Not Dominion, But Liberty

As the 229th anniversary of the founding of the American experiment approached, President Bush provided a painful reminder of how far the United States has drifted from the ideals of her youth.

Speaking to soldiers who would soon be dispatched to occupy Iraq, Bush sounded an awfully lot like the King George against whom George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other revolutionaries of 1776 led their revolt.

America was founded in opposition to empire. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto against colonialism. And the wisest of the founding generations abhorred imperialism.

Their opposition to empire was not merely rooted in their own bitter experience. It was, as well, rooted in a faith that American freedoms and democracy would suffer if the nation embarked upon a career of empire.

So, while Bush suggests that other lands must be occupied to preserve liberty at home, the patriots of our time recall will do well to recall words spoken on another July 4.

When America was younger and truer to her ideals, on Independence Day, 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams appeared before the US House of Representatives and declared:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols's new book, Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books) was published January 30. Howard Zinn says, "At exactly the when we need it most, John Nichols gives us a special gift--a collection of writings, speeches, poems and songs from thoughout American history--that reminds us that our revulsion to war and empire has a long and noble tradition in this country." Frances Moore Lappe calls Against the Beast, "Brilliant! A perfect book for an empire in denial." Against the Beast can be found at independent bookstores nationwide and can be obtained online by tapping the above reference or at www.amazon.com

Comments (30)

1. The U.S. Government does not want dominion over Iraq, only the death of the terrorists.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 7:27pm

2. Regarding our current Prince George's most recent rendition of his standard, stupefying stump speech, an earlier Englishman once wrote a review and passed it down to us for ready reference. I quote:

   Could great men thunder

   As Jove himself does, Jove would ne'er be quiet,

   For every pelting, petty officer

   Would use his heaven for thunder;

   Nothing but thunder! . . .

   . . . but man, proud man,

   Dressed in a little brief authority,

   Most ignorant of what he's most assured,

   His glassy essence, like an angry ape,

   Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven

   As make the angels weep; who with our spleens,

   Would all themselves laugh mortal.

   I've always loved those lines from William Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure;" and whenever I see an American President mount the podium for yet another self-congratulatory back-patting, I think of "pelting, petty officers" and "angry apes."

   America could really use some help right now. It no longer remembers its own history; nor does it really know why it should go on existing, since it no longer has a purpose worth pursuing.

   Posted by mrmurry at 07/02/2005 @ 7:43pm

3. Mr. Nichols' reprise of John Quincy Adams' famous speech does remind us that once upon a time America actually did produce literate, articulate statesmen. Sadly, such a thing no longer happens in America, what with television-gawking having largely replaced reading and writing among the general populace.

   At any rate, Adam's protestation, largely ignored, against "going abroad in search of monsters to destroy," seems truly quaint in light of current American practices. Nowadays -- as in the past half-century or longer -- Americans go abroad so as to create the monsters first, just so Americans can then misidentify them and go off wildly attacking other monsters so abstract and nebulous as to defy definition. James Carroll calls these mythical monsters "Mystical Dread." Franklin Delano Roosevelt called them, collectively, "Fear Itself." "Monolithic World Communism" served adequately for many decades until Vietnam spoiled the bogeyman's usefulness. "Global Terrorism" serves the same useful purpose today, although the inevitable tarnishing of the dreaded apparition has started far sooner than anyone in the American regime expected. This dog has stopped hunting before it even grew out of puppyhood.

   The debunking of the demon now proceeds apace thanks to the ironic ignorance and ineptitude of Amerca's current political-military "leadership." As I understood President Bush's recent speech, he still doesn't recognize his own regrettable role in excitedly ripping open Pandora's Box like a little boy who just couldn't wait to unwrap his brand-new Christmas present from Osama Bin Laden. At first I just found reports of his speech (I refused to waste my time watching it) boring and tediously tendentious. Still, upon further reflection, I now think I see what he really wanted to communicate; even though, as usual, he couldn't consciously bring himself to grapple with his own confused "thinking." As I now unravel his ravings so as to understand him: Deputy Dubya really did have a "strategy" when he invaded Iraq over two years ago. Yes, and you unbelievers thought he just blundered into a bloody quagmire with his empty head stuffed solidly up his butt. No way. The man had a plan!

