« and after all that i told him i only watch cartoon network | Main | vive le carnivale! »

all i want is the truth

I don't despise all of the anti-war crowd. I don't hate liberals or Democrats.

What I do loathe, however, is ignorance parading as protest.

It is your right to view the war on Iraq as wrong. We all have our own opinions, we all - for the most part - form those opinions based on our awareness of a situation and hopefully some research into the facts.

There is a large contingent of people who unfortunately do not let facts get in the way of their opinions. Yes, I do realize that both sides of the coin are at fault here - the far right as well as the far left - but I'm talking about the left today. Not the (small l)iberals, not the registered Democrats, not the people who put forth their protests in a civil, singular manner.

Let's go all the way to the left for this one.

Take, for instance, these protesters in New York City that blocked the way of a firetruck and called the firefighters on the truck facists. While Michael Daly makes great issue of the fact that some of the firefighters on that truck were present in the WTC on 9/11/01, that is not really the issue. Nor should it be.

The fact remains that these protesters twisted and turned a situation around to make themselves look like the victims.

A firetruck returning from a run, the driver trying to get back to the firehouse suddenly becomes a troop of facists trying to break up a crowd of first amendment users.

Police officers in San Francisco trying to stop a group of rampaging, window-breaking, building-defacing protesters are called brutal and oppressors.

Bush is somehow likened to Hitler, though I don't recall Bush rounding up Jews and sending them off to die. In fact, I do believe that Bush is trying to actually rid the world of a person who rounded up Kurds and killed them with chemicals. Yet, Bush is Hitler, Saddam is not.

The situation in Iraq is somehow the fault of Israel, if you believe the signs out in force this past weekend. The Israelis, who have lost husbands, wives and children to terrorist explosions of fire and nails are somehow the evil, vile people while the protestors hold signs proclaiming the Palestinians to be the victims, to be the people of peace.

The capitalists are to blame as well. Money is bad. Money is the root of all evil. Money causes war. Yet is is cold hard cash that backed these rallies, dollar bills that got those signs made and money that bought the black masks the break-off contingent of Organized Anarchists were wearing. It is money that pays for all the websites and flyers and busloads of socialists promoting Bush as Hitler. It is both money and oil that are used to send citizens of free countries to stand guard against a dictator and his henchmen, shielding them from Bush as Hitler.

If the far left wants nothing more than peace and harmony, then where are all the signs asking Saddam to disarm? I saw plenty of signs asking Bush to step down, asking America to disarm. Yet not one single sign called for Saddam Hussein to throw down his weapons or leave the office of President of Iraq. I am then left to think that gassing, starving and torturing your own citizens is somehow ok, but trying to free those citizens from the person who gasses, starves and tortures them is not.

Strange thinking over there on the left hand side of the divide. Which is it? Are you anti-war or anti-anything America does? Are you protesting SUVs and corporations or are you protesting a war you don't believe in? Pick an issue and stay with it. If you are organizing an anti-war rally, be up front about what it really is. Call it the anti-Israel march. Call it the Students for Socialism rally. Call it anything but a peace march because peace is obviously not on your agenda.

Breaking windows, setting cars on fire, fighting police officers, blocking traffic, defacing public property - sounds more like a Super Bowl riot than a peace march. Be honest. Call it the Rallly for Hate. Hate Israel, hate America, hate Bush, hate corporations and conservative newspapers, hate SUVs and Texas and Starbucks coffee. Be open about it. Be honest.

Hell, I'm pretty honest about my issues. Sure, I'm all about killing Saddam. I'm not trying to pretty that up or cover it in other issues. Kill Saddam Hussein. Kill him dead. See, it's nice and easy to be honest about your feelings.

Say what you mean, Mr. Far Leftie. I dare you. Next time you call for a massive rally weekend, don't call it for peace. Don't call it for anti-war protesters. Call it exactly what it is; the We Hate You march. Be open about your causes. On your organization's website list the causes openly. Tell us about your socialist dreams. Tell us about the organizations you represent. Be forthcoming about your funding and your hatred. Be honest about how much you really care about the Iraqi people, about how a cause will only be celebrated if it fits into your anti-America agenda. If you do that, and you still march and shout and hold yourselves up to be what you really are, I just may respect you in the morning.

