there is no response; it has been repeated so often that it has become a postulate (unproved assumption) of the anti-Bush movement. If they could produce a preponderance of evidence to explain their belief there is a simple counter-example: we have never done it before. America is the only country in history that has repeatedly fought wars, defeated countries, liberated others and never taken anything, not land, not even the resources of those that caused it. Not in Kuwait, not Germany, not Japan, not France, not The Netherlands, not Italy, it’s a long list but I am sure one gets the point. Typically we rebuild the country with whom we went to war, and in WWII, even the countries with whom we were not at war, but suffered because of Germany and Japan— France for example. So what would make one believe that suddenly we will break with this tradition and seize the oil fields of Iraq for our own use? Did we seize the iron ore mines of Alsace-Lorraine? The oil fields of Norway? I’m sure that we will buy oil from the Iraqis and that money will pour into their infrastructure instead of Saddam’s palaces and European bank accounts, but wouldn’t this be a good thing?

It is true that the people wishing for "peace in our time" just want to avert the horrors of war, but it simply never works in the case of a hitler or a saddam. They were wrong in 38 and they are wrong now. We know better than that right now.

Re#182, Kalle, I just want you to know, that two last countries on your list (Poland and Hungary) was shamelessly sold out by the West (USA and Great Britain) to the soviets in Yalta in February 1945. Later on, in 1956 Hungarians stood alone in their fight for freedom, as Poland did in 1970 and in the eighties. So, truly enough, you can be pissed off with France and Belgium, but you have to thank Hungary and Poland for their support - they owe you less than you assume.

Harley

After a nice glass of Scotch, I accept your apology.

I see both sides as entrenched in their opinions. Only events will vindicate one perspective or the other. I just can't help seeing the similarities between events now and those of 1936 - 1939, and therefore, am concerned for the future, so if that makes me a war-monger, so be it.

Re: # 168

Ranbutan,

I agree with your analysis about the need for transparencey and fairness in the administration of post-Saddam Iraq. I also strongly agree that there must be no doubt that full sovereignty over the Iraqi oil fields will be eventually returned to Iraq. The devil is going to be in the details and the timing. The long Iraqi tradition of primary loyalty to relatives and corruption in business dealings makes a rapid return to full sovereignty dangerous.

I'm not sure there is a good way, in the short term, to counter the argument that the proposed liberation of Iraq is all about gaining control of Iraq's oil. This meme is so deeply embedded in global thought that it will never go away. It's power can be muted by good administration and eventual return of the oil fields to full Iraqi control. But it will not vanish.

The problem is that the "It's all about oil" argument is partially correct. The world needs secure access to Middle Eastern oil and gas supplies at a market-based price. (Not an OPEC cartel-based price). The world also needs to be sure that the revenues from the oil and gas are not funding terrorism, oppression, and the development of WMD arsenals by expansionist dictators. The long term solution to these economic and geo-political security problems is the establishment of genuine liberal democracies with rules-based, free market economies. Unfortunately, the US and its allies have to deal with the security threats from terrorism and WMD proliferation now. That means we may have to take control of the Middle East's oil now so we can cut off the flow of money to the terrorists and the nations that support them.

Maybe the counter slogans to "No War for Oil" or "No Blood for Oil" are "No Oil for Oppression" or "No Oil for Terrorists." Other ideas are "No Oil for Blood" and "No Oil for Dictators." I would like to see what would happen if the Bush Administration and the Blair Administration would confront their opposition with these kind of arguments. Secure access to energy at reasonable costs is essential to modern economies and modern militaries. After the 9-11-2001 terror attacks, denying terrorists and their sponsors access to the money from energy sales is also essential.

Best regards,
Jim

Richard, vodka for me, and thanks. As for warmonger, I don't think so and hope I didn't give that impression. In time, and maybe sooner than I currently think, I'll be right there with you. Because it's not about evil versus not-evil, it's not about right versus wrong -- for me, it's about geopolitical strategies that are always hopelessly complex and easily debated.

