OT: Something Stupid Happened In Your Country Today

[jim stone]

Hi, Andrea,

I agree that the USA wouldn't be the likely target of
Iraqi nukes, if Saddam gets them. Israel is more likely--I'm
sure you can imagine what would happen then, and what it
means to the rest of the world, especially the people
of Iraq. I take it to be too obvious to need argument
that there are multiple reasons why Iraq's acquiriing
nuclear weapons is intolerable.

When Germany began to re-arm it wasn't obvious
to most people that Hitler was trying to acquire an
army that could menace the world. People argued as
you do now about Iraq. German re-armament doesn't
amount to much, they said--especially considering the terrific
superiority we have. Germany is hardly a menace. Probably
Hitler is doing it out of self-defense. One of England's
chief responses to German re-armament, in fact.
was to start sinking its own battleships, so that
Germany would no longer feel threatened.
There was a widespread feeling that Hitler
could be trusted; we were the problem, not
Hitler. People who insisted that something potentially
very dangerous needed to be nipped in the bud
were spoken of as you speak of George Bush.
Winston Churchill was denounced as a war-monger,
looking for an excuse to have a war.
By the time Hitler's intentions were realized,
it was too late. I think it's clear already what
Saddam's intentions are--and biological and
chemical weapons are more dangerous than anything
Hitler had when people decided to 'give the problem
more time.'

Another place where we disagree about history is the relative
of Saddam's you mention--not much was found
for the first four years of inspections, until Saddam's son-in-
law defected and told us about his chemical and biological
programs. This fellow was later lured back to Iraq
and murdered. You write: 'What has not been cited is
the fact that he also said that they were all destroyed
before he quit.' Well, if he said that he was lying, because
afterwards large quantities of chemical and biological
weapons were found in Iraq by inspectors,
hidden at the bottom of
rivers, etc. At the time the inspectors left in 98,
they reported that Saddam still had vast stores of this
stuff. Iraq insists that it destroyed it all but 'lost the
paper work.' Right.

You write: 'After that the weapons inspectors
have never had any reason to believe that there
was any attempt to build nuclear weapons again.'
True. That's because the reasons happened after
Saddam threw the inspectors out of Iraq in 98.

You write:'And the 'proofs' that have been shown
by the US (look, a truck) have no credibility at all.'
The USA has never pointed to any truck to prove
that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons
(I think you are thinking about mobile
biological weapons labs in trucks).
Nor has it even tried to 'prove' that Iraq was
trying to do so. What we have pointed out is that
in the four years the inspectors were out
of Iraq, Iraq was actively trying to buy
equipment that is used in refining weapons grade
uranium. As Saddam wants nukes and other
WMD, as evidenced by his vigorous efforts
to produce and hide them in the past,
that's a credible reason to think he was trying again--
the inspectors being gone. Given what Saddam is
and has done, giving him the benefit of the doubt
is imprudent.

Well, now we will have war. Best wishes, Jim

[The Weekenders]

To me, Jim's replies to the charges are so symbolic of this debate. So much of the anti-war movement is slogans and shallow thinking, and there is little time for the deliberate reasoning that Jim represents to me. I know that it is controversial to say such a thing, but Jim just proved to me that Saddam is more like Hitler than I thought, in terms of his actions and the world's reactions.

I have heard generally good pleas for the value of peace and negotiation but not one good argument to defend what Saddam does or is. His government and history is bloodstained from his first assasination as a young man in his climb to power. I think he is more hands-on than Hitler frankly. And he IS exceptionally bad, not just typical, I think.

Appeasers want to minimize the dangers of Saddam because their emotional need for peace and distaste for violence outweighs all logic. It seems bolstered by historical references to US imperialist behavior, even though every major country, in terms or resources and wealth, have acted in imperialist fashion at some point in history. France's policy seems to symbolize it because after all is said and done, nothing really happens to Saddam. Just give him more time, more time and..... And what???

I hear so many on the left declaring that Saddam isn't that big of a danger, isn't tied to terror etc. But even the buffoonish Dan Rather reported today that Saddam rewards Hamas suicide-bombers families $25,000 for each act of terror that kills Israelis. Guess that's not terrorism and I'm just a lurker, really, too. Or maybe he made it up.....But wait, Israelis deserve it, right??? Between the incredible death toll in Israel and that tanker full of weapons to Arafat lies the seeds of this latest action, I believe. Somebody was behind it....

Tube Dude's lengthy source from the link is gory and fascinating, the rise of power and boy, the US is right in there all along, doing our world-influencing thing. But if you make a mess, you have some kind of obligation to clean it up, even if it leaves you stinking from the task in the senses of others. That's kind of the way I feel about us in Iraq. We never could deal with Iran, which was the real wake-up call of Islamo-fascism, so we sided with the socialistic Saddam, and look where it got us. Ask Jimmy Carter, our most celebrated peacemaker, for more info. Look who we got into bed with to avoid all-out war with Iran in the name of peace and appeasement.

