How to Oppose a War

Contemporary politicians who are struggling to determine when the time will be right to start talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq would do well to borrow a page from former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisconsin.

In the spring of 1964, when only about 16,500 U.S. troops were present in the country as "advisers," and when no one had heard of the Gulf of Tonkin, Nelson was asked by a television reporter to discuss the U.S. presence in southeast Asia. Nelson responded by suggesting that President Lyndon Johnson should reconsider the decision to commit troops to the region, arguing that the time had come to "set some timetable for withdrawal from the situation."

The Wisconsin senator completely rejected the notion that any good would result from an escalation in the U.S. role in the troubled country.

"I don't think that additional men and materials and economic aid ... is going to solve the problem in South Vietnam," asserted Nelson, who repeated his counsel that the time was coming for "an orderly withdrawal."

As the senator's biographer, Bill Christofferson, noted, "Nelson knew almost from the start that the Vietnam War was a mistake."

Even more significantly, Nelson had the courage to express that opinion when few others were willing to do so.

To be sure, Nelson, who died last week at age 89, will be most remembered as the originator of Earth Day. And his role in launching the contemporary environmental movement certainly merits recognition and praise. But it is important to recall that Nelson's green activism was only a part of his broader progressive vision and commitment.

Raised in the Wisconsin progressive tradition of former U.S. Sen. Robert M. "Fighting Bob" La Follette, who courageously and correctly opposed Woodrow Wilson's decision to march U.S. troops into World War I, Nelson emerged in the mid-1960s as an equally courageous and correct critic of Johnson's misadventure in Vietnam.

After being assured by Sen. J. William Fulbright, the respected chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the Johnson administration would not use the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as an excuse to expand the U.S. mission in southeast Asia, Nelson grudgingly voted for that August1964 measure. Only a pair of maverick senior senators, Oregon's Wayne Morse and Alaska's Ernest Gruening, opposed it. But, as Nelson came to realize that Fulbright had been bamboozled by the president, the Wisconsin senator joined Morse and Gruening in working to end the war.

In May 1965, when Johnson sought a $700 million supplemental appropriation "to meet the mounting military costs of Vietnam," the Wisconsin Democrat broke ranks with the Democratic administration to join Morse and Gruening in opposing the spending measure. Speaking to the Senate, Nelson declared, "Members of the Senate, known as the world's greatest deliberative body, are stumbling over each other to see who can say 'yea' the quickest and the loudest. I regret it, and I think that someday we shall all regret it."

Noting that the administration had failed to make a compelling case that the war was necessary, let alone wise, the senator concluded, "Thus, reluctantly, I express my opposition to our procedure here by voting 'nay.' The support of the Congress for this measure is clearly overwhelming. Obviously, you need my vote less than I need my conscience."

Nelson would continue for the better part a decade to be one of the Senate's most passionate foes of the war. When the fighting was finished in 1973, he said, "Let us hope that our political leaders in both political parties have learned a lesson from this mistaken enterprise and will not involve the country again in a civil war where the vital interests of this country are not at stake."

With U.S. troops stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq, it is obvious that the lesson was not learned. And the only way they will get out alive is if more senators learn the lesson that Nelson taught: Start talking about withdrawal early and don't be afraid to vote your conscience.

Comments (119)

1. Let us hope that our leaders in the Senate, and in the House of representatives can learn from the important lessons of the Vietnam era and Nelsen's honorable service, words and wisdom; let's hope for a full and complete withdrawl of American military AND corporate interests from the Middle East. It is time for America to start minding its own business as far as that part of the world is concerned.

   Frank, I second that motion. What is up with the Downing Street memo? It sure seems to fit into the Rove/Plame/Joe Wilson Niger debunking trip-story/Yellow-Cake WMD/false justification for the war framework quite nicely. I hope you heads at the Nation are cooking up a good stew on this one.

   The administration is really hurting in the public opinion polls. Now is the time to pour it on.

   Posted by rob.olywa at 07/14/2005 @ 02:06am

2. I came home to America from South Vietnam in February of 1972 after serving for eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent. I might as well have returned to the planet Mars. Few of my self-styled countrymen wanted to know anything about the war or have anything to do with those of us who had served in it. President Nixon had finally started to lower the number of American casualties while continuing the war at the increasing expense of the Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians. This strategy -- known as "Vietnamization" (or "Yellowing the Corpses") -- seemed good enough for most Americans. Henry Kissinger's infamous "Peace is at hand" statement right before the November election got him and Nixon a few more years to continue their war until Congress finally got tired of the stalling and cut off funds to end it all.

   I suspect that the Bush Administration's current "Iraqification" (or "Browning the Bodies") policy will continue staggering along somewhat the same lines for a while longer. In this case, though, events have telescoped in time and everything now happens faster. The United States does not have the surplus military manpower or financial reserves necessary to continue the war in Iraq much longer. The Congressional elections next November (an off-year cycle during which the party in power historically loses seats) could turn into a rout if the blood and money haven't stopped flowing down the toilet by then. Survival of the American regime (all three branches in Republican hands) has become the top priority in Washington; and so at least some military withdrawal (or "redeployment") from Iraq will have to happen one way or another as long as the Bush administation can cloak its losses and "look good" at the same time. I don't know if the "other" side cares about the American regime and its electoral image problems, however; so whether it cooperates with the American withdrawal or not remains the big unknown.