For now, I'm just shaking my head at you. You cannot make a difference with lies and hatred.

Just ask Hitler.

Comments

i'm going to be honest, i couldn't go to a protest. 5 minutes of watching the ignorance and i'd be swinging. 5 seconds of watching a flag being burned and i'd be stomping mudholes in people's asses.

"You cannot make a difference with lies and hatred.

Just ask Hitler."

Hitler made an ENORMOUS difference with lies and hatred.

He just didn't make a positive difference.

It is a consistent, long-time weakness of the pro-freedom Right that we keep trying to interpret the venomous vituperation of the far Left as being something other than what it really is -- the spittle of screaming, hate-filled children who can't accept that the laws of the Universe won't permit them to get what they want just by wishing for it.

Really, guys and dolls, that's all it is. Thanks for saying so, Michele.

You know, you have completely different political views than my own. I vehemently dissagree with just about everything (but certianly not all) that you have to say - at least to the extent that I find it skewered wrong.

Why do I keep coming here to read up on what you have to say? Simply, it's foolish NOT to get opposite opinions than ones own. So while I may someones shake my head at what you have to say (as I'm sure you would do with my own statements) you do challenge people to think about what they believe. Hence why I'm leaving this message instead of more 'the Right sucks!' comments. So thanks.

Is this comment lame? Of course. But it's 8:46am and I would much rather be leaving lame comments on the internet then doing work. And I thought you might get a kick out of some "super liberal" from Canada complimenting you. Or whatever.

I think its an excellent comment. The reason for discussing these issues is to try and find some common ground, and learn from each other.

Blocking fire trucks? That's just plain stupid.

tsk.tsk.tsk.

I guess whether or not you support the war depends on whose stories you buy.

I don't buy any of them.

Right on, Michele. (the pun is always intended)

dear Victory,

I recommend the thoughtful (and critical) piece on the protests by Israeli writer Amos Oz in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19OZZZ.html

And for an unvarnished view of Iraq, General Anthony Zinni, the previous commander of US forces in the region.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm

For the record, I was once a student of Donald Kagan at Yale -- Kagan, his sons Frederick and Robert, are some of the philosophical authors of the go-it-alone swagger featured by this administration.

People like Marine Corps General Zinni, whose experience extends beyond the ivory tower and the lecture hall, makes me feel the Kagans (as an example of proponents of unilateral war) are dangerously naive -- and clueless about the region.

For a more penetrating understanding of the roots of terror, which also hints at the way to a lasting solution (which everyone wants, on the right and the left, do they not?) -- there is a book by Avishai Margalit; himself a professor of philosophy, but one much closer to the front than the Kagans, Wolfowitz, or Cheney. Check it out if you're curious.

Avishai Margalit, "The Ethics of Memory"
Harvard University Press
(this book reviewed in the Times, 2.9)

After being on the fence myself, some of the reading changed my mind. I went to the protest. It was huge, there was a diversity of people. Some cops were relaxed and smiling and some were tense. The tension fed back into the crowd, which was mysteriously penned up every few blocks on Third without explanation. Because First Avenue had filled so rapidly, the police cut off access on side streets and tried to redirect people on Third Avenue north. In a few spots the police got rough, doing crowd control with horses, but it was generally peaceful. It was so crowded and congested, I never did make it to First, where the crowd by then extended over a mile, from 49th to 72nd.

There are always the fringe perma-protest people (maybe a few thousand), but when you have more than 200,000 on the street, you can be sure you're seeing more than them.

here are some signs from the protest

9-11: 15 Saudis , 0 Iraqis

"How did our oil get underneath their sand?"

beneath a picture of Donald Rumsfeld: "When we sold you the Anthrax we never said you could use it."
[since Saddam was our man in the '80's, this is depressingly true, and pretty much nulls the 'human rights' angle from Bush's side. For instance, the gas we're angry at him for using on his own people -- sold to him by 2 American companies, during the Reagan Administration, and 14 German companies, and targeted for him by the Pentagon. Of course, we had bigger fish to fry -- Iran, at the time. But this sort of thing is why we can never figure out why no one loves us.
This is what it's like to have been gassed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/international/middleeast/13IRAN.html

another sign:

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.

but, mr tatsikio, you haven't said anything relating to the post.