Harley was the intellectual fool Orwell wrote about sixty years ago, brought up to date for us know who is stabbing us in the back as we deal with another fascist.

His education only makes transparent what he thinks is superior intellect--cowardice masquerading as wisdom (as Lord Black this week wrote about).

Richard #207

I can't help thinking how much it looks like 1970-75, especially after today, is anyone else reminded of the Vietnam protests by today's events? The large crowds, the general irrationality, the hysteria, the reversal of blame?

Funny coverage of NYC protests--gotta see the pics on this site to appreciate it:

To our horror our neighbhorhood was under seige by shouting old hippies, granolas and grungies. The apparent protest against hygiene, grooming, and generally being presentable in public turned out to be an anti-war protest. Ulla was shocked at how bad the protestors' teeth were, and at how much litter these people dumped on the streets. Filthy people.

I went home but Ulla fought the protestors to get to her cheese store. She came home furious: there was a sign on the store saying that the protestors disrupted their business so they shut it for the day. I dread Sunday morning when Ulla doesn't have her morning cheese. On Planet Ulla mornings, horrible though they are, are infinitely more intolerable without: French cheese, and imported English tea with half-and-half.

Yo, Gary B, blow me, though nice try with the Orwell namecheck. Do you any ideas of your own? I'm not going to repeat my comments re invading Iraq etc., or the uses of military power, which I support and support absolutely -- just scroll back if you're interested. Or better still, if the best you can do is put the debate on Righteous versus Truly Damned ground, leave me out of it. Oh, and to Right Intellectual -- I'm confused, you sound like you think protesting Nam was a...bad idea?

All that's missing is for Teddy Kennedy to echo his father and say "Peace in Our Time", what a good idea.

Harley,

No judgment on the Vietnam protests, of which I was a very serious participant. I was remembering how it tore the country apart, polarized everybody, I feel like its happening again today with this Iraq/UN mess. I have felt a genuine sadness all day because of it. If you were around then (I'm 51) you must note the similarity.

#77 gary b,

It might take over a year to get production rates up. Suppose to build up stocks you wanted to go from 10 missles a month to 100. This is a huge undertaking. It requires gathering space, time, people, materials. If you plan to open the war with 300 or 400 missiles a day you use up a year at full production in 3 days. So far I'd bet we have less than 6 months at wartime production rates.

There are two ways to wage war. Go very quickly with what you have on hand or do a proper build up. We did the first for the Taliban and the 2nd for Saddam.

But look at it this way. We are on pins and needles waiting for the shooting to start. How do you suppose the average Iraqi soldier is doing? He has worked out his surrender plans 100,000 times. You think you can't wait. This is worse for them than the B-52s. At least when they are dropping the bombs it breaks the monotony.

#78 Dero

3/4 of the 9/11 murderers wrere French. The other 1/4 were German. The "Saudi High Jackers" bit is just a ruse.

#81 Ryan Waxx

Give your brother the nuc my regards. I did my Idaho quals on the "Enterprise" . My actual ship was DLGN- 25. Tell him to avoid scramming in a war zone. It looks bad on the record and the hot restarts are a bitch.

#84 Dero

The Iraqi oil trust will be administered by the US of A and Britian. We will be better friends for the Iraqi people and we will do it for 2/3s of what the French and Russians get to support Saddam. Nothing wrong to give the Iraqi people a better deal.

#107 treesong

.......at great cost. -- I can get it for you for 20% less.

#115 Harley Again,

I too think there will be more terror attacks with Saddam gone. Aftr all getting rid of the Taliban has increased our insecurity. Who knows what horrors might ensue with Saddam no longer paying Stupidstinian national suicide bombers $25,000 less Arafat's expenses.