   Just like the French at Dien Bien Phu or George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn, Deputy Dubya decided to crawl down into an indefensible hole in the ground and "bait" his enemy into coming after him. Then, when he found himself surrounded, he would just wipe them out! What a genius plan!

   In his repetitive and totally inane speech, Deputy Dubya reminded us of why foreigners consider Americans among the dumbest people ever to walk the earth. Even aside from trying to pull that discredited "9/11 = Saddam Hussein" canard for the umpteenth time, the really stupid bit came when he let us in on his clever scheme to invade a country that didn't have terrorists just so he could create a country that did. Now that the "terrorists" who didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam Hussein now do exist in that country (with Saddam Hussein in jail for the past year), the killing of Americans and Iraqis can just go on and on and on because .... well ... because ... well ... BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY STARTED! You see, in American logic, starting something justifies doing what you've started doing once you've started doing it. See? Hmmmmmmm? How can anyone expect Americans to stop doing anything stupidly suicidal once they begin doing it? Hmmm? Doesn't that make perfect American sense? Hmmmm?

   See: as "big-thinking" American domino theorists like Henry Kissinger keep telling us decade after decade, our friends won't respect us and our enemies won't fear us if we stop acting stupidly! Don't you see the logic of it? See: "big thinking" American domino theorists simply assume that our friends respect stupidity and our enemies fear it. Why do you find this so hard to understand? And stop laughing!

   Early in the Vietnam War, genius American generals used to laugh at the French generals for putting their troops into that hopeless trap at Dien Bien Phu where the Vietnamese wiped them out. Then the genius American General William Westmoreland put his troops into a trap at Khe Sanh where a whole bunch of his troops got royally hammered. Actually, this "use ourselves as bait" strategy has an even earlier history among genius American generals: like when General George Armstrong Custer cleverly "baited" thousands of Sioux Indians to come wipe him out at the Little Big Horn River. What, one must ask, induces genius Generals to do such monumentally stupid things? Does it come with the rank?

   George W. Bush cleverly avoided service in the Vietnam War where he might have learned from all the stupid things our former Presidents and generals did there. But noooooooooooooo. He had to hide out (at least part of the time) in champagne National Guard unit that never engaged a single enemy airplane in mortal combat anywhere in the skies over Texas. Now, when he finally gets to live out his wildest fantasies as Commander In Briefs, he figures he'll just send the American military into Iraq where they can create "terrorists" and then "bait" them into killing Americans day after day after day. He calls this "strategy" the "war on terror." See: first you create terrorists and then you dare them to kill you. See? Republicans understand this "reasoning" intuitively, even if they wouldn't think of risking their own children's lives putting it into practice.

   Anyway, you unbelievers out there had better learn a whole new level of respect for George Armstrong Custer Bush. You may think he lacks intelligence and experience, but that only goes to show how little you understand the power of Republican faith in fantasy! Just keep dreaming along with Deputy Dubya and a miracle will happen any day now. If it doesn't, who cares? Dead GIs tell no tales.

   Posted by mrmurry at 07/02/2005 @ 9:25pm

4. Todd, OKSPORTSGUY,

   If your pronouncement wasn't so pathetic, it would make me laugh. The U.S. government does not want dominion over Iraq? Guess again. It has asserted dominion over Iraq and the other lands which comprise our Empire. Ambassador Bremer's interim rules as leader of the CPA, which, by the way Iraq can not undo, such as making their public oil company now the domain of private hands, our indefinite presence of military soldiers and equipment in Iraq with all our "wise rulers" not calling for a timetable for withdrawal, and the idea that a nation must be occupied by military force in order to fight terrorists is not only laughable, but digusting.

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2005 @ 12:21am

5. All,

   For those of you who buy the Bush lies and drivel that the mission in Iraq is to bring them liberal democracy (although nothing of the kind exists anywhere on the planet) and that the Iraq war is waged to fight the terrorists there rather than in the United States should ask yourselves the question:

   In the mind of the average Iraqi, how in the world is the U.S. trying to bring us democracy when they have invited mass murderers, terrorists, and all manner of brigands that one can imagine to our country with the express purpose of blowing up infrastructure such as oil pipelines, water and sewage plants, buildings, our homes, killing our wives, daughters, sons, parents, and policemen, assassinating our government leaders, either elected or selected (by Bush fiat) and creating so much chaos in the process that we can not move about freely and get on with our lives?