I know that its "inconvenient" to have a messy war. Why can't we just keep sending cruise missiles, like Clinton did and not think about it? If anything, Clinton's air strikes were more in line with the horrors that have been raised in this thread: anonymous, brutal and lasting devastation done in an anti-septic way. But they just didn't have the headlines that this action does....And everytime the CIA does something dirty its more like that..causing great harm in secrecy rather than just confronting a problem directly and publicly. Frankly, I think we are habituated to that kind of solution because we are all so distraught that we are actually going to publicly go there once and for all. We are conditioned to look the other way, while the messy business of ugly power is done "quietly" while the public is lulled into amnesiac pre-occupations with "bread and circuses."

I think people are bewildered that Bush has the will to oust a tyrant and seek alternate comfortable nostrums to explain it: HE is the tyrant, HE is power-hungry etc etc. The US isn't supposed to behave that way. We are supposed to be the supine giant, allowing all kinds of international riff-raff into our country to make us pay dearly for democractic idealism and historical opportunism of our system while we foot many bills for world misfortune, some natural, some political. Thus he is flexing his muscles, yet according to one poster, doesn't have the balls to take on Saddam.

Just how the hell do you know that anyway? What do you really know about Bush that didn't come out of the Gore talking points or Al Franken's latest diatribe? I think the constant put-downs of Bush are childish and simplistic. Is there no place for honor in your lives? Even if he is not worthy of your honor, do you honor yourself in speaking so? And as far as using the election, Bush did not get ONE vote and beat Gore, he got millions of votes, so, in my opinion, the constant reference to his invalid election shows further laziness in making the arguments.

Besides, Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country anyway, according to pollsters. They should beat the Republicans EVERY election but for what ever reason, many choose not to make it to the polls on election day, while those darn Republicans are just square enough to make it a priority. So you are not shocking me with a very close election and the Dems knew it when they sent Daley Jr. down there BEFORE the election.

[Bagfed]

Jim Stone, Weekender,

I was beginning to think I was the only ITM fan who wasn't....well you know....

If I ever get the chance to meet you, I'll buy ya a beer or something.

[Azalin]

So I wonder who'll be next after Irak. I guess Iran, and North Korea. After that, Syria. Why not Egypt. I'm sure a few McDonal's 'round the Pyramids would make some good money. Just joking, there's already McDonald's in Egypt. All of these countries will suddenly become "a danger for US survival". Makes me think of that South Park when those hunters would scream "oh no, we're under attack!" to justify killing beasts.

Oh well, only time will tell...

[herbivore12]

double post, sorry. . .

[herbivore12]

To me, Jim's replies to the charges are so symbolic of this debate. So much of the anti-war movement is slogans and shallow thinking, and there is little time for the deliberate reasoning that Jim represents to me.

It's of course time to consider the slogans and shallow thinking of the "pro-war" side (if we really have to polarize this complex issue in such simplistic terms). War sloganeering now -- and I don't think you need any examples, they're everywhere -- and throughout history, has a history at least as checkered -- more checkered, I think -- than that of the "anti-war" movement. The "anti-war" movement does not have anything like a monopoly on empty messages and emotional appeal and conceit.

I have heard generally good pleas for the value of peace and negotiation but not one good argument to defend what Saddam does or is.

I know a lot of "anti-war" subscribers, and I've never once heard anyone try to condone Saddam Hussein's rightness, or goodness, nor have they risen to his defense. The argument is not whether Hussein is an awful man who should be ousted, but over the methods by which such is effected.

It's simple, and arguably quite wrong, to polarize the debate in our society just now as two absolutely opposed camps. To continue with the belittling remarks aimed at each other, to run with the party-line "If you're not with us, you're against us", is damaging and more than a little silly. It's convenient to demean the "other side" (there are really *so many* sides, here), and easy. But it's neither accurate, nor conducive to anything like a meaningful dialog.

Appeasers want to minimize the dangers of Saddam because their emotional need for peace and distaste for violence outweighs all logic.

Ah. All logic. It is impossible to oppose our current administration's actions and also appeal to logic.

This is the sort of frankly divisive and silly statement I mean.