Right Intellectual:

I see your point, though it doesn't feel as rending and violent as it did back then. Nobody's beating anybody on the head. Nobody's bombing ROTC offices. In fact, I'd argue that the dissent is a valuable thing, because this war, whenever it occurs, is something worth debating, worth shouting about, and yes, worth marching about too, no matter which side of the divide you fall upon. There will always be hysterics on each side. Ignore them. The real work is done, as it is always done, with cooler minds, and as much compassion as we can muster. Cheers.

gary b

Be careful, you are letting frustration get the better of you.

While I find it odd that suddenly I appear to be defending Harley, and I'm sure he would be the first to disclaim any need, never the less...

Harley's stand is based on the premiss that this is the wrong place, the wrong time, that Saddam is no immediate threat to us, and it would be just too expensive to justify war. While you and I may disagree with him, as long as he posts a cogent argument, (well mostly), (apart from the occasional foray into silly demeaning insults), we should be prepared to debate our cause and not launch into dissmissive insults to disqualify his position, or we shall all be the losers.

At least he is not an irrational Pacifist, with whom you cannot argue. You can cut the ground from beneath them with an obvious answer, for as Orwell said..."We sleep peacefully in our beds, because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." After all, a Pacifist in the path of a tyrant, is only so much forgotten road kill. It's that irrefutable argument that can not be countered honestly. Any further discusion becomes mere verbiage.

Always remember what it is that we are fighting for; the freedom to hold our own opinions.

Richard:

Thanks for the comment, and I won't disclaim the need. I took a poll at the party downstairs, and bear in mind, this is Left Coast Hollywood, or rather, Andy Sullivan's much-loathed Fifth Column, and there isn't a single person present who doesn't want to put every terrorist in the ground, there's a surprising number who figure now is the time to take on Saddam, not later, and then there's me, mostly interested, at this point, in the music that's playing, the drink in my hand, and how much cleanup there'll be in the morning.

I've been looking up Churchill quotes to counter the anger I feel today when looking at the news. So much of what Churchill said is still relevant, and still powerful.

I must disagree, though, about any parallels drawn between peace demonstrations now and those during the Vietnam War. There is almost no comparison. I probably say this since I was a protester during Vietnam (although a protester with a difference--I had a boyfriend serving in heavy combat in Vietnam), and I am today a (sorrowful, reluctant) supporter of the current war plans against Iraq.

The Vietnam War protests only really got going years after the Vietnam War began, and after it became crystal clear that, for a number of reasons, the war was going nowhere. It was a stalemate. While some protesters did question our basic motives for being in Vietnam,many (such as myself) did not, but most war protesters were protesting something else entirely: the seemingly endless carnage on both sides, which seemed to be resolving nothing and going nowhere (much more like WWI). And the people doing the protesting were mainly the ones whose bodies and lives were on the line--young people who were subject to the draft. Very very different from the protesters today.

Harley (sneaks back from party) (#209)

I knew you would. LOL. Does he remind anyone of Hans in his "clouded eyes" early days?

# 220 blogaddict

My favourite Churchill quote, albeit along a humurous line, is as follows.

Sometime after the war, Clement Atlee, the leader of the Labour Party, was in the 'Gents' toilet in the House of Commons. In those days, the men took care of business against a long porcelain urinal running the length of one wall.

Clement, standing near the entry door, noticed Winston enter and then proceed to the far end of the room. Whereupon, Clement said. "Winston, I know that we have our differences within the House, but is it necessary to carry our differences into the mens bathroom." Winston, with his inimitable wit, instantly replied. "Clement, the trouble with you socialists, is that whenever you see anything in robust condition, you always feel the need to regulate it."

In Vietnam, American troops were held back (by politicians and/or military brass?) from doing what they could have done, from doing their very best. So the war dragged on and on and on.

I suppose because it's seen as payback for 9/11 we didn't seem to see this happening in Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure we won't see it happening in Iraq either.