   If any rightwing radical who believes VP Cheney and Bush 100 percent of the time can, I would like for you to square those two objectives. Because in the mind of the average Iraqi and sensible people all around the world, there is no possible way for the Iraq mission to succeed (in terms of the first objective) for as long as the second objective remains keeping a war going for the express purpose of "fighting the terrorists there rather than on American soil".

   (Again for those of you who didn't take and/or pass civics in high school there is no such thing as a functioning democracy anywhere on Earth) And if you think you know of one, please, by all means, share the secret with the rest of us...................

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2005 @ 12:34am

6. Regarding the comment "America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity."

   I find no conflict here between this statement and the goals and intent of our foreign policies.

   You'll note: "proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government" - that can easily be seen as delegitimization of the Hussein regime in Iraq, and our present policy of building self-rule in Iraq is hardly imposition of tyranny.

   The major thing to focus on is that tyranny abroad is seen as a threat now at OUR home. September 11, 2001. Chickens DO come home to roost when we have it in our power to extend freedom and prefer to sit in a lanquid stupor and not aid the suffering of others abroad under the heal of despotism - or worse, opt for support of tyranny for the sake of 'stability' which Sec. Rice recently apologized for.

   Posted by mike6181 at 07/03/2005 @ 12:33pm

7. Perhaps a little historical perspective on Adams' speech - The speech was made in 1821. In 1812 some in the US saw Britain engaged with France overseas and thought this would be the perfect time to take Canada. Canada being composed of all those Americans who had moved north because they didn't agree with the revolution. This was a bad move. The US still owed money from the revolution so couldn't afford this war. The US' dissenting cousins in Canada fought back along with whatever British they could find, plus the indians who had moved into Canada from New York state. The result was (besides each side burning down the important buildings in each other's capitals) the border stayed the same more or less, and the US treasury now owed MORE money! So Adams is speaking wisdom gleaned from a recent US messy war. Those who do not learn from history...

   Posted by EllenD at 07/03/2005 @ 5:47pm

8. The type of action Adam's contemplated and wisely counseled against has little in common with our current situation as EllenD aptly pointed out. The empire we currently aspire to is one where no state feels safe to support terrorism or aggressive nationalism without fear of retribution.

   It takes the same leap from logic that equates Gitmo with Gulag to compare wars of liberation to wars of conquest, domination and exploitation. The obscene anounts of money we have spent liberating Iraq will never be replaced by oil WE WILL BUY FROM THEM! Not take as tribute but buyt from them and give them US dollars to spend on whatever they want.

   Not quite the empires I remember from my younger days, Now that Ottoman guy he could empire.

   Don't forget to wan the folks to stay away from my blog Zero there is material denagerous for progressives up there, but also some stuff about our soldiers smuggling opium in Afghanistan, which you should groove on.

   Cordially,

   Uncle J

   Military Matters [madison.com]

   Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 07/03/2005 @ 7:59pm

9. Not Dominion, Not Liberty / Cheese on Baloney

   America was founded in opposition to empire. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto against colonialism. And the founding generations abhorred imperialism.

   Nothing of the kind.

   The nation's elite were largely slave owners. They were in every way, ideologically, commercially, morally, instinctively inclined to empire.

   Before the Declaration of Independence was even signed, only three months after he took command, George Washington, with the approval of Congress, launched an invasion into Canada. It failed, so there was a second try in 1812.

   From early on an empire of dimensions the Europeans had never dreamed of preoccupied Americans. People like Thomas Jefferson itched from the first for the adjoining lands. He jumped at the chance to acquire Louisiana. And as he sent out Louis and Clark to learn what had been acquired Jefferson already knew that he wanted more. Immense territories, occupied by strangers whose numbers and nature the Americans had little idea of, stretched to the Pacific. They were sure that those were theirs for the taking.

   Following the War of 1812 the westward trot turned into a canter. Monroe warned foreigners not to muscle in on America's hunting grounds. The idea of Manifest Destiny became explicit in the 1840s. America was to be transcontinental. The only meaningful word for this was, empire. In 1848/49 the "anti-imperialists" broke into a gallop and tore New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California out of Mexico.

