Protesting the War - Better Options?

[ElJeffe]

That poorly botched final sentence should’ve read “… but I think most of them just wanted peace of mind.” My bad.

Jeff

[ElvisL1ves]

Jeff: Well, then, you still have the same question in front of you that London has - what other approach to affecting the actions of the Bush and Blair Adminstrations was even available, much less effectual? You both sneer at the use of the only method remaining, but you don’t propose an alternative other than acquiescence, and that is certainly not in accordance with responsible citizenship in a democracy.

You also do not acknowledge that the protests weren’t only about the war; in fact, most of the basis for the objections to it were about what would happen over the months, years, even generations afterward. Expressions of concern over Bush’s plans and their execution certainly were and still are both valid and necessary.

Nice crack about “wanting peace of mind” - how about this? If you want to know why someone would still protest, how about asking him and finding out? You convince absolutely no adult with your simple, lazy dismissal.

[GoHeels]

Jeff: Well, then, you still have the same question in front of you that London has - what other approach to affecting the actions of the Bush and Blair Adminstrations was even available, much less effectual?

Since I support the war, I’m not sure if my criticism is welcome among anti-war people, but I’ll offer it anyway (with this caveat -
I’m mainly referring to American protesters. European, Latin American, Asian, Arab, etc. anti-war protesters may come to the same anti-war conclusion as American protesters, but probably from much different perspectives/worldviews).

(And, if this matters to you, I define myself as leaning left with most social issues, but leaning slightly right with most foreign policy/fiscal issues - I’m a Republican-lite.)

1. Take extreme pains to make sure the media and public know that the protesters hated Saddam just as much as they hated Bush.

I admit that I viewed the protests through an American media’s perspective, so what I saw might not necessarily reflect the truth. But it seemed the anti-war protests had plenty of posters comparing Bush to Hitler, but very few comparing Saddam to Hitler. In the speeches I heard, I heard plenty of folks denounce Bush in near hysterical tones, but only muted - if any - criticism of Saddam.

If the goal was to spread the anti-war movement to the moderate masses like me to foment the massive political wave necessary to give Bush pause, kindly don’t insult my intelligence by presenting such morally obtuse bullshit.

And I also don’t buy the standard anti-war response to this point - that since they couldn’t effect change with Saddam but could with Bush, blasting Saddam was a waste of time. By that standard, I guess those anti-apartheid protests I remember watching in front of the South African embassy in the 1980s in Washington were pointless, since Americans couldn’t possibly hope to influence Botha. I guess the protests about Tibet and the various human rights abuses in China going on in Hollywood for a while were pointless, as well, since there was no way to influence the authoritarians in Beijing.

Also, it’s a good bet Saddam Hussein paid plenty of attention to the anti-war protests and took them very seriously, since he based his entire flawed war plan on inflicting heavy casualties and using popular anti-war opinion (along with the UN) to persuade Bush to call a cease-fire, so he could live another day. I wonder how he would have reacted had the tone of the protests been anti-Saddam. Frankly, the anti-war movement was Saddam’s only hope.

If the anti-war message condemned Bush for his war-mongering, and EQUALLY condemned Saddam for his flouting of world opinion (not to mention torture and repression), I would have regarded it as morally compelling.

The anti-war movement could have positioned itself as being the voice of reason, the morally superior arbiter, the champion of the innocent Iraqis who would be caught in the stupid fight between the evil, warmongering Bush vs. the odious despot Saddam.

The Bush = Hitler, no blood for oil, America is imperialist claptrap turned the anti-war movement, in my eyes, into an anti-American movement, which severely deligitimized the anti-warriors in my eyes.

But I guess that’s what you get if you have Stalinists like ANSWER leading the anti-war movement.