I understand the comparisons to Vietnam, but there was no 9/11 in 1965. Different time, different game, different players.

Different conclusion.

Oh all right, it's an old one, but it's good:

LADY ASTOR: Winston, if I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee.

CHURCHILL: Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it.

Same idiots.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Europe's sole anti-Saddam rally takes place in Stockholm

@ 223: Amazing, what we see here! The american right has created their own "Dolchstosslegende".

Since you always accuse the "damn Anti-War protesters" and "clueless europeans" of being oblivious to the events of history I suggest you have a look at this. (end of second paragraph)

The irony is overwhelming!

P.S. I had really hoped the worldwide peace protests would shut some of you warmongering fools up. Apparently not. Well, at least we tried.

227

P.S. I had really hoped the worldwide peace protests would shut some of you warmongering fools up. Apparently not. Well, at least we tried.

...worldwide peace protests...indeed ?

The main driving spirit and expression in the streets of Europe, especially France, Italy, and even England was hatred of America, Jews, Israel and not a plea from the heart (though short-sighted) for peace. We saw a distorted hating faces of incited and brain washed crowd. with a tiny minority of thoughtfull well-meaning people. And by this you want to change mind? I know wars, and fought in wars, better than you, however the worse situation is not war itself by being under the constant threat of mad dictators with mass destruction weapons. When they choose to spread their madness there would have not an answer.

The world was saved in the Second World War first of all because Hitler had not weapons of mass destruction, thus the West and the East had the time to recover their sanity and courage to bring the fight to conclusion after 5 years and the victimhood of the peoples of the Soviet Union and the Jews.

Now there will not be an another chance to recover, you must act first. The decision to use violence is not autonomous is dictated by the goals, means, and the extent the adversary is ready to use it.

#227

P.S. I had really hoped the worldwide peace protests would shut some of you warmongering fools up. Apparently not. Well, at least we tried.

Well, at least this "peace-lover" is honest about his intention to shut up all those that don't agree with his views.

zulubaby,

Definitely agree about Harley reminding me of Hans as well.

JimC,

Take a "Peace in Our Time" sign and just add "-Chamberlain". Those in the know will know.

The U.S. ought to stop wasting tens of billions dollars to make the Old Europe feel secure. There is no justification for keeping american troops in the Balkans. Let euroweenies tackle the bloody mess themselves.

Red Herring

Let euroweenies tackle the bloody mess themselves.

Unfortunately they created the mess that we are forced to pay billions for since we know that as soon as we leave it will go back to the same old garbage all over again.

in response to #

"you cannot both prepare for war and peace"

einstein

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u= /030215/168/3a80b.html

And here they are protesting for a different reason, the only right reason if there is one. They don't want Saddam to try kill them like last time. Otherwise, they want the best for the US, unlike the other protesters who would cheer at the US' death.

Charles,
It would be really great if people could use the tag in their posts for images instead of links to them.

AB

Someone from the #227,

Since you always accuse the "damn Anti-War protesters" and "clueless europeans" of being oblivious to the events of history I suggest you have a look at this. (end of second paragraph)

So you're suggesting that the imposition of the democracy on the Iraqis will be resented just as the Weimar republic's imposition was resented? Interesting thesis. I suppose that it would be valid if you ignored:
* that Europeans tend to view themselves primarily as of a nation-state (or an individual), while Arab culture emphasizes the tribe (at the small end) or the ummah (at the high end).
* that Iraqis hate Saddam. Less than 1% of Iraqis will be marching with you.
* that Saddam is expansionist while Weimar was not.

P.S. I had really hoped the worldwide peace protests would shut some of you warmongering fools up. Apparently not. Well, at least we tried.

Yes, so that you can look your kid in the eye, and say, well, we were on the wrong side of history. While everyone wanted freedom, we protested for state control of things. Keep trying.