Why weren't there any signs asking Saddam to disarm?

When did George Bush commit genocide?

Why do socialist--and stalinist-- causes hide behind the mantle of some kind of generic 'peace'?

The 'right' is asking reasonable questions--but the 'left' never seems to be able to answer them...

You might want to quote Hank Williams, Jr. or something rather than defiling the lyrics of a musician who would no doubt totally disagree with what you are saying here.

As for me, I've given nothing but the truth. Yes, I have socialist leanings. I oppose the war because I don't think killing people is right. And in this case, killing people will do much more harm than good, on both sides of the issue.

And Jimmy proves, yet again, that there is a total ignorance about the protests. No flags are being burned. Not once have I seen a freaking flag burned. It's the attitude that if you are pro-war you are somehow more patriotic than if you are against war that sickens me most of all.

I love living here. I don't place too much importance on boundaries and accidents of birth, but this country is pretty OK. It's the duty of the citizens of a nation to right the wrongs of a nation. That's what I aim to do. There is another line to "My country right or wrong" you know...and it's not "I'll just stick my head up my ass and go along with whatever the guy in charge says."

Thank you Richard...your patronizingly superior tone and assumption of ignorance reinforces my decision to register as an Independent.

Well Dru, if you don't hate America and you weren't out there smashing windows or blocking fire engines, then I wasn't talking about you.

As for sticking my head up my ass, I take offense to that. I don't just go along with whatever the guy in charge says. In fact, I disagree with plenty of his policies. I happen to be with him on this one, though.

Not everyone who is pro-action is just a brainwashed, ignorant sheep. Some of us actually read the papers, watch the news, do research and gasp form our own opinions.

You totally missed the point.

maybe not at YOUR protest dru.... but there were plenty of protest around the world where flag burning was plentiful. did you even read my comment you idiot? i said "A protest" not "the protests that commenter drublood (nice name) have seen" learn to read idiot. and to answer to your statement, who's more patriotic? oh gee, lemme think...someone like me who wants to see this country safe and is willing to fight to see to it.....or some jobless brainless college jackass kid who lives off mommy and daddy's money running around with crappy signs that call they country that provides them with freedom to do so "evil"..... man i wonder who loves their country more. that's a head-scratcher.

news flash moron, freedom of speech no equal freedom from criticism. you wanna spout your anti-war, anti-america, anti-corporation crap? fine. you're free to do so. just as i'm free to name you for the communist wastes of space that you are. don't exercise your rights then tell me I'M the evil one for exercising mine.

I find the lack of "facts" by the left to be surpass only by the places libs quote facts that aren't true. Many things seem to be said over and over by those on the left that they assume they are true when they aren't. For instance, the claim that situation with Iraq is all about oil. They assume this means that US wants Iraq oil. In fact, the opponents (France, Russia, and China) all have lucrative oil deals with Iraq which make them likely to oppose Saddam being taken out.

I think many on the left believe an Don Quixote said, "Facts are the enemy of the truth."

hey Feste -- I'm an independent.
Sorry about the tone, it's like epilepsy.
here's Robert Kagan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16QUESTIONS.html
compare to Amos Oz, and Zinni, and decide for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19OZZZ.html

Michele, thank you.

When you cut right to the chase, the only argument against going into Iraq is that it's none of our business, and Iraq doesn't and won't effect us ever. There is no other argument can has even a shred of rationality behind it.

Mind you, I'm not a member of the Buchanan Brigades so I don't buy into the argument. But I would like to see the anti-war folks actually advance a rational argument.

We supplied Iraq in the 1980"s so we shouldn't go to war today. Huh? It's about oil. Yeah, but we could buy it cheaper than this war. Bush is Hitler. Huh? Where are the dead Jews and the camps? I hate war so I'm going to show you my tits. Oh, yuck!

There is no moral argument against this war. There is no political argument against this war. There is no economic argument against this war. There is only the emotional argument. War is bad, but my dad's service and lots of bullys in my youth have convinced me that sometimes you have to do things you hate, for a greater good. The joy of being American is that we have demonstrated that we are willing to look for the greater good far more often than not, and shed our blood to that end.