Look, I know good and well that the vast majority of the anti-warriors hated Saddam as much as the hawks. But, IMHO, they did NOT do a good job in promoting their anti-Saddam message to the American silent majority. The anti-war movement responded to charges of being Saddam apologists with the standard “Yes, but…” argument, as in, “Yes, Saddam is awful, but…” which struck many Americans as eerily similar to offensive arguments presented after 9/11 (Does “Yes, 9/11 was a horrible thing, but America had it coming with its imperialistic, hegemonic ways” sound familiar?)

“Yes, but…” just doesn’t work in America after September 11, 2001

2. Present a reasonable alternative to war that would effect Saddam’s disarmament AND subsequent regime change.

I never heard a rational, coherent alternative to war other than the “Give inspections a chance” platitude. I would have really liked to hear the anti-war movement play up the “Muscular inspections” idea as a better way to disarm Saddam (not to mention the added benefit of helping to debunk the stereotype of anti-war folks as limp-wristed, hand-wringing, dictator-appeasing pussies).

And I never heard an rational, coherent, yet peaceful way to enact regime change. And if the anti-war movement really cared about the innocent Iraqi people, it would have called for regime change.

By not calling for regime change, the anti-war movement, IMHO, sacrificed the suffering Iraqi people at the altar of unclear international law, which I found morally abhorrent. And since when did the Left, which made up the bulk of the anti-war movement, abandon oppressed people?

To me, the liberals/Left (for lack of a better term) really marginalized themselves in this whole war debate. And as a moderate who does not see eye-to-eye with Bush on MANY issues (health care, abortion, taxes, etc.), this really worries me. America needs a viable, credible liberal bloc, because I know that neither me - Mr. Republican-lite -, nor Mr. Bush have a monopoly on truth.

Just my opinion.

[PhuQan_G_Nyus]

actually the comparisons to hitler started with the pro-war group. What brought it to the attention of the anti-war protestors was the simple fact that history is much more closely paralleled by Bush’s actions than by Saddam.
Hitler used the threat of terrorism to invade a much weaker country just as Bush has done. That is only 1 small instance of similarity though. Read the early history of the Third Reich and it almost looks like a game plan that washington is apparently following.
The german “Patriot act” was very similar and had the same reasons behind it also.
The Bush family is the worst thing to ever happen to this country. They have embarassed us so many times it is unbelievable to me that ANYONE would still believe anything they say. Not one single reason given for this war has been shown to be true. Outright lies seems to be their modus operandi. I can’t believe so many americans are willing to accept these lies and half-truths without any accountability.
We need a regime change probably worse than any country in the world.

[sivispacem]

Whoa, damn good post GoHeels.

[GoHeels]

Hitler used the threat of terrorism to invade a much weaker country just as Bush has done. That is only 1 small instance of similarity though. Read the early history of the Third Reich and it almost looks like a game plan that washington is apparently following.

Give me a break.

As soon as I see U.S. death camps popping up in Mosul, Kirkuk, Umm Qasr, and Najaf; as soon as I see cattle cars packed with Iraqis heading there; as soon as I hear about Wolfowitz convene a secret meeting in the West Virginia foothills to gather ideas for the “Final Solution to the Iraqi Problem” a la Reinhard Heydrich, l’ll buy the Bush = Hitler comparison.

As of today, the comparison fails to hold water, and serves only to deligitimize the anti-war (or anti-Bush) position.

And may I gently suggest that if you want to enact a “regime change” in America, presenting such ridiculous arguments won’t get you very far.

Again, just my imperialist, hegemonic, war-monger opinion.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear Goheels:

Whatever else the anti-war movers and participants want is clearly and precisely: not to go into Iraq with blazing horrific massive fire-power.

Whatever else the pro-war movers and participants want is to clearly and precisely go into Iraq with blazing horrific massive fire-power.

If I may, please give a brief exposition of why inspections do not work.

Susma Rio Sep

[PhuQan_G_Nyus]

By the time all that happens it will be too late. I am not talking about the Nazi attempt to destroy the Jews either I am talking about international relations and emirialistic manuevers. What the Nazis did to the Jews is only PART of the crimes there. As one of the Judges at nuremberg said, "the Germans need to understand that the crime is not in the prosecution of the war. The crime was STARTING IT.