To AB

In the demonstration in Israel there were 1500 protestors, most of them Israeli Arabs, (ofcourse AP described them as Palastinians), and a handfull of the Jewish usefull idiots of the radical left.

Let me remind you, that these Arabs danced as Sadam missiles landed on Tel-Aviv, and see in Sadam`s survival a vital factor against Israel.

Most Israelis, though in the eye of the storm, want to see the war over, and Bush procrastination just damages American and Israeli interests, not to mention the nerves of the people her.

#119 canucker-
Well said. It is nice to hear some Candian common sense! I like your sign off "yours in freedom and democracy" and I like even more that you realize that freedom and democracy are purchased by being willing to fight for what is right.

The vast majority of the world's protestors yesterday came from Democratic countries.

They are doing what citizens have the right to do in democratic countries - protest and lobby their governments for a particular policy.

So much of the pro-war analysis on this site and others ignores or resents the democratic process.

Much like George W.

Re #231 and 232, Red Herring and Geepers, to make things straight, you, Americans, created this mess in the Balkans in order to appease islamic Turkey and reduce Russian influence there. If I am wrong, can you explain why USA stayed away from Turkish-occupied and divided for nearly 29 years Cyprus. Perfect example of your double standarts, isn't it ?Frankly, most of the people in this part of Europe (moslem "balijas" from Bosnia and Kosovo "shqiptars" excluded of obvious reasons) can not wait for you to get out for good. I do guarantee you - nobody loves you there.

#238

Oh, and criticizing those protesters is UNDEMOCRATIC?

#204 Rhgt Intellectual -

On the charge of the US is after the oil...believed by majorities in Europe, 3rd World, Russia, and even a sizeable fraction of the US population:

And there is reason to avoid that “formal assurance”: The first rule of logic, although not necessarily useful in a hysterical debate, is never attempt to disprove an unproven hypothesis, it cannot be done. I have had the "all its about is oil" thrown in my face a score of times during the past month and each time when I ask them to make their case I get an incredulous stare as if I had asked a Mormon how do they know that Jesus is alive. When I press further for any evidence of this there is no response; it has been repeated so often that it has become a postulate (unproved assumption) of the anti-Bush movement

I think when a hypothesis in politics, as opposed to science, is widely bought into, it ceases being a hypothesis, it doesn't have to be proven. Indeed, repeatable, predictable actions predicated on political belief form the consensus of the polity...the exact opoposite of repeatable, predictable experimentation in science demonstrating existence of a law with consensus.

The Bush Administration has failed to debunk this litany of charges that the WoT is a subtrefuge for paying back Big Oil. Much of it....the Afghan campaign was all about running a pipeline through the country...is flat-out stupid. Given that hypothesis in politics, vs. science, demands debate and clarification....US Leadership's refusal to give formal reassurances on the fate of Iraqi Oil, how it will be marketed, who gets a piece of the action...has generated huge global concern and opposition to going into Iraq (even though I think the US motives are primarily getting rid of WMD, dealing with unfinished business - far more than any oil policy drivers).

I think it is time the US spelled it out...and trust me, there are "oil policy drivers" nevertheless, and there will be some very pissed off fatcats if the US is compelled to say that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, that it will be sold with standard royalties, contracts will be competitive. Detailing past US history is not too persuasive - since aside from making Japan & Germany Cold War bulwarks, fighting in poor Asian countries in Cold War battles, and some humanitarian missions....we have had wars or propping up
corrupt dictators (Mobutu, Samoza, Marcos, Suharto, and any number of past or present Muslim strongmen) to promote cheap US access to markets or natural resources.

Jim #208 had views worth repeating. I liked his observation in particular, that the US has unfortunately seen the "Blood for Oil" Charge...out there so long and never adequately debunked by successive Administrations....become a reflexively believed, embedded meme in much of the world. Jim has other good stuff so if you missed his full post, go back and read it.