   Somehow John Nichols sees this story as one of idealistic opposition to imperial urges. He is an ideologue and mythomaniac. He brushes aside common sense and the most fundamental evidence like a monkey slapping at flies.

   BTW, at the turn of the 20th century the US began to reach across the Pacific and to grab islands like the Philippines. For that occasion Kipling recited the White Man's Burden to a joint session of Congress.

   It was then however, that a genuine anti-imperialist movement caught fire, one which ultimately carried the day. It established a time table for Filipino independence, one which was kept. And from it evolved the idea, that it is in the enlightened self interest of the US to help others to independence. That remains operative in Iraq today.

   Posted by nacl at 07/04/2005 @ 05:38am

10. Call this one, "From Russia and China with Love"

    From a column by James Carroll in the Boston Globe on February 25, 2003:

    "What we are not seeing is the larger background where far more deadly dangers lurk. We have no eye on the very real possibility that this swaggering war, coupled with the entire "us-or-them" sprit of American foreign policy, will decisively force Russia and China back into the armed hostility of a bygone era."

    From a report by Vladimir Isachenkov in Salon Magazine (online edtion) on July 1, 2005:

    "Russia and China warned other nations Friday against attempts to dominate global affairs and interfere in the domestic issues of foreign nations in what appeared to be a veiled expression of their irritation with U.S. policy."

    I wouldn't know about the "veiled" part, because like James Carroll, I've expected this rapproachment between Russia and China for some time now: given the reckless and bellicose blundering of Deputy Dubya and his bungling band of imperial incompetents. Remembering back to when these two countries gleefully supplied the Vietnamese with all the advanced weaponry they needed to kill Americans in Vietnam (especally those deadly Surface to Air Missiles -- SAMs -- for use against American aircraft), I can only cringe thinking of what our already-distressed troops in Iraq will soon have to face once Russia and China give the "insurgents" all the latest and geatest gadgets for "testing" in Iraq's lethal laboratory.

    Way to go, Deputy Dimwit! You just yelled "Bring 'em on!" even louder and more stupidly than the last time. Too bad for all the about-to-die GIs that the Russians and Chinese heard you loud and clear and have started preparing a really nasty answer for you -- if they haven't already started delivering it.

    Posted by mrmurry at 07/04/2005 @ 05:47am

11. Whether the United States was founded upon favorability or infavorability towards empire is not important. What matters is how we feel about it NOW. I am inclined to ask how we are going to pay for this empire? With a ballooning deficit, declining currency and declining enlistments, how are we going to finance and staff our empire? Moreover, how is empire the same as combatting terrorism? Did the British Empire succeed in curbing Irish terrorism (for what else would you call the IRA's bombing campaign)? Were they successful in preventing Jewish freedom fighters like Menachem Begin from blowing up British buildings and orchestrating the assassination of high officials to drive the Brits out of Palestine (again, agree or disagree with this, it was still terrorism)? Were they able to prevent a very bloody conflict in their Indian colony in the years leading up to Indian independence? This was not an empire pursuing liberty around the globe. . . except for maybe the liberty of economic liberalism.

    Empire and Democracy are NOT synonyms. How these two antipodal ideas have been conflated in the minds of so many is mysterious. . . dare I suggest materialism?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 11:54am

12. We need to define what terrorism is. This we have not done and our campaign against it is much the weaker for it.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 11:56am

13. As you so rightly pointed out, the definition of terrorism changes depending on who wins. The IRA ued terrorist tactics. The Jewish Freedom Fighters in Palistine used terrorist tactics. And, dare I say, our own revolutionaries in Boston to found this country. The winners get to write history.

    Posted by EllenD at 07/04/2005 @ 5:25pm

14. ELLEND

    As you so rightly pointed out, the definition of terrorism changes depending on who wins. The IRA ued terrorist tactics. The Jewish Freedom Fighters in Palistine used terrorist tactics. And, dare I say, our own revolutionaries in Boston to found this country. The winners get to write history.

    All that is very PC, very generous, and patently untrue.