What if someone is opposed to the immediate waging of the war as it's been presented to us, but not to the ousting of Hussein? What if someone feels -- and from the reaction of our C&F'ers from other nations, apparently quite rightly -- that the current war might harm important international relations with our historic allies, possibly quite badly. Even harm America's reputation, in important ways. What if an "anti-war" (is there a better term for someone who's "anti-*this*-war", as opposed to "anti-war"?) protestor believes that the stated plan of immense and widespread bombing might harm and kill more innocents in both the long and short terms than a more prolonged but systematic plan of undermining Hussein's powerbase and wepaons programs? These are not "illogical", friend Weekenders; perhaps some of us are interpreting facts diffeently, or appealing to different historic precedent, but to dismiss these thoughtful protests as "illogical" is, well, wrong.

It seems bolstered by historical references to US imperialist behavior, even though every major country, in terms or resources and wealth, have acted in imperialist fashion at some point in history. France's policy seems to symbolize it because after all is said and done, nothing really happens to Saddam. Just give him more time, more time and..... And what???

. . .And strengthen and expand inspections, and dismantle any prgrams found (despite your objections, and Jim's, and others, the programs thus far noted have not been of sufficient cause to begin widespread bombing campaigns, even per the folks onthe ground doing the actual inspections). And whittle away at Saddam's powerbase. And install multinational peacekeeping troops. And keep Saddam so occupied and busy that the oppression so often decried here must necessarily lessen, and on and on (I heard an interview recently with a reporter who had spent significant time in both Iraq and North Korea lately, and who stated that the people of North Korea suffer under a considerably more horrid daily oppression, if that's what we're "really" fighting for. . .).

I hear so many on the left declaring that Saddam isn't that big of a danger, isn't tied to terror etc.

And on and on about how those on the left are blind to the apparent badness of Saddam's regime and power. I wonder sometimes if people who talk like this about the arguments of the left actually listen to the arguments, or just watch the more fringe protestors on TV and lump them all together, just as I wonder about the leftists who think all conservatives or supporters of war are buffoonish gorillas out only for oil money or American imperial expansion. Both views are awfully myopic.

I believe Saddam is a bad man. I believe that offering funds to the families of suicide bombers is wrong (but not war-worthy stuff). I believe Saddam is a dangerous man, though not immediately dangerous to the U.S.. I believe that the world should act to encourage his ouster. I don't believe that a unilateral war, in the way we plan to wage it, is the right way to do it. I also don't believe that our stated reasons for this war are as high-minded or as generous as they seem. Call me cynical. But don't call me unthoughtful.

We never could deal with Iran, which was the real wake-up call of Islamo-fascism, so we sided with the socialistic Saddam, and look where it got us.

Actually, we seemed to have sided, at least in part, with whoever would give us good access to oil and other resources. The Saudi regime -- and I'm married to a woman who grew up there -- is about as fascist and oppressive and cruel as a geovernment can get. It's a terrible place to be, especially oif you're a woman, or poor, or a menial laborer. But they're okay, right? It's fine to punish women who dare to drive or show skin bove the ankle, and to deny the free practice of religion and thought, as long as you're on our good side? No? Ah. So maybe there's more to the story, yes?

I have heard the arguments for the "domin" theory, that the "democratizing" of Iraq will put other nations in the region on notice, or will serve as amodel for them. I don't buy it. As long as we're appealing -- dubiouslyu, I think, all spologies to Jim -- to history, the "domino theory" is not ringing the right bells with me, or with many others I know.

Ask Jimmy Carter, our most celebrated peacemaker, for more info. Look who we got into bed with to avoid all-out war with Iran in the name of peace and appeasement.

Yet we still happily and currently support Indonesia and its brutalizing of East Timor, and the Islamo-fascist government of Saudi Arabia, and on and on. If we're to maintain any semblance of a consistent and "moral" nation, let's not appeal to our supposed rightness in this case. It makes us seem, as a nation, petty and selective and self-serving, when we're trying to argue that we're just the opposite. If we're going to argue against the support of odd bedfellows, we're going to find ourselves very, very lonely at night. There are good arguments to make to support Saddam's ouster, but you'd better be prepared to go the distance if you're going to use this one, and also be consistent. It will get very inconvenient, very fast, and have very far-reaching effects.

I know that its "inconvenient" to have a messy war.

It seems inconvenient to have rational "anti-war" protestors, too, doesn't it? Which I guess is why all the broad brushstrokes here. . .

Why can't we just keep sending cruise missiles, like Clinton did and not think about it? If anything, Clinton's air strikes were more in line with the horrors that have been raised in this thread: anonymous, brutal and lasting devastation done in an anti-septic way.

I heartily encourage the review of the war plans for this go-round. "Devastating air-strikes". "Massive bombing runs, even of populated areas". "The destruction of ikey nfrastructure." ?Yes, all of this happens in war, any war. But to claim that liited cruise missile strikes of almost entirely unpopulated areas of almost entirely military installations is equivalent to what has been described lately is pretty fatuous.