[PhuQan_G_Nyus]

Here Goheels. Check out this little article and you will see where the comparisons originate. (note to moderators…see copyright allowances below…)

• When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History *

by Thom Hartman

The 70th anniversary wasn’t noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he’d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn’t know where or when), and he had already considered his response.

When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion - “a sign from God,” he called

it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader’s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn’t had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and

holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police’s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader’s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common

usage. He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland,” a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous propaganda movie “Triumph Of The Will.” As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the “true people,” he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation’s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it’s of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn’t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United

Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation’s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome “intellectuals” and “liberals.” He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, “Radio and press are at out disposal.” Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation’s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public’s recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so

successful that the names of some of the people “denounced” were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through

intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn’t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation’s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate

coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He

encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those

previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the

lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had

started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his

bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation’s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference

and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar’s Rome or Alexander’s Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the

United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader’s new first-strike doctrine would bring “peace for our time.” Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come,

but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the

terrorists or their sponsors didn’t think they’d succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only “one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief” (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”), and so his advocates in the media began a

nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled “anti-German” or

“not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation’s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the “intellectuals and liberals” who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the “small war” annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were

again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn’t enough to rouse

the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country

about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing

empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class’s way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany’s first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe’s successful firebombing of the German Parliament

(Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his

successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the

history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine’s “Man Of The Year.”

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named “lightning war” or blitzkrieg, which, while

generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable “shock and awe” among the nation’s leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book “Shock And Awe” published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government

the German democracy had become through Hitler’s close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: /*"fas-cism *(fbsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent

nationalism." /

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it’s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany’s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society’s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

**
/Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including “Unequal Protection” and “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.” This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached./ **

[GoHeels]

By the time all that happens it will be too late. I am not talking about the Nazi attempt to destroy the Jews either I am talking about international relations and emirialistic manuevers. What the Nazis did to the Jews is only PART of the crimes there. As one of the Judges at nuremberg said, "the Germans need to understand that the crime is not in the prosecution of the war. The crime was STARTING IT.

I guess I draw a distinction between the reason’s behind Hitler’s willingness to start a war (Lebensraum, Jew-free land for the master Aryan race) and Bush’s willingness to start (ridding Iraq of WMD, liberating Iraqi people). I think reasonable adults can see the difference and conclude that equating Bush to Hitler is rather ludicrous. That said, reasonable people can also despise Bush and his policies and wish desperately for him to be ousted in 2004 (I myself am undecided so far for 2004, obviously).

Despite what many in the world seem to think, I think this nation is made up of mostly reasonable people. I think Americans generally recognize true evil (such as Hitler) and will fight it. And, to be fair, reasonable people also draw a distinction between the global reach of Hitler, and the regional reach of Saddam (just in terms of military projection).

However, I suggest that this kind of rhetoric is steadily marginalizing the Left/liberals. I fear liberals will land so far on the wrong side of history - in much the same way conservatives landed so spectacularly far on the wrong side of history with regards to civil rights - that their voices, which America really needs right now, will be ignored.

Think how conservatives are viewed when they even bring up Affirmative Action these days - no matter how reasonable their message may be, a decent-sized portion of our country automatically thinks you have racist ulterior motives.

In the future, will liberals also be viewed with automatic suspicion on matters of foreign policy because of their extremist rhetoric and actions today?

[PhuQan_G_Nyus]

Hitler did not start the war to persecute the jews. That came much later. In fact his reasons for going to war were very similar to ours. The germans were not a retarded people either. They were mislead by false feelings of patriotism to support reckless imperialism that eventually killed their country. As you can see in the article the Germans also had SOME international support.
The Germans were just as capable of recognizing “true evil” as we are. It is not so simple a thing though. The “evil” people in the world don’t carry signs to identify themselves. Hitler was well loved by his people for most of his reign, until the truth behind it began to be revealed. I think we should maybe LEARN from history and not allow america to fall into the same rhetorical trap.
Read that article again carefully. Surely you see a “few” similarities?