You naughty lyrics defiler. Suppose, next week, Saddam blinks, comes clean on the weapons, and announces he's stepping down. While pretty inconceivable, I daresay, it would be even moreso had the UN been left to its own devices. Does this still make George Bush the root of all evil?

Dru

Your idea though war would lead to killing and that is what I am against is, senseless killing. And that is a fair argument. But it is an immoral argument. For to leave Saddam in power will A: allow him to kill more of his own and B. Since the UN is a total toothless debating society, there are no consequences for ignoring thier directives. This will further embolden murderous lunatics to attack the west becuase they are weak and don't mean what they say yada yada yada - the inaction for 11 years to Saddams defiance of the cease fire agreement and Clintons Feckless use of military power lead directly to Usama Bin Laden to ratchet up the attacks on us until we have 3,000 dead and a big hole in New York. So spare me the moral self rightousness that war is bad, sure but the alternative is worse, In my mind the Invasion should have started last month.

Michele,

Sorry about the "head up the ass" thing. I got a little carried away there, and it was wrong.

And, by the way, I don't buy your "not you...the other guy." stuff. You say offensive crap about "the left" or "those socialists" all of the time. I'm on "the left" and I'm a "damned socialist." I need only identify that way to know you are misinformed, because what you say about "the left" and "those socialists" doesn't apply to me and the other people that I associate with.

Just to clarify, I don't think money is evil, Michelle. I think the idea that it's ok for some people to have more money than they would ever ever know what to do with while other people have none at all - not even enough to meet their most basic needs (merely through accident of birth) is...not right. That is why I consider myself a socialist. If someone could prove to me that capitalism can work without this, I would gladly refrain from using the "s" word. I'm a socialist for that reason, and I'm an anarchist because I believe that when everyone has what they need, there is no need for outside forces to govern people, and that people are capable of governing themselves.

Far fetched? Maybe. But no moreso than walking around assuming we can continue as we are, killing massive amounts of people and consuming non-renewable resources with reckless abandon, and still counting on the fact that there will be any semblence of an ordered world around for our grandchildren to enjoy.

Even Hitler was smarter than that. bahahaha.

Prove to me that Hussein is capable of killing 5 million people, and you have a reasonable counter argument, Kevin. I'm not at all arguing that Hussein is not to be quelled somehow. This is not an EITHER OR proposition. It's not either war, or leave them the hell alone and hope nothing bad happens.

However, the United States doesn't have much credibility when it comes to exploitable countries. We're created an image in which the only way for us to "keep the peace" (if that is REALLY what you believe we're doing. I don't...but that doesn't actually matter) is to kill and destroy. I mean, that's what most people here seem to be saying.

I also don't believe in the death penalty, in spite of the fact that I think it's wrong for a murderer to kill in the first place. I certainly don't agree with bombing the home of a murderer to prove a point that it's inhumane to murder.

And we are not just talking about killing innocent civilians, we are talking about doing things that will destroy the environment and make it unlivable. The Tigres and Euphrates river valley is already fucked due to the deplete uranium we left there the last time we "took care of business." This is permanent damage. Permanent devastation.

In no way is this justifiable in my eyes. And the blithe way that others defend the obliteration of so many people AND the land they live on is totally out of my scope of understanding.

"Depleted Uranium" - uranium that has be leached of its radioactive content.

Sheesh.

Dru-
The problem w/ the Tigris and Euphrates comes from the fact that Saddam stopped the flow of water in response to Shia Marsh Arab's dissent. Somehow, I imagine, this is our fault, too.

Prove to me that Hussein is capable of killing 5 million people, and you have a reasonable counter argument, Kevin.
--His atrocities and the numbers he has killed are well documented. You have chosen to ignore the evidence, so presenting yet more is a waste of time.

I'm not at all arguing that Hussein is not to be quelled somehow. This is not an EITHER OR proposition. It's not either war, or leave them the hell alone and hope nothing bad happens.
-- Yes, I suppose we could try sanctions. If I agree to try your way for 12 years, will you concede that war might be necessary if your way fails in that time frame?