We are conditioned to look the other way, while the messy business of ugly power is done "quietly" while the public is lulled into amnesiac pre-occupations with "bread and circuses."

Some people think the bread and circuses is what we're being fed and presented with right now. And the simplistic division of the "anti" and "pro" (just *love* the negative and positive connotations those little prefixes lend, don't you? I can tell you do. . .) is, to some of us, part of that ugliness. It sure makes for easy arguing. I'm not sure it makes for clear thinking.

We are supposed to be the supine giant, allowing all kinds of international riff-raff into our country to make us pay dearly for democractic idealism and historical opportunism of our system while we foot many bills for world misfortune, some natural, some political.

Oh, I think we'll be footing the bill (Interestingly, someone here posted about how the U.S. footed the bill for the first Gulf War, when this is patently not the case; it was paid ofr almost entirely by other nations. I can dig up the references, if you want, but in the end that one cost us almost nothing, as compared to what the presumed cost of this one is going to cost.)

Just how the hell do you know that anyway? What do you really know about Bush that didn't come out of the Gore talking points or Al Franken's latest diatribe?

Oh dear, back to the "all those opposed to war or Bush policy think in the following manner, while the rest of us think in the correct way." So, all of we -- and not all of us are "classical liberals" -- who oppose this war in the way it's being led, have been spoonfed our opinions by one of the people you dislike. All those for hte war have come to their conclusions only by dint of their own intellectual power and rumination. All opposition to the war is purely emotional and without merit, whereas there's some outside arbiter who could weigh the pro-war claims and show, yes, these indeed are the weightier and more thoughtful claims.

That sort of moral certaintly is enviable. But it's dangerous, too, and part of what is causing some of the rest of us to be uneasy on the presence of arguments like this. If I were to paint all "pro-war" sentiments with a single brush, as you have the anti-war side here, you'd scream bloody murder. Or wouldn't you?

I think the constant put-downs of Bush are childish and simplistic.

Funny. I feel the same way about the constant put-downs of the "anti-war" movement, and blind polarization of issues. But hey, that's just me.

Is there no place for honor in your lives?

Oh. My. I guess the putdown of the Clinton presidency you gifted us with earlier was honorable, whereas any hint of criticism direct toward our current administration is, well, dishonorable.

Even if he is not worthy of your honor, do you honor yourself in speaking so?

Well, there's supposed to be a long and revered tradition of the right to protest in this country, and to speak for what one believes in. If one is doing so, I'd guess they're honoring American tradition and their faith in America's values when they do so without fear of being wrongly incarcerated or vilified or accused of dishonor. If you want to argue that maintaining silence in the face of what you may consider egregious misbehavior, or even crime, is honorable, then don't let me stop you.

I always *have* been puzzled by those who sing America's praises yet want to silence her critics. Perhaps I'm a bad American.

Look. I think Saddam is a bad man. I think there are others in the world as bad, and maybe even worse, than him. I think it's easy to buy into the propaganda. I think our rationale for this war isn't strong enough to justify the war we propose to wage. I think we're harming important international relationships for the wrong reasons. I think Jim's thoughtful responses to this thread are well-written and persuasive, and I disagree with him on many points. I respect him, though, for making his arguments, and for considering those of others, even though I disagree with him, in the end. I have little patience for those -- on either side -- who would make this an either/or, us/them, right/wrong debate, in the face of the complexitites with which we are presented.

I realize that his post has presented little in the way of why I am opposed to our current policies, what I would propose in their stead, and so on. Partly, this is because our course now seems fixed; I'd type and type all about what I wish we had done, when in a few days all that I wish we hadn't done will be effected. I hope that I am wrong about the consequences; I hope our relations in the worls are easily mended, I hope that all the other evil regimes in the world suddenly collapse, I hope that the Bush admin doesn't use the war to justify its continued pillaging ofthe environment, and so forth. I really do want to be wrong; I do not find it difficult, usually, to admit to being wrong, and I would really like to be wrong now that we seem fixed on a course.

But partly I have not presented a lengthy exposition of my arguments because I wanted to make the point that the ugly polarization I see here is overly-simple and quite ungenerous (on both sides), and to the extent that it's ungenerous I think it's un-American. I think America, at its best, is a wonderfully open, generous, naive (in a good way), accepting nation. I think that the painting of complex issues with Black and White is one of thep poorest traits of America, and one too often now indulged in, by members of the left and the right (and where is the middle?). To attack another's honor because they have thoughtful objections to a war, or to the consequences of a war, is just a small act, and unworthy. To attack all supporter's of a war as profiteering apes is wrong, too. The debate is smothered, and the valuable viewpoints held on each side -- the arguments that may help to build a better resolution -- are lost.