[MLS]

*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep *
**Dear Goheels:

If I may, please give a brief exposition of why inspections do not work.

Susma Rio Sep **

I’m not Goheels, but I’ll put in my 2-cents’ worth anyway. Inspections theoretically COULD have worked if Hussein had believed that if he failed to comply FULLY as directed, he would face annihilation. However, the only consequences went something like this:

1. Hey, you’re not complying! Cooperate by next month or else!
2. A month passes…
3. Hey, you’re not complying! Cooperate by next week or else!
4. A week passes…
5. Goto 1.

When France said there was NO condition under which they would not veto a U.N. Security Council measure to take action they completely undermined any possible leverage the U.N. had, and doomed any possible inspection success.

I would have had more respect for the “peace” protesters if they had also been protesting the horrors that we all knew were going on in Iraq. Or if they had protested ANYTHING in addition to, or instead of, the U.S.

[GoHeels]

If I may, please give a brief exposition of why inspections do not work.

No one in the anti-war movement, nor any French, German, or Russian diplomat, ever answered the following question about inspections (as they were constituted at the time the war started) to my satisfaction, which led to my conclusion that inspections were not a viable option:

How do inspections work for the long-term?

First, we agree on a premise: UNSC Resolution 1441 expressed the unanimous world opinion that Saddam agree fully with UN inspectors and TOTALLY give up all his WMD.

Blix himself admitted that without a massive American invasion force stationed in Kuwait ready to invade, Iraq would not have cooperated even to the tiny extent that they did cooperate (cite = various Blix reports of tepid Iraqi cooperation to the UNSC that I’m too lazy to look up).

Therefore, for inspections to work, America and Britain would be forced to permanently post a massive invasion force on Muslim soil, but never actually be able to invade.

Meanwhile, America is not doing anything to address the fundamental problem in the Middle East - a lack of freedom, dignity, and sane economic model.

And so massive numbers of troops (of course, we get no help from the Russian, French, Chinese, etc. troops - and it’s mostly on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime) must be poised to invade to compel Saddam to cooperate. But he knows that as long as America submits to the will of world opinion, he can hide the nasty stuff pretty much anywhere in a country the size of California, because 100 or so well-meaning bureaucrats simply can’t cover the whole country and find the weapons without full Iraqi cooperation.

The problem with inspections is that Saddam knows that HE controls the process. He knows he can count on his anti-war bloc on the UN to keep the only thing he doesn’t influence in Iraq - the American military - from ending his reign. He can count implicitly on that bloc’s cooperation - after all, he knows the French, Germans, and Russians want to be paid all the money owed to them for oil and weapon parts they provided. With a Saddam-less govt., that money goes bye-bye.

Then, let us make the obvious assumption that Saddam really only cares about keeping himself alive and in power at all costs. Such is the nature of tyrants.

He knows that if he can last until the summer, he’ll be safe. Maybe he gives up a few lousy al-Samoud missiles to prop up the anti-war pretext of “See, inspections ARE working.” But he gets to hold on to the really dangerous stuff, which is the crux of the matter and the primary American concern.

Meanwhile, the American troops can’t help but notice that it’s now June and it’s pretty fucking hot out in the middle of the goddamn desert. Invading in the summer, and having to wear bulky chemical protection gear, is not a viable option. Saddam, having lived in the fucking desert his whole life, is not unaware of this tidbit. He knows now he controls everything - since Mother Nature and the anti-war UN bloc has now prevented the U.S. military from posing an immediate threat to his survival and power.