However, the United States doesn't have much credibility when it comes to exploitable countries.
--We have VAST credability in this area. Our ability to wage war places us in the unprecedented postion of being cabable of Imperialism on a scale never seen on earth. Yet we have annexed/exploited ZERO countries.

We're created an image in which the only way for us to "keep the peace" (if that is REALLY what you believe we're doing. I don't...but that doesn't actually matter) is to kill and destroy. I mean, that's what most people here seem to be saying.
--You're worried about our image? I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I also don't believe in the death penalty, in spite of the fact that I think it's wrong for a murderer to kill in the first place. I certainly don't agree with bombing the home of a murderer to prove a point that it's inhumane to murder.
--WTF?

And we are not just talking about killing innocent civilians, we are talking about doing things that will destroy the environment and make it unlivable. The Tigres and Euphrates river valley is already fucked due to the deplete uranium we left there the last time we "took care of business." This is permanent damage. Permanent devastation.
--"We" aren't talking about killing civilians. We are talking about militarily defeating an enemy regime. Civilians will die of course, but I suppose we should have not engaged Nazi germany or Japan due to this unavoidable side-effect of war?

In no way is this justifiable in my eyes. And the blithe way that others defend the obliteration of so many people AND the land they live on is totally out of my scope of understanding.
--Try harder. Start with the facts, and let them lead you to a conclusion rather than starting with the conclusion you wish to arrive at and filtering the facts to support it.

"Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he (Saddam Hussein) fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal."
Bill Clinton, February, 1998

Do you know that Bill Clinton launched more cruise missiles into Iraq in 1998 than the total number of cruise missiles that were used in the Gulf War? Bill Clinton, in 1998, launched more than 450 cruise missiles into Iraq. This is why we ran out of them in Bosnia.

Where were these protests a decade ago? Face it: To the protesters I'ts about right vs left, not right vs wrong.

Owen - does this mean you are volunteering your backyard for the depleted uranium stores that need to be relocated? Cool. Anyone else want to volunteer?

Joe - We can play battle of the biased news sources all day and you'd still lose because ultimately you would have to argue that war does not cause any permanent environmental destruction. Would you like to argue that?

zy-whatever - Um. Not today. Mama has a headache.

And whoever mentioned "arguing from emotion" - that shit don't fly, either. Who's the one who decides that emotion is a somehow invalid place from which to argue?

Dru-
Silly me, I actually chose the Australian paper because I figured it seemed less biased. I can provide info from National Grographic as well, or the Nova episode that I first learned about the crisis from. I'm not arguing that there isn't an environmental impact, I'm commenting on the fact that you provide a specious example to support your point, whatever that may be. I think a good solution would be for you to write all your grievances on a sign and march around the streets with it. That really seems to make a difference.

Jeepers... Play nicely kids. No one has all the answers, but everyone thinks they're right.

Why can't we all just get along?

I find the Oil For War argument funny now. GB came from oil. Cheney was a CEO of an oil company. That's 100% of the "facts" that are brought to the table. The "obvious" connection, if you please. I work in computers, I drive a car. Therefore, every time I'm in my car, I must be stealing computer parts!

Seems like, if you take over a country, then the oil is yours. I assume, after we kill all the civillians (since that's our goal), we stop the other countries from taking any of the oil. Then, as the supply is increased, that drops the prices and...wait, that doesn't make sense. But it's about the oil.

And as for a nice renewable resource, I've got a great fuel. Depleted Uranium! You can recycle it. Well, not legally thanks to something during the Carter administration. But you can safely pull about 98% of the uranium back out and reuse it.

P.S. Zymurgy - Making Beer

And Dru, I also want to say that at least you're posting here. It's kind of like walking into a lions den wearing a meat shirt.

Maybe not in the street, but a lot of Republicans are skeptical about any unilateral US invasion -- ie, a preemptive war without UN cooperation. It was actually a small group in Bush II's cabinet that sparked the idea for this war, which they began pushing well before 9.11. Wolfowitz, Cheney's aide Libby, and a few intellectual advisors were instrumental in the thinking behind a preemptive attack.