   Having lived through all of this before, I've urged withdrawal since even before the war in Iraq began. I agree with Mr. Nichols that we must all keep up the pressure for this inevitable policy change. I must caution, though, against misconstruing the "drawing down" of troop levels as a necessary indicator of changed objectives. Any such reduction in the "overall" numbers of American forces in Iraq may only mask a temporary Nixonian political adjustment to get past the election next year. As in the case of suspending the seige of Fallujah until after President Bush's election in 2004, the seiges and other military operations could just resume again and go on until the next election cycle in 2008.

   The Democratic Party should nationalize their congressional campaigns around a promise to do two things if elected to a Congressional majority: (1) cut off funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and (2) impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for leading our country into needless war on totally fabricated pretexts. If the Republicans survive that challenge but continue dragging out the war for another two years, the Democrats will have already estblished themselves as the party that will end the war and should win on that platform in 2008. Just playing along with the Republicans and their quagmire war policy -- as the Democrats have stupidly done for the last two elections -- won't end the war and won't win them election to office, either. The Democrats have a desire to win, sure, but they need a real reason to win, too. Ending these stupid wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan should provide them with more than enough of both.

   Posted by mrmurry at 07/14/2005 @ 07:18am

3. "The Congressional elections next November (an off-year cycle during which the party in power historically loses seats) could turn into a rout if the blood and money haven't stopped flowing down the toilet by then."

   Yes, however the left for the most part was sure that Kerry would win in the last election. I mean how on earth could the American electorate vote for Bush AGAIN with all of the negative press and bad things going on, that were pinned on Bush, i.e. the ballooning deficit, outsourcing of jobs, the "quagmire" in Iraq, no WMD's being found etc.

   Additionally on election night the exit poles showed Kerry ahead, confirming expectations that he would win, however like a cat with 9 lives, President Bush shows everyone on the left wrong, as he emerges victorious when all the final votes are counted.

   Does anyone consider the possibility that as he said he was "called by God" to lead this country, that perhaps God in fact DOES have him leading this country? And therefore I wouldn't count your chickens on the Dem's gaining power in the off year Congressional elections.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 08:36am

4. Sadly,the Democratic Party is not "Left", but is instead centrist and meaningless. My local congressman(Brian Baird-Olympia) voted against the war and so I will vote for him again. But my two Senators from the state of Washington voted for the war and all war appropriations since. I will not vote for them again. I am voting my concience, like John Nichols said.

   Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 09:23am

5. Nation STAFF: Do you think the previous comment by Bushlover OKSPORTSGUY is "relevant"? As a Nation subscriber, I do not.The subject is "voting your conscience",remember? He is instead doing another of his Bush sermons.

   Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 09:29am

6. "Does anyone consider the possibility that as he said he was 'called by God' to lead this country, that perhaps God infact DOES have him leading the country? And therefore I wouldn't count your chickens on the Dems gaining power in the off year elections."

   Ladies and Gentleman! We have a new demographic! The Deity Vote! We should just place our faith in an enlightened despot like days of old. Welcome the return of the "Divine Right of Kings"!

   Posted by hhemwm at 07/14/2005 @ 09:49am

7. Speaking of "voting your conscience," former Senator George Norris (R-NE) was the prototypic man of conscience in the senate. In 1928 he actually endorsed Governor Al Smith, the Democrat from New York, for president over Herbert Hoover. Smith was anathema to Nebraska republicans as he was a "Wet" and a big city man tied to -in their minds- the big eastern banking firms on Wall Street. Norris' position was deeply unpopular at home but he was still reelected! Norris accomplished this feat by routinely "going home" to Nebraska and holding town hall meetings across the state to tell the folks about his decisions and why he made them. He repeatedly faced angry crowds who would then come away supportive of him, if not his position. The reason was they appreciated his integrity and his willingness to speak the plain truth to them. Nebraskans are like anyone else, they appreciate being treated with respect and a senator telling his/her consituents the truth is showing them that they really do matter.

   Posted by hhemwm at 07/14/2005 @ 10:04am

8. Hey Phil--

   Ahh, I work at the magazine but I don't monitor this site. I think you have to "warn" the sportsguy if you really object to his comments. Hey, you're not saying there's no place for god in politics, are you?! ;-)

   Posted by s-staff at 07/14/2005 @ 10:35am

9. "The subject is "voting your conscience","

   That's the point….. I did and do vote my conscience, which is my faith. I vote for the candidate that stands up for the issues that are important to me, not to the world.

   Some people believe their faith is a very important aspect and basis for who and what they vote on.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 10:42am

10. I do not regulate the content of this site, but as a suscriber, I resent that the site is being overrun by Bushloving dittoheads. I believe the solution is to limit comment to subscribers. We pay for the right to express our opinion.

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 11:02am

11. I think it's cool to engage opposing points of view. If you feel the comments are egregiously stupid, you can warn or ignore