Guess what, now, at least for the next six months, Saddam’s sitting pretty. Anti-war sentiment gains more and more momentum, and American jitters in an already sluggish economy grow larger. This also gives Saddam an opportunity, if he so wishes, to secretly make more nasty stuff without having to worry about those mean old U.S. marines. That way, he can REALLY PROP UP the anti-warriors by “coming clean,” giving up some anthrax while keeping his smallpox, or some such horror.

At the same time, if America agrees to continued inspections, it is putting its trust and safety of its citizens in the hands of a feckless UN bent on curtailing its power, and a dictator whose past actions have bordered on irrational (i.e. fighting an insane war with Iraq, invading Kuwait and not withdrawing when it became obvious the whole world, led by the world’s sole superpower would utterly destroy his whole army and leave him vulnerable) and obvious cruelty (Halabja, 1988, courtesy of Chemical Ali).

Also, let’s not forget that as long as Saddam is in power, the sanctions continue. To lift the sanctions while Saddam is in power is like giving crack to a junkie - Saddam has already proven he will steal the money to either build more palaces or more WMD. Meanwhile, the innocent Iraqi people continue to suffer anonymously, providing the growing number of terrorists with that much more of an incentive to hurt us. Except this time, Saddam and his WMD are available for use.

Does Saddam provide the weapons to the terrorists? Perhaps, perhaps not. The real value is the deterrent. He knows we’re not willing to suffer huge casualties in our cities.

In essence, if we stick to inspections for the long-term, I think we allow Saddam to develop the means to deter us, which is unacceptable. At that point, he’s pretty much unassailable - you can bet the terrified Iraqi people aren’t going to rise up against him.

How is this supposed to work in the long-term? Does that mean that America is to permanently station its mostly non-Muslim troops on Muslim soil? I seem to remember the presence of a large number of American troops on holy Muslim soil provided a juicy reason for a certain rich eccentric Saudi son of a construction magnate to fly airliners into large buildings in our biggest city.

Also, think about this: In five years, I imagine the Kuwaitis are going to get pretty sick of a half-million American troops on its land, pretty much sitting there. Presto! - the Arab world has something new to be indignant about. I think we all know what that eventually leads to.

Then, let’s say that Saddam dies in, oh, say 10 years. The problem only gets worse, since Qusay or Uday (both of whom are sadistic fucks like their daddy) are in power.

The situation goes on in perpetuity.

I’m not saying all this would happen. Maybe it would, maybe not. But I think there’s a much bigger danger on insisting on inspections without addressing the inherently unstable status quo.

That’s why I don’t think inspections work.

Again, just my opinion.

[sivispacem]

Very interesting article PhuQan G Nyus, however Germany was a totalitarian state and the US is one of the most free in the world, makes a huge difference. What would Hitler have done about the anti-war protests? The fact that there were such robust protests is a manifestation of the differences between the two nations.

Everything can be used for evil, the same things that would make an incredible SEAL would make an incredible serial murder - the not too sublte difference is one is a deranged psychopath and the other isn’t. The similarities are striking, but the huge ideological rift makes the whole thing moot - for now. We certainly are walking a very thin line.

[GoHeels]

Read that article again carefully. Surely you see a “few” similarities?

Thanks for the article, PhuQan.

I maintain the comparison between Bush/Hitler or U.S 2003/Germany 1939 is invalid.

As sivispacem stated, we live in a free country, no matter what Martin Sheen says. The difference is you, PhuQan, basically just expressed an opinion that our President is scum. You were able to broadcast this opinion to the world via the Internet. I’m pretty sure the feds won’t come to your place in the middle of the night and arrest you for being an enemy of the state.

As soon as I start to hear stories about jack-booted brownshirts “evacuating” “subversives” like you, I’ll believe the Bush = Hitler or U.S. 2003 = Germany 1939 comparison.

Until then, articles like these, and assertions by the Left claiming “Bush = Hitler” is overwrought hyperbole that only serves to undermine the credibility of the Left/liberals. And I worry about that.

Just my opinion.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear MLS:

Inspections were working or not working towards what ends?