The skeptics, who actually have more real world experience, included much of Bush I's cabinet (Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Gen. Schwarzkopf). Powell also resisted at first, then obviously gave in -- though not without first attempting to keep the UN on board. For anyone still interested or on the fence, I suggest reading comments from the general who was previous US commander in the region, Anthony Zinni. He's a Marine, wounded twice in Vietnam, and has been involved in every US action in the area for the past decade. He does not express himself in empty sloganeering.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm

This is how he begins:
Let me start with the best case.
I wrote ten conditions for this war that would have to happen. The first condition is that the coalition is in. The second is that the war is short. The third is that destruction is light. Fourth is that Israel is out. Fifth is that the street is quiet. Sixth is that order is kept. Seventh is that the burden is shared. Eighth is that the change is orderly. Ninth is that the military is not stuck. Tenth is that other commitments are met. That's an easy list. (laughter) If we design our strategy and our tactics based on that, it will all work out.

***

He then looks at each point -- which shows the complexity of doing this in a way that has any sort of positive outcome. The best case is a miraculous, three day war with little damage, and we liberate the Iraqi people. The worst case is, we multiply Al Qaeda by a factor of ten, set the entire Islamic world at our throats and in the chaos of Iraq, lose track of Saddam's worst weapons.

If you think war is easy -- watch Black Hawk Down; consider our continuing lack of luck in capturing bin Laden; think about the Marine barracks in Lebanon that was blown up (along with 200 Marines) leading us to quit Lebanon, under Reagan. Think about the fact that we rescued Kuwait from Saddam in '91, only to have young Kuwaitis now expressing admiration for bin Laden. Creating deeper hatreds and more suicide bombers would not be ideal. I'd like Baghdad to have democracy, but would not risk New York City in trade.

Pssst, Richard-
http://www.blogspot.com. It's free!

Would that be THE General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM Commander, Tommy Franks' predecessor, special Presidential Envoy to Iseal, Anthony Zinni?

Never heard of him.

(Can men experience PMS? and I'm not talking about as a focal point.)

New York is not in any danger if we don't do this? We weren't pushing for this war when the Al Qaida struck it the first time.

By your statements, not going to war will ensure New York will never be attacked again.

Yeah, they may multiply. But they already exist and letting Saddam stay in power can only add to the animosity.

Oh, and as for how hard a war is or is not, I refuse to let Hollywood tell me. Pick a better reference like...um... those who've actually served.

Robb --
in response to:

"as for how hard a war is or is not, I refuse to let Hollywood tell me."

ok, read the book. it's non-fiction.

And here's a new book, by another Marine. A sniper, this time:

Anthony Swofford, "Jarhead; A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/books/19KAKU.html

Once in Iraq, they called themselves the Oil Corps, rather than the Marine Corps.

***

"Pick a better reference like...um... those who've actually served."

Hmmm, that removes Bush (champagne squadrons in Texas aside), Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Robert Kagan, who certainly doesn't believe you need to serve in order to give advice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16QUESTIONS.html

from the interview:

"Did you serve in the military?

I was 14 when the Vietnam War ended, and I didn't choose the military as my career path.

But isn't the military more than a career? What about patriotism?

I never considered going into the military. I never considered being a doctor either.

And you're not prescribing medicine. But you are prescribing war without any experience.

It's foolish to say that unless a guy actually served in the military, he's unable to make a decision about foreign policy.

Neither Bush nor Cheney saw military action. Has there ever been another time when the fate of the world was in the hands of so many guys with no military experience? And meanwhile, the guys with actual experience, like General Schwarzkopf, oppose the idea of a march to war with Iraq.

What he said was so ridiculous! --

***

that must be because Schwarzkopf is a sissie!
Just to let you know who the new fearless leaders are -- and they haven't served, either.

***
in response to:

"We weren't pushing for this war when the Al Qaida struck it the first time."

true.

"By your statements, not going to war will ensure New York will never be attacked again."

New York is basically fucked. (Can I say that on a blog?) It's the degree of how fucked it is, and the competence and skill of the people who need to un-fuck it, that I think is in the balance.