Let's keep talking about this. Let's even argue sometimes. But if we can't respect each other here, if we can't discuss complex subjects without impugning the other party's honor or intellect or moral values, let's stick to whistles. Ther's plenty to argue about there.

Best regards,

Aaron

[Walden]

This is not American empire building. The era of American imperialism ended with the addition of the 48th state, essentially. This is a matter of American defense (defence) policy.

[Andreas]

Jim:

We agree on this:
Saddam is evil and must be disarmed.

But,
there has never in the time since Saddam come to power been less risk of him attacking another country than now. He has the eyes of the whole world at him, and there were people in the country looking for weapons.

What has happend now is that some countries will attack another UN country without UN approval (I know, the countries attacking says that this or that resolution gives them the right to do so, but the majority of the worlds international law experts say that it is not so), thereby breaking international law. This is thouroughly sad. I hope that these countries will stand alone in the future also. There has already been so many crimes against international law since 9/11, but this is now unmendable. Thanks for that! Great!

And stop these false analogies with Germany, please. There is noone feeling sorry for Saddam, believing that he just arms in self-defense is there? Or anyone not wanting to disarm him? We ALL want that. That makes this situation totally different. Right. It is so easy to begin comparing things with Germany and Hitler. For example, did he not invade countries for preemptive purposes?

Anyway, talk is cheap and soon people will die. Many people. I sure hope it will be worth it.

[Walden]

good Christians/Muslim fanatics

No doubt there are people who look at it this way, but in traditional Christian thought, no one, of whatever religious persuasion, is good of his own self. I will be criticised for speaking openly of a religious matter, but the Scripture says, in Romans Chapter 3, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Evil committed by a Christian is just as evil committed by anyone else.

[The Weekenders]

It's of course time to consider the slogans and shallow thinking of the "pro-war" side (if we really have to polarize this complex issues in such simplistic terms).

I never used any slogans so it's not simplistic on my part.

I know a lot of "anti-war" subscrbers, and I've never once heard anyone try to condone Saddam Hussein's rightness, or goodness, nor have they risen to his defense. The argument is not whether Hussein is an awful man who wshould be ousted, but over the methods by which such is effected.

There are no chants of hey-ho Saddam must go at the peace marches. And I never said anyone condoned him, but rather shifted the focus to how evil and crazy Bush must be to want to do this thing.

It's simple, and arguably quite wrong, to polarize the debate in our society just now as two absolutely opposed camps. To continue with the belittling remarks aimed at each other, to run with the party-line "If you're not with us, you're against us", is damaging and more than a little silly. It's convenient to demean the "other side" (there are really *so many* sides, here), and easy. But it's neither accurate, nor conducive to anything like a meaningful dialog.

I didn't say or imply about "with us or against us." I wished for a higher level of discourse. If you want to talk about polarization, consider your own rhetoric, use of the perjorative silly, your condescension and your gratuitous use of quotation marks.

Ah. All logic. It is impossible to oppose our current administration's actions and also appeal to logic.

This is the sort of frankly divisive and silly statement I mean.

Ah, the condescension. I stand by my point. I truly believe that many who want peace are not being pragmatic or logical in dealing with Saddam, but engaging in wishful thinking.

What if someone is opposed to the immediate waging of the war as it's been presented to us, but not to the ousting of Hussein? What if someone feels -- and from the reaction of our C&F'ers from other nations, apparently quite rightly -- that the current war might harm important international relations with our historic allies, possibly quite badly. Even harm America's reputation, in important ways. What if an "anti-war" (is there a better term for someone who's "anti-*this*-war", as opposed to "anti-war"?) protestor believes that the stated plan of immense and widespread bombing might harm and kill more innocents in both the long and short terms than a more prolonged but systematic plan of undermining Hussein's powerbase and wepaons programs? These are not "illogical", friend Weekenders; perhaps some of us are interpreting facts diffeently, or appealing to different historic precedent, but to dismiss these thoughtful protests as "illogical" is, well, wrong.

What is Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? Hypotheticals at this point are like masturbation. I am talking about reducing your thoughtful belief system to signs that say "Bush is Hitler" "No Blood for Oil." Your paragraph above is very legitimate in my eyes, but the useful idiots burning cars, looting stores, beating police horses and having street parties are not furthering your thoughtfulness, in my opinion. Ah, the excesses.

It seems bolstered by historical references to US imperialist behavior, even though every major country, in terms or resources and wealth, have acted in imperialist fashion at some point in history. France's policy seems to symbolize it because after all is said and done, nothing really happens to Saddam. Just give him more time, more time and..... And what???