To find weapons of mass destruction and destroy them.

Also, I must submit, and you will agree with me, to establish the factual non-finding of weapons of mass destruction, notwithstanding reasonably meticulous careful search.

To investigate the commission of a crime is to also and very importantly to come to the finding that no crime was committed.

Would you admit that inspections were getting ahead and weapons like missiles were being destroyed?

Likewise, Saddam and his people were surrendering more and more documentations, and even making scientists available for unsurveyed interrogation by UN inspectors.

But most important of all, in the meantime, Iraq was getting more and more emasculated, to cause any kind of harm to the U.S. or U.K. or the rest of the free world.
I read somewhere an observer saying that Bush must be a military genius; because he got Saddam to disarm himself more and more by endlessly accusing him of hiding weapons of mass destruction, and demanding that he unearth them and have them destroyed.

As Saddam brought out more and more of his weapons that are not really of the quantity and quality to the standards of weapons of mass destruction, Bush kept on accusing him of still hiding the real weapons of mass destruction.

Until finally when Saddam has already enfeebled himself to effective impotency, then Bush ordered the onslaught of horrific and massive firepower into Iraq, and routed the defanged military assets of Saddam in no time at all.
When Bush ordered the attack on Iraq, it was also the point when no attack was necessary anymore; for Saddam was practically harmless to even Kuwait without the defense of the U.S.
MLS, you present the loop reproduced below, but it is an endless loop designed by Bush and his war party; that is why I agree with the unnamed observer that Bush and his people are military genius in the use of trickish craft.

(If Bush were engaged in an one-on one-duel, he would not be considered a gentleman, for this trick – and other in-equities.)
Let us examine the loop you presented:

---

1. Hey, you’re not complying! Cooperate by next month or else!
2. A month passes…
3. Hey, you’re not complying! Cooperate by next week or else!
4. A week passes…
5. Goto 1.

No. 3 should not be a repetition of No. 1, but an examination of three possible developments: complete compliance, partial compliance, complete non-compliance.

I submit, and if you read the news about the advances being made by UN inspectors, you will agree with me that partial and more and more compliance was being achieved as inspections continued.
Allow me another analogy:

You accuse your next door neighbor of storing anthrax, you get the government agents concerned to search the house, they don’t find any; but you insist that it must be hidden very skillfully, and that you will do the search yourself, for that purpose you have to tear the house down, burn up its structure, kill your neighbor and his family; and when just the same you could not find any anthrax, then you still insist that your neighbor in the first place could not convince you with unassailable evidence that he had not hidden anthrax in his house.
In sum, I still cannot find any genuinely rational basis for the war launched on Iraq by Bush and his people.

There simply is no call for this kind of catastrophic last recourse by war on Iraq.
Susma Rio Sep

[GoHeels]

PhuQan, I read the article again.

I think the article was akin to those strange comparisons between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations (you know, like Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln; and Lincoln was killed in a theater, while L. Harvey Oswald was arrested in a theater - I forget the rest of the coincidences).

As in, the comparisons Hartman makes are interesting, like the Kennedy-Lincoln similarities are interesting, but seem to be much ado about nothing. Or more appropriately, sound and fury signifying nothing.

Just my opinion.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

If this observation is of any interest to anyone, here it is.

I find the seemingly anti-war posters here more sedate and unemotional in their advocacy than the seemingly pro-war posters.

If anything, I would like to commend GoHeels for his equanimity.

Correct me if my impression is grossly mistaken, though.

But I find pro-war advocates to be regularly inclined to emotional outbursts than anti-war advocates.

My impression, I could be wrong.

However, I have read quite a number of threads and messages pro-war and anti-war to be entitled to formulate a personal observation.

At this point, I think I am exposing myself to possible emotional outbursts from pro-war people here; but here it goes again.