Jim #208 - I'm not sure there is a good way, in the short term, to counter the argument that the proposed liberation of Iraq is all about gaining control of Iraq's oil. This meme is so deeply embedded in global thought that it will never go away. It's power can be muted by good administration and eventual return of the oil fields to full Iraqi control. But it will not vanish.

The problem is that the "It's all about oil" argument is partially correct. The world needs secure access to Middle Eastern oil and gas supplies at a market-based price. (Not an OPEC cartel-based price). The world also needs to be sure that the revenues from the oil and gas are not funding terrorism, oppression, and the development of WMD arsenals by expansionist dictators

Matt K The USA is not capable of solving the world's problems or pleasing all parties when we get involved. We have North Korea threatening to attack,a country coming to terms with the fact religious fanatics consider it a duty to kill all Americans, France is having great fun with her power in the Security Council giviing aid and comfort to Saddam, part of a great city to heal ,and a just war to wage against a murdering tyrant. Give us a break.

in response to 235:

So you're suggesting that the imposition of the democracy on the Iraqis will be resented

Yes, I would. Although this wasn't what i was pointing to. Anyway, I think that imposing a democracy does not work in general. It only does in the case that the country in question is completely dependant on the one(s) imposing it.

I think that most Iraqis hate Saddam, too. But face it, their favour for the US isn't much bigger than for him.

that Saddam is expansionist while Weimar was not.

Somehow I fail to see how that is supposed to help imposing a stable democracy.

Yes, so that you can look your kid in the eye, and say, well, we were on the wrong side of history. While everyone wanted freedom, we protested for state control of things.

You want freedom? For who? Prior to 9/11 the average american was completely indifferent to any oppressive regime in the world. But now that the US itself are threatened, everybody's suddenly very concerned with liberating people from a cruel regime.
Keep trying.

#243 Someone from the Old Europe

You want freedom? For who? Prior to 9/11 the average american was completely indifferent to any oppressive regime in the world. But now that the US itself are threatened, everybody's suddenly very concerned with liberating people from a cruel regime.
Keep trying.

Hey look! Commie discussion tacticts.

Listen, boy, your leftie friends are the ones concerned about the life of the Iraqis in case of military intervention. The oppressive nature of the regime is not and has never been the reason for acting against Iraq. It is only pointed out to you & your leftie friends to show that if you really cared about the Iraqis, you would actually support the action, just like most Iraqis do.

Picture: Car crash

Heading: Yesterday was a bad day for driving.

Picture: Burning house somewhere in the States.

Caption: Looks like the States were ablaze yesterday.

Picture: Protester with ill-concieved poster.

Caption: "So-called anti-war movement is comprised of «fools [who] rush gleefully into the arms of dictators who promise peace.»"

You want freedom? For who? Prior to 9/11 the average american was completely indifferent to any oppressive regime in the world. But now that the US itself are threatened, everybody's suddenly very concerned with liberating people from a cruel regime.
Keep trying.

So what's wrong with waking up?

And besides, now's the time for calling bluffs. All those "human rights" people and the "progressives" who we're told have been decrying the evil deeds of dictators for years are against putting the baddest one of 'em all out of business when the time comes. We saw this in Afghanistan as well.

Conclusion: they (and you?) are not motivated by a love of people, freedom or reverence for human rights but by a malevolent hatred of the United States.

Your bluff's been called.

So this is where all the stupid people congregate on the internet...

*sigh* It's sad to see so many people fooled by an obviously Photoshopped photo.

Certainly, no country can be expected to stand up against the sheer force of Saddam's panzer divisions and luftwaffe when -- and that is a "when"-- he launches his blitzkrieg. I cannot believe that anyone who has any understanding of history could stand by silently as Saddam prepares to march his crack Baathist shock troops to reoccupuy the Northern no-fly zones. Today it may be Mosul, but tommorrow it will be Warsaw.

This formidable Iraqi war machine, the modern day equivilant to Hitler's nearly unbeatable juggernaugt, must be stopped now.