An open city can never be perfectly protected. But the number of people with the skill, determination, and motivation to pull off something like 9.11 is a finite number.
The cheapest, most profound, and efficient anti-terror method is to remove motivation.
It doesn't look good on Fox News, but it works.
The Marshall Plan, for example.
Amplifying a cycle of violence plays into bin Laden's hands.
It looks good on Fox News, but that's a tv channel. Diplomacy and persuasion don't play as well, because conflict makes better tv. But in real life, especially when you're already the rich country, conflict is counterproductive to your interests. (Ask Wall Street, for instance.)

in response to:

"Yeah, they may multiply. But they already exist and letting Saddam stay in power can only add to the animosity."

Last fall, George Tenet said the CIA found the only risk to the US from Saddam was if he was attacked, and used his weapons as a last resort. Who am I to argue with the CIA?

Robb --
in response to:

"as for how hard a war is or is not, I refuse to let Hollywood tell me."

ok, read the book. it's non-fiction.

And here's a new book, by another Marine. A sniper, this time:

Anthony Swofford, "Jarhead; A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/books/19KAKU.html

Once in Iraq, they called themselves the Oil Corps, rather than the Marine Corps.

***

"Pick a better reference like...um... those who've actually served."

Hmmm, that removes Bush (champagne squadrons in Texas aside), Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Robert Kagan, who certainly doesn't believe you need to serve in order to give advice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16QUESTIONS.html

from the interview:

"Did you serve in the military?

I was 14 when the Vietnam War ended, and I didn't choose the military as my career path.

But isn't the military more than a career? What about patriotism?

I never considered going into the military. I never considered being a doctor either.

And you're not prescribing medicine. But you are prescribing war without any experience.

It's foolish to say that unless a guy actually served in the military, he's unable to make a decision about foreign policy.

Neither Bush nor Cheney saw military action. Has there ever been another time when the fate of the world was in the hands of so many guys with no military experience? And meanwhile, the guys with actual experience, like General Schwarzkopf, oppose the idea of a march to war with Iraq.

What he said was so ridiculous! --

***

that must be because Schwarzkopf is a sissie!
Just to let you know who the new fearless leaders are -- and they haven't served, either.

***
in response to:

"We weren't pushing for this war when the Al Qaida struck it the first time."

true.

"By your statements, not going to war will ensure New York will never be attacked again."

New York is basically fucked. (Can I say that on a blog?) It's the degree of how fucked it is, and the competence and skill of the people who need to un-fuck it, that I think is in the balance.

An open city can never be perfectly protected. But the number of people with the skill, determination, and motivation to pull off something like 9.11 is a finite number.
The cheapest, most profound, and efficient anti-terror method is to remove motivation.
It doesn't look good on Fox News, but it works.
The Marshall Plan, for example.
Amplifying a cycle of violence plays into bin Laden's hands.
It looks good on Fox News, but that's a tv channel. Diplomacy and persuasion don't play as well, because conflict makes better tv. But in real life, especially when you're already the rich country, conflict is counterproductive to your interests. (Ask Wall Street, for instance.)

in response to:

"Yeah, they may multiply. But they already exist and letting Saddam stay in power can only add to the animosity."

Last fall, George Tenet said the CIA found the only risk to the US from Saddam was if he was attacked, and used his weapons as a last resort. Who am I to argue with the CIA?

Richard-
1 word:
Paxil
It changed My life!

Scratch your Schwartzkopf reference, Richard. He publicly changed his mind over a week ago. Try this one on: peace through strength. Or: negotiate with the enemy with your foot on his neck. Would there be inspectors in Iraq right now if Bush, "unilaterally", hadn't gotten a unanimous security council resolution?

... tic tic tic tic tic ...

Daddy, are we there yet?

You know, I've heard plenty of things about these protests lately, and it shocks me just how stupid some of these people are.

Knowing that some day, some of these younger people may end up running the country is almost enough to make me want to move to Alaska.

wow wonderful comments going on:D thanx! btw ...as for the signs asking saddam to disarm...maybe the right people arent out there in the crowd( NO pun intended)

p.s..Matt..alaska is still in the country....

Yeah, but it is as far away fromt hese people as one can possibly be in this country.

paxil and potassium iodide!
here's a game:
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

more informative --
Richard Perle and William Kristol explain the origins of the Bush Doctrine:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/interviews

another perspective:
Col. Hackworth discusses Richard Perle:
http://www.hackworth.com

Christopher Buckley remembers earlier protests, when he worked for Bush's dad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19BUCK.html