. . .And strengthen and expand inspections, and dismantle any prgrams found (despite your objections, and Jim's, and others, the programs thus far noted have not been of sufficient cause to begin widespread bombing campaigns, even per the folks onthe ground doing the actual inspections). And whittle away at Saddam's powerbase. And install multinational peacekeeping troops. And keep Saddam so occupied and busy that the oppression so often decried here must necessarily lessen, and on and on (I heard an interview recently with a reporter who had spent significant time in both Iraq and North Korea lately, and who stated that the people of North Korea suffer under a considerably more horrid daily oppression, if that's what we're "really" fighting for. . .).

I left my quote in above yours because you make the point so well. Why should the world put up with this and do they have the patience? No. Will they send peacekeeping troops? I doubt it. A series of terrorist assassinations and ambushes would render such an effort futile in the end.
Your solution is over-complicated and won't work.

And on and on about how those on the left are blind to the apparent badness of Saddam's regime and power. I wonder sometimes if people who talk like this about the arguments of the left actually listen to the arguments, or just watch the more fringe protestors on TV and lump them all together, just as I wonder about the leftists who think all conservatives or supporters of war are buffoonish gorillas out only for oil money or American imperial expansion. Both views are awfully myopic.

Yeah, I wonder too. that's why I wrote what I did. And went "on and on," yet another expression of your impatience with an opposing viewpoint.

I believe Saddam is a bad man. I believe that offering funds to the families of suicide bombers is wrong (but not war-worthy stuff). I also don't believe that our stated reasons for this war are as high-minded or as generous as they seem. Call me cynical. But don't call me unthoughtful.

I am not sure I agree with you. Those rewards are a profound act of terrorism resulting in the slaughter of innocents without warning. Even the Iraqis know that the bombs are coming. And I never said that the reasons are high-minded. Quite the reverse. I don't know if you are thoughtful, but I know that you are too impatient to read what I said.

Actually, we seemed to have sided, at least in part, with whoever would give us good access to oil and other resources. The Saudi regime -- and I'm married to a woman who grew up there -- is about as fascist and oppressive and cruel as a geovernment can get. It's a terrible place to be, especially oif you're a woman, or poor, or a menial laborer. But they're okay, right? No? Ah. So maybe there's more to the story, yes?.

1) I was talking about the aftermath of the Ayatollah's hostage taking in Iran. Its true that Iraq had oil but that is not the main reason we sided with Saddam in that situation.
2) I never said Saudi Arabia is okay. Though once again, you equivocate, which makes my point about shifting focus off of Saddam. For perspective, I guess.
3) And if you are going to invoke your Saudi wife, I will invoke my Iraqi Assyrian nephew-in-law. Rhetorically I ask, what course of action do you think he supports? Even with what is left of his family, still in Iraq? And there is your rhetorical, Ah, again.

.

I have heard the arguments for the "domin" theory, that the "democratizing" of Iraq will put other nations in the region on notice, or will serve as amodel for them. I don't buy it. As long as we're appealing -- dubiouslyu, I think, all spologies to Jim -- to history, the "domino theory" is not ringing the right bells with me, or with many others I know..

I never mentioned a domino theory. I believe the reverse, that deposing Iraq could lead to a series of civil wars within the Iraqi territory, enhanced by the huge oil wealth that stands to be attained.


.

It seems inconvenient to have rational "anti-war" protestors, too, doesn't it? Which I guess is why all the broad brushstrokes here. .

What rational war protestors? My post was about the opposite. I have read news accounts, watched the political statements, read letters to the editor and so forth, and there is little rationality to it. Its mostly sloganeering and faulty logic. And in your case, a series of condescending "broad brushtrokes" and rhetoric.

I heartily encourage the review of the war plans for this go-round. "Devastating air-strikes". "Massive bombing runs, even of populated areas". "The destruction of ikey nfrastructure." ?Yes, all of this happens in war, any war. But to claim that liited cruise missile strikes of almost entirely unpopulated areas of almost entirely military installations is equivalent to what has been described lately is pretty fatuous..

But those are not in your formula stated above of squeezing Saddam into submission are they? Did you feel Clinton was wrong then? And are you sure that no innocents weren't slaughtered from 450 cruise missiles?

.

Some people think the bread and circuses is what we're being fed and presented with right now. And the simplistic division of the "anti" and "pro" (just *love* the negative and positive connotations those little prefixes lend, don't you? I can tell you do. . .) is, to some of us, part of that ugliness. It sure makes for easy arguing. I'm not sure it makes for clear thinking. .

I don't really think that the tone of discussions about this war are "bread and circuses" though bongos, music and celebrity appearances are a big part of the peace marches.
And you can't tell anything about me, herbivore, because you didn't bother to read what I said very carefully or most of your prosaic screed would never have been penned.