*sigh* It's sad to see so many people fooled by an obviously Photoshopped photo.

So Reuters publishes photoshopped photos? Did you even click the linked picture?

#249,

How cute. Hitler wasn't Hitler either until the world slept while he armed himself into Hitler. The Wermacht had 15 days worth of ammunition when it occupied the Sudetenland. Hitler could have had his ass kicked then. Wasn't his aggression a clue? But no. The whole world pretended they'd see "peace in our time" and instead 50 million died in 6 years.

It continues to amaze me that otherwise intelligent, thoughtful and insightful persons (not unlike yourselves) automatically assume that anyone that is against war is a throwback to the 1960s. There is no more draft. It's no longer college kids who are the majority of protesters.

I don't automatically assume that everyone who is in favor of going to war against Saddam isn't otherwise a peaceful, peace loving person. They are not mutually exclusive concepts and I'm tired of everyone trying to make them so.

Face it, there's plentiful rhetoric on both sides of the issue. And quite frankly, it's all growing a bit shopworn. Just like that "Peace in our Time" poster, eh?

Such Arrogance

Someone from the Old Europe,

Saddam vs Weimar expansionism makes a difference. If Hitler hadn't been expansionist, the world would not have cared that he slaughtered Jews. If Weimar had been expansionist, the world might have cared.

Also, I'd really like to see a source where you show that Iraq's people hate Saddam only a little less than the US. I can wait.

You want freedom? For who? Prior to 9/11 the average american was completely indifferent to any oppressive regime in the world. But now that the US itself are threatened, everybody's suddenly very concerned with liberating people from a cruel regime.
Keep trying.

Hey, thanks for the arrogance. Let me return the favor. Just because the average American has never left his country, doesn't mean that every American hasn't. You might also note that America has more territory and a comparable area to Europe. So how many average Europeans have left Europe? Probably more then Americans, but not as much more as you might think. And how many Europeans, when they leave their continent look down their long noses at the "natives"? Compare this with the Americans, who are almost borderline rude in asking many questions in order to find out the customs of others.

Guess what? Among the people who care about foreign policy in the US, many of us do have a fair knowledge of the world and were not at all indifferent to Saddam's oppression (or Mugabe's for that matter).

Again, just because the average American thinks one thing doesn't mean that all of us are the same. Guess what? I've had a chat with a muhajideen at the Khyber Pass, picked up his gun, and taken a photo with him. I've played mini-golf in Bali. I've watched French treatement of "natives" in Cote D'Ivoire, firsthand, and not been positively impressed. So go back to your second world and watch the shari'a monkeys pour in as they strive to take over what little remains of your country. Either that, or have the courage to take a stand and say "no more". (I know; you don't know what shari'a is. It's OK, it's just one of those "native" traditions that might find its way into your second world country.)

Judging by the sly smileon the face of the man to the left of the sign, the man who appears to be holding the sign, I think he is well aware of the irony. I suspect he brought this sign to the rally for that sole purpose.

This photo has got to be a fake. I'm not defending or supporting the protesters, but I'm pretty confident that someone with Adobe Photoshop skills is behind this photo, having a good laugh.

Conclusion: they (and you?) are not motivated by a love of people, freedom or reverence for human rights but by a malevolent hatred of the United States.

Now that's just nonsense. I don't like your current administration, that's all. And if I'm correct a huge lot of American citizens are not fans either.

The oppressive nature of the regime is not and has never been the reason for acting against Iraq.

Ok, maybe I'm a little confused here. I think that is mainly because the pro-war people seem to be divided on this subject to.

If Hitler hadn't been expansionist, the world would not have cared that he slaughtered Jews.

Yeah, as sad as this is, I'm afraid your right here.

As to the rest of your post; I didn't aim to attack an "ignorance" of the American people, because we here in Europe are no geniuses either.
But a lot of us see the current situation a bit more unbiased than you do. For example how the your government made the smooth transition from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq as soon as it became obvious that the first one had failed.