    Today's terrorists have the goal of slaughtering civilians. They deliberately target crowded office buildings. They crash exploding cars into crowds of passersby, blow up city buses crammed with rush hour crowds, fire bazookas at full school buses, murder Olympic athletes, attack and kill toddlers in kindergartens.

    That is not comparable to the Sons of Liberty dumping tea into Boston Harbor, or shooting at Red Coats from behind trees. In GB Shaw's play, The Devil's Disciple the British want to hang as a terrorist an American in possession of a seditious pamphlet. The word, terrorist was applied to guerrillas fighting out of uniform. In WWI, Belgian civilians snipping at German troops from the roof tops of Antwerp were called terrorists. The British called terrorists the Jews who blew up British military HQ in a wing of the King David Hotel.

    To say that is of a piece with today's Arab terrorism, twists the truth. It whitewashes a new and completely different species of deed. Such a distortion amnounts to a form of support and collaboration.

    Posted by nacl at 07/04/2005 @ 6:36pm

15. NACL,

    You did have a good thing going in your post except this last excerpt, most specifically the last sentence. No honest man, woman, or child would support the kind of barbarism that is radical Islam, or terrorism for short. For you to think that is a disgrace and a stain on everything our great nation stands for.

    "UNITED WE STAND, DIVDIED WE FALL"

    "To say that is of a piece with today's Arab terrorism, twists the truth. It whitewashes a new and completely different species of deed. Such a distortion amnounts to a form of support and collaboration."

    Posted by NACL 07/04/2005 @ 6:36pm

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/04/2005 @ 8:17pm

16. I agree totally with the one who posted the line that it is not a matter of whether the founding fathers were imperial or not, it is what do we, as the present and live generation of Ameicans think about EMPIRE now? If you are for it, fine then say so. If not, then the time is now to retake our great nation back from those who do dream of empire.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/04/2005 @ 8:19pm

17. I'm really curious about all the comments I've been reading here in defense of stupidity, murder, misappropriation of tax dollars, and just plain poor planning. SO WHAT IF OUR FOREFATHERS MADE LOTS OF BLUNDERS??? Therefore, we must continue that pattern! We must convince those who are not sure if we are imperialists that we are! We must kill as many people as we can (innocent or guilty), to show them that killing people is wrong, and that we do not tolerate killing people! We must goad our enemies to attack us, any way they can -- we can handle it! We must secure the oil ministry first, when invading a country on the WMD pretext, never really looking for other weapons, which could also harm our underequipped soldiers, since this will convince the general population that we are interested in building a working democracy! We must reward the ownership of the Vice-President's former company (who, of course, are not his cronies anymore...) with lucrative contracts at taxpayer expense, without ever really examining whether or not this money gets to building infrastructure in the country which we've just invaded and bombed indiscriminately -- this will convince the Iraqis that we are a fair and just people! We must spend untold dollars and hours to save the "life" of Terry Schiavo, whose family and herself did not want it to be 'saved,' all the while continuing an unjust, elective war in which tens of thousands of conscious, caring Iraqis, and close to two thousand Americans (we only hear reports about the American lives, though), to prove that we are "Pro-Life!" We must not allow stem-cell research to go on, because "all life is precious!" We must not debate anything we do before we do it, in the name of "National Security," because we want the terrorists who are now living in America to know we speak with one, united voice (albeit stupid)! We must not bring up the lessons of history to be discussed, since we might have to change our course of action! We must do everything in our power to threaten any nation in possession of large amounts of valuable natural resources, that we will not tolerate despotism in their leadership, especially if that leadership disagrees with our own! In these and other ways, we will demonstrate leadership around the world, and our enemies thus cultivated will miraculously vanish. Oh, none of these actions are treasonous, or cause for impeachment, though an attempt for a President(whose subordinates made far greater efforts to champion world peace through friendship and selective tough responses to actual terrorists) to get a little sex on the side WAS enough to warrant such action!What ever happened to the war on drugs -- I believe our beloved leaders should be tested on a regular basis, now!

    Posted by reallife at 07/04/2005 @ 8:59pm

18. Actually, it is precisely because of the difference in scale and tactics between past and present that requires a new definition of "terrorism". It is the problem of diluting the word "genocide" in reverse.