Oh dear, back to the "all those opposed to war or Bush policy think in the following manner, while the rest of us think in the correct way." So, all of we -- and not all of us are "classical liberals" -- who oppose this war in the way it's being led, have been spoonfed our opinions by one of the people you dislike. All those for hte war have come to their conclusions only by dint of their own intellectual power and rumination. All opposition to the war is purely emotional and without merit, whereas there's some outside arbiter who could weigh the pro-war claims and show, yes, these indeed are the weightier and more thoughtful claims.

That sort of moral certaintly is enviable. But it's dangerous, too, and part of what is causing some of the rest of us to be uneasy on the presence of arguments like this. If I were to paint all "pro-war" sentiments with a single brush, as you have the anti-war side here, you'd scream bloody murder. Or wouldn't you? .

Did you even read what I said? Someone claimed that Bush didn't have the balls to duel Saddam. Even though that is a bit "silly and simplistic" coming from the anti-war viewpoint, I question the value of that kind of argument.

Further, I never claimed moral certainty. You ascribed that to me. I have pointed out several times how uncertain and unsettling this situation is and that we haven't much moral ground, considering our past support for Saddam.

"Oh dear".. Man, can you get any more insulting? It does remind me of the way that Gore squirmed during the debates though. That is why many conservative people disliked him so. He was impatient with arguments that he was sure he knew the better answer.

Oh. My. I guess the putdown of the Clinton presidency you gifted us with earlier was honorable, whereas any hint of criticism direct toward our current administration is, well, dishonorable..

I sincerely believe that Clinton's policies were wrong. I am not talking about whether he has balls or is like Hitler. And actually, his moral depravity was pretty much exposed on national television in great detail, while anti-Bush statements have little grounding, except to look to past substance abuse issues and speculate on the quality of his grades in college. Oh, my... There you go again.

Well, there's supposed to be a long and revered tradition of the right to protest in this country, and to speak for what one believes in. If one is doing so, I'd guess they're honoring American tradition and their faith in America's values when they do so without fear of being wrongly incarcerated or vilified or accused of dishonor. If you want to argue that maintaining silence in the face of what you may consider egregious misbehavior, or even crime, is honorable, then don't let me stop you. .

I never asked for silence. I just ask that in a grave time, the level of discourse be above name-calling and red-herring logic and in your case, respect for opposing views. I stated at the outset that I have heard legitimate generalized appeals for peace but in the actual discourse over this action, the rhetoric seemed elemental and wreckless. And it is my right to say so.

I always *have* been puzzled by those who sing America's praises yet want to silence her critics. Perhaps I'm a bad American..

I am not "asking" for silence. Just smarter expression. And you are jumping to conclusions like hurdles in a race.

.

Look. I think Saddam is a bad man. I think there are others in the world as bad, and maybe even worse, than him. .

Equivocation, again

I think it's easy to buy into the propaganda. I think our rationale for this war isn't strong enough to justify the war we propose to wage. I think we're harming important international relationships for the wrong reasons. I think Jim's thoughtful responses to this thread are well-written and persuasive, and I disagree with him on many points. I respect him, though, for making his arguments, and for considering those of others, even though I disagree with him, in the end. I have little patience for those -- on either side -- who would make this an either/or, us/them, right/wrong debate, in the face of the complexitites with which we are presented..

You had enough patience to pen a long and condescending post without seemingly reviewing what I said, other than to deconstruct it for your purposes and fit my views into your image. I have deconstructed yours but I actually remember what I said.

To attack another's honor because they have thoughtful objections to a war, or to the consequences of a war, is just a small act, and unworthy..

Once again, you have painted a "broad brushstroke," I used the word honor in the context of ad hominen attacks on Bush, not being opposed to the war. I think you are the only one who made this leap in response to my words.

[jim stone]

Perhaps we've reached the point of diminishing
returns on discussion. There are some pretty
deep differences in perspective that are
unlikely to be bridged now--and the die is
cast.

If I may close with this appeal, to all the people of good will
on every side of the current debate:

this was the relatively easy part, I believe, compared to
what is coming later.

The Bush administration is going to address the
Palestinian-Israeli problem. Its past
behaviour is very unpromising and, unless
there is a just solution, the world will go
on suffering for the rest of our lives.

I don't know what or how much we can
do--but please let's do it. In the USA, domestic
politics are probably the determining factor
in what Bush will do in Palestine. That suggests
we can do something here. European
countries are in a good position to
add an independent perspective.

Please don't forget--it's the single
problem the world can least afford,
the well spring of terrorism.

[Wizzer]

The question is when it justifiable to take the lives of thousand of people who are just doing their duty to their country. We will kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers. maybe thousands of Iraqi civilians. We may loose thousands our self.
Were does the justification to take these lives come from. If we continued for several years with inspections and monitoring would it cost any lives? Time is endless it has no boundaries we know off. Lives however are finite and can be stopped at any point.