Someone from the Old Europe #257,

For example how the your government made the smooth transition from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq as soon as it became obvious that the first one had failed.

Is that right? The War on Terror failed? Well, with your unbiased lenses, how many large-scale attacks has Al Qaeda pulled off on US soil in the last year?

Also, stop and think for a minute. Think about where Iraq is located in the Muslim world. Right in the center. Guess what? If we control Iraq here's what happens:
* Iran is surrounded; we already control Afghanistan.
* Syria (and its colony Lebanon) is surrounded; Israel and Turkey are no friends of the Syrians.
* The Saudi entity has American troops on its border.

Guess which countries are the three biggest sponsors of Islamic terrorism (if we exclude Iraq)? Iran, Syria, and the Saudi entity. Liberating Iraq is a central part of the War on Terror.

So that's the strategy level. On the tactical level: Iraq has been encouraging paleostinian genocide bombers ($25K per head); a change of government might change this. Iraq has had terrorist training camps on its territory (remember the videos with 737s being hijacked). Iraq controls the territory that any terrorist must move through if he is going over land. Iraq has not accounted for its weapons of mass destruction and it's not clear that Iraq would allow them to remain in good hands. Iraq has a population that was relatively secular but has been becoming more Islamicized - still, the older parts of the population are probably more Western then any of the other two-bit dictatorships in Arabia.

But a lot of us see the current situation a bit more unbiased than you do.

Or maybe you just see them with your own biases? Maybe you just see them with the biases that terrorism must be appeased? That terrorists have legitimate reasons for their actions (i.e. they are rational actors)? That terrorism is best fought with police actions?

Please do recall that this terrorism strategy has proven to be a grand failure for the Europeans. Please remember that when the French oil tanker was bombed, it was said that they would have preferred Americans, but we are all infidels, so it does not matter. Please remember that the appeasement of the PLO has not stopped them from being increasingly bloody. Please remember that the appeasement which Europe encourages India to pursue has been a royal failure in stopping cross-Kashmir attacks. Please remember that France's appeasement never stopped an Algerian bomb in the Paris subway.

Someone please tell me this blog linked
from Instapundit is a joke: no one could really be that stupid?

I have been informed that the name of my new blog, "Peace in our time" (a sentiment I'm sure no one could disagree with unless they're from an oil company or the right wing media), supposedly has a tarnished past.

Apparently it was a phrase used by the president of England (or as it's properly known, The United Kingdom of England), Wilt Chamberlain, when he came back from negotiating peace with Adolf Hitler

[Link: peaceinourtime.blogspot.com...]

Maybe the "Peace in Our Time" slogan is meant as sarcasm? (I haven't read all the comments so maybe others have come to the same conclusion.)

Here is my list of moral equivalents:

Peace in Our Time = Appeasement
Peace in Our Time = Surrender
Peace in Our Time = Enslavement
Peace in Our Time = Oppression
Peace in Our Time = Torture
Peace in Our Time = Rape
Peace in Our Time = Murder
Peace in Our Time = Death
Peace in Our Time = Genocide
Peace in Our Time = Misogyny
Peace in Our Time = Infanticide
Peace in Our Time = Terrorism
Peace in Our Time = Fascism
Peace in Our Time = Tyranny
Peace in Our Time = Nightmare

WTH's with Ranbutan's envymongering and ranting about "the Richest 1%" and political donars? What has this to do with anything?

Unbelievable, people. One botched protest sign leads to 262 comments of people loudly, monotonously agreeing with each other. Unbelievable! Doesn't it ever get a bit stifling -- even a bit -- nodding and nodding and nodding and nodding at the same tired dittoes and straw men?

The self-congratulation on this website is utterly
nauseating. And -- amazingly -- you accuse everyone else of self-congratulation!