    But "collaborator?" I think I'll stop my participation in this discussion now before the FBI knocks on my door.

    Posted by EllenD at 07/04/2005 @ 9:00pm

19. A free exchange of ideas does not make one a "collaborator." As we said before, defining terrorism is what we need to be doing. Definitions will vary but disagreements are not collaboration.

    What was collaboration? During WWII it was letting the SS know your neighbor had Jews under his roof so the Nazis could then come and find them and murder both those in hiding and the conscientious folks who protected them.

    If we are going to get terrorism right let us get collaboration right as well.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 9:14pm

20. REALLIFE

    We must do everything in our power to threaten any nation in possession of large amounts of valuable natural resources . . .

    Cut out that snide yodeling and look at the real life situation.

    A democratically elected govt is fighting for its life. It is besieged by people who denounce democracy, behead the innocent, deny the right of free speech, revel in religious intolerance, and arbitrarily slaughter crowds in order to cow a nation.

    Those are fascists of the purest kind and the only thing that is keeping them from victory are US forces. That is not hyperbole, that is the real life situation.

    And where do you stand?

    You want those forces out. You urge a course of action which those fascists demand and which will assure their victory. No matter what you call yourself or how you think of yourself, you are a fascist. That is what your support of those insurgents means.

    That is not rhetoric. That is not an insult hurled in an angry moment. That is literally the situation and what you are. You are siding with the most vicious brutes, since Heydrich hanged the Nazis' political opponents from meat hooks. You want their victory, you ethicist, you genius.

    Yes, there is only an either/or here. You are either with fascists or against them. You, are effectively for them. That is real life.

    Posted by nacl at 07/04/2005 @ 10:53pm

21. ZERO

    Reasonable exchanges between serious people are buried in an avalanche of responses to the idiotic statements of the cranks.

    If you will check this board, practically the only substantive post dealing directly with Nichols' entry, is mine.

    If you will look at this magazine's motto, it is devoted to a critical spirit, to giving space to what some deem, objectionable ideas.

    Either you are for that or agin it.

    You are against it. You don't want to exchange ideas. Someone who challenges your preconceptions is a crank. You resent information, arguments, facts that contradict you. And you haven't the brains to fight back.

    So your idea is to blackball, to freeze out.

    And that, in the name of what. Liberalism?

    You pathetic wimp.

    Posted by nacl at 07/04/2005 @ 11:12pm

22. NACL,

    The fascists were not there until America invaded and invited them there. Or have you forgot the rightwing radicals favorite slogan of the 2004 election: "It's better to fight the terrorists there than on American soil".

    I asked this question before but no Bush supporter has thus been willing, able, or both to answer it:

    How in the world do you expect a democracy to flourish(again for those who took and passed basic civics 101 there is no such thing on planet earth) while you keep a war going which is inviting by the day mass murderers who kill innocent people, assassinate elected and selected leaders, blow up infrastructure and make the lack of security in the country so unbearable that many Iraqis can no longer leave their homes to engage in commerce and everyday life. The very things we take for granted by the way.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/05/2005 @ 03:39am

23. To all Bush supporters:

    What do you think your city or town would be like after 6 suicide car bombs and 50 other additional attacks such as drive by shootings, kidnappings of loved ones and elected leaders, the blowing up of infrastructure and everyday streetcrime not to mention the detonation of improvised explosive devices? Do you yokels really believe that any society could withstand that kind of mass murder, chaos and disorder and go on to become a liberal open society while those conditions persist?

    The Iraq war will never succeed so while as George Bush and the neocon knuckleheads remain in command. And why? Because no war can succed while objectives one and two are diametrically opposed. Meaning you can not build an open society such as ours as objective one while objective two remains to keep a war going with the express purpose of "fighting the terrorists there instead of on your own soil".

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/05/2005 @ 03:49am

24. This also means rejecting Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Frist, George Allen, John McCain and Joe Biden in 2008. For those of you who seriously want to end the Iraq war none of the above names and of course a few more that I have not mentioned are an option.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/05/2005 @ 03:50am

25. POSEIDON

    The fascists were not there until America invaded and invited them there.

    Who the hell do you think the Baath were, and Saddam?