When an anti-war advocate argues his position in a sedate rational manner, and a pro-war reacts in an emotional manner, not rarely resorting to expletives and name-calling:

It seems like discussing with Bush and his people about the justice of their policy and consequent campaign, and instead of them answering ideas with ideas, principles with principles, values with values, they just put forth and set up their big guns and fire away.
Once I bought a recycled car battery from a dealer who used to be a cop; it had a guarantee of one and a half years of service.

The battery conked out in some two months.

So I bought it back to the ex-cop dealer, with my grievance.

He bought out his magnum pistol, placing it on the counter, and started to explain to me why the battery lasted only two months: it’s all my fault, I don’t know correct use and maintenance of car batteries.

Well, I charge that encounter to experience; didn’t ever do any more business with him.

Susma Rio Sep

[lander2k2]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**lander2k2 - The point is clear to me; If you insist on running a campaign (the amorphous ‘anti-war’ in this case) specifically designed to appeal to the maximum number of potential protestors, it blunts your ability to make political progress. Lesson learned, one hopes.

Look at how any political party operates; ‘on-message’, the ‘party line’, etc; You set a clear, very simple to grasp agenda with achievable goals and you establish a pathway to those goals - you don’t create a beast with ten heads and have it all talking at once about different things.

When the sergeant major shouted ‘Quick march’, this lot marched off in ten different (political) directions all at once. Politically it was no opponent at all.

Can anyone tell me how much trouble to Bush and Blair the biggest popular protest in modern times – any damn times caused ? Did it affect their agenda, even timescale, one jot ? I’ll hazard the answer is ‘Nope’.

You surely can’t defend that as being a good campaign ? I mean, the ‘anti-war’ movement lost huge leads in the opinion polls to George Bush for goodness sake; the not-so-great-communicator / speaker of the English language with Exxon up his arse, operating outside the UN, with the shabbiest of collations and the most obvious of false pre-texts. You want to defend that campaign ?

Why not analyse the huge mistakes and strive to not lose such a damn significant lead next time. **

Alright L_C, I understand your point now. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to believe that the “anti-war” crowd failed politically—failed to get their message out and achieve their goal of stopping/ending the war.

I cannot disagree with the fact that the war protests failed politically. My point is that to turn the issue of invading a country into a political issue is tantamount to trivializing the instance of a child having his body ripped open by shrapnel. If you make the primary issue become who executed the most effective propaganda campaign and turned the most opinion in their favor, then you only serve to hide people’s eyes to the reality of what occurs during war. Concentrating attention on the failures in political maneuvering seems like the adult equivalent of the child sticking his fingers in his ears and singing so as to ignore reality.

Were the demonstrations ever going to alter the Bush/Blair course of action? Of course not. And that is the sickest part of it. The corrupt motives driving these politicians circumvents any supposed democratic principles; which is to say the politicians’ masters and their $$$ sit higher on the priority scale then does human life. Were the protesters wrong to make their voices heard? Absolutely not. In a political world that rarely adheres to sane principles, people publicly upholding their integrity does a great deal for the society at large in a sublime and deep way that transcends pathetic political maneuvering.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: An issue like military invasion of another nation is NOT a left-wing/right-wing political debate; it is a humanitarian issue. Further supporting that notion is the fact that no amount of political lobbying could have altered the course that the Whitehouse power brokers were set upon since before 9/11. The only solution to such madness is the dissemination of relevant truth and the subsequent birth of sane solutions.

[lander2k2]

*Originally posted by Azael *
**Here’s an idea… actually vote in the elections next time. **

Excellent idea! Vote so that you can bring a new liar into office. If you try real hard you’ll be able to ignore the fact that the next incumbent is equally subservient to those power brokers that funded his election campaign and no less inclined to use criminal means to forward his bosses’ ends. And then you’ll be able to sleep better at night knowing that you live in a free democratic country.

While snide sarcasm may be a little harsh in conveying the point, IMHO the notion that America would be any better off under Gore as opposed to Bush is naïve, bordering on childish.