If Iraq could be disarmed and contained with out the cost of a life then that is the course we should be following. All the rationalization in the world will not change that fact.
If we in our haste to get our way make for ourselves endless numbers of enemies that make our security a fleeting memory.

[Bloomfield]

I was born in Portland town
Was born in Portland town
Yes I was, yes I was
Yes I was

I got married in Portland town
Got married in Portland town
Yes I did, yes I did
Yes I did

I had children one, two, three
Had children one, two, three
Yes I did, yes I did
Yes I did

They sent them away to war
I ain't got no kids no more
No I ain't, no I ain't
No I ain't

I was born in Portland town
Was born in Portland town
Yes I was, yes I was
Yes I was



by Deroll Adams; Joan Baez' version

[Zubivka]

The question is when it justifiable to take the lives of thousand of people who are just doing their duty to their country. We will kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers. maybe thousands of Iraqi civilians. We may loose thousands our self.
Were does the justification to take these lives come from. If we continued for several years with inspections and monitoring would it cost any lives? Time is endless it has no boundaries we know off. Lives however are finite and can be stopped at any point.

If Iraq could be disarmed and contained with out the cost of a life then that is the course we should be following. All the rationalization in the world will not change that fact.
If we in our haste to get our way make for ourselves endless numbers of enemies that make our security a fleeting memory.

Wizzer Bill Bull, I checked out this thread because I saw you signed the last post. Just wondering what you'd be up with.

I've been skipping many recent posts, like flying over. Not that they were uninteresting, but so looooong, and kinda repeating themselves in a more bloated form.

I knew already you wrote a marvel of a short, informative tutorial, which make complicated things look so simple. Hell, where would I'd be stuck before your explanations on ornaments? I'm almost envious, after spending half my life writing popularizations.

Well, here again you make your point short and clear!

PS: I'm sure you could even explain to Prez Jr some basics? Try with drawings first, though the guy is pretty bright for his age: nom matter what the Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs pretends, he already doesn't confuse United Kingdom with some Republic of England.

[herbivore12]

It's of course time to consider the slogans and shallow thinking of the "pro-war" side (if we really have to polarize this complex issues in such simplistic terms).

I never used any slogans so it's not simplistic on my part.

Was unaware that I'd said *you'd* used slogans. You made a braod generalization about a diverse group of the "anti-war", and I made one about the "pro-war" side. I used your tactic, see.

That's what I did throughout the post. Responded to your broad sweeps with sweeps similarly broad. Thought showing you a mirror might help. I see you caught some of the intent, but didn't recognize it in yourself.

You also seem to have been under the impression that my post was intended solely as a response to your previous post. It wasn't.

There are no chants of hey-ho Saddam must go at the peace marches.

Didn't know peace marches were the only preserve for folks opposed to this war.

That being said, my father was at the march in SF with a sign that condemned Saddam, and wasn't booed by other marchers, and had supportive comments. So if there were no chants as such -- and I'm not convinced you'd know that for certain -- there are plenty of people opposed to this war who also condemn Saddam.

There are also people opposed to this war who are not opposed to war in general, or the use of force in effecting some changes. I'm one of them. I'm not sure radical pacifists are very common, or dangerous. Vocal, sure.

And I never said anyone condoned him, but rather shifted the focus to how evil and crazy Bush must be to want to do this thing.

Saddam's being crazy and evil doesn't mean that Bush can't be so.

I don't think Bush is crazy or evil, though I'm also no great admirer. I think Saddam is horrid. And I still think there would have been better ways for the U.S. to have gone about this. Not that it matters much, now.

I didn't say or imply about "with us or against us." I wished for a higher level of discourse. If you want to talk about polarization, consider your own rhetoric, use of the perjorative silly, your condescension and your gratuitous use of quotation marks.

Wow. And here I was responding to a post that questioned the logical skills of those opposed to the war, contained the words "Is there no place for honor in your lives?", accused those who speak out of simply regurgitating Al Franken or Al Gore's words, and which lumped all opposition into one group, so you could set up your straw man and then knock it over. Then you object to "silly" and quotation marks.

I thought couching some of your remarks and presenting them to you in the way you had argued would illustrate what *I* was aiming at, and expressly stated that the partisan bickering needed to go, on both sides, and be replaced by calmer debate, at the end of my post. Sorry to see you missed it. I see you simply felt attacked, as perhaps people who shared my sentiments had upon reading your own writings, to judge from the PMs that staarted hitting my box.

I suppose it's too hairy a subject. And the debate, now, is pretty academic, isn't it? So. . .

All done,

Aaron