    He aspired to lead the whole Arab nation. He ruled by terror and the armored vehicles of the Republican Guard. He pulled out the tongues of his critics. He buried 300,000 of his people in mass graves. He attacked all of his neighbors. He promised to turn a Jewish country into a sheet of flame. He encouraged suicide bombers with $25,000 bonuses. He invariably broke his agreements and lied and deceived. His sport teams trembled for their lives when they lost. He controlled his society in every aspect, down to its art and literature. In what respect was he not a fascist?

    In fact Saddam was raised by an uncle who admired Rashid Ali. That was the pro Nazi Iraqi prime minister who in 1941 announced an alliance with Hitler and sent Iraq's army against the British airbase in Habbaniya.

    You did not realize what Saddam was? I'm not going to engage your further.

    Posted by nacl at 07/05/2005 @ 06:15am

26. Listing all of Saddam's terrors is not enough of a reason to convince me that the United States had to occupy Iraq. And why is this so? Because his story is like so many other dictators who have brutalized their people and terrorized neighboring countries with the threat of invasion, war, poison gas attacks, famine, etc.

    Right now we could be talking about Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo after Laurent Kabila's assassination, Sudan. . . where is the rallying cry over Sudan?

    What is clear is that we choose which dictators we really want to demonize and ignore the rest. I am not going to be moved by another listing of Saddam's horrors. That is not why we went into Iraq in the first place and if we are honest with ourselves we will admit this. The human rights justification was NEVER mentioned prior to our being tied down by an insurgency and the absence of weapons of mass destruction. This issue is old and worn out.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/05/2005 @ 08:05am

27. Let's be honest: the United States is the most powerful imperialist empire in world history. It has hundreds of bases all over the world.(the Soviets never had that.) It has countless nuclear weapons. It maintains a naval fleet of warships on every sea. It spies on all electronic information in the world. Other empires controlled their local border regions (Soviets- central Europe,Japan-southeast Asia,etc.) The U.S. seeks to control the entire world. For 150 years, the stated U.S. policy has been to dominate Asia,(Open Door policy,etc.)while maintaining ironfist rule over the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine). When Japan sought the same regional dominance, the U.S. tried to strangle Japan into submission with an oil embargo which made the Pearl Harbor attack unavoidable in Japanese eyes. My point is that the U.S. and its people need to look at itself honestly for a moment. We should not try to continue to rule the world. We are creating more anti-American terrists every day. We should be a citizen of the world, not its global bully. Then we would once again earn the respect of the world.

    Posted by philbq at 07/05/2005 @ 09:40am

28. typo:terrorists

    Posted by philbq at 07/05/2005 @ 09:42am

29. POSEIDON

    Let's be honest: the United States is the most powerful imperialist empire in world history.

    If you were honest, if you considered what the past's powerful empires were like, you would can your baloney.

    There has never been such a giant, so dominant economically, technologically, politically, culturally, militarily, yet so circumspect in wielding its gigantic power.

    What has the US done with its victory and strength? It raised up the vanquished of WWII, and allowed them to become her competitors. It conceived, built and paid for the UN and invited the world to participate. It supported, even forced decolonization. It created world standards of human rights which NGOs now zealously monitor. Europe now boasts of its superior giving when before the US created the idea of foreign aid no one ever gave but always took. When the USSR fell the US did not march in triumph through Moscow but welcomed and helped the successor states. Which people has it made poorer? Which people has it made less free? Who would be freer, richer, happier had the US never existed? Only the most despicable despots and police states.

    In Iraq America is reviled not for ejecting a despotism but for allowing others to remain. The very idea that a powerful democratic state has a duty to oppose tyrants is new in history, a US creation.

    If you had any honesty, you would considerer what this globe would be like if any of the great powers of the past, Germany, France, Japan, Arabia, Russia, China etc., were in America's place and exercised world supremacy.

    The only reason there is so much protesting and denouncing and cursing of America is because she is benign. No one fears to revile her, no individual, no nation. The US is dominant, but no one is cowed. Everyone rather is a critic.

    You people are blind.

    Posted by nacl at 07/05/2005 @ 2:54pm

30. Correction

    My last post was not meant for Poseiden but for PHILBQ

    Posted by nacl at 07/05/2005 @ 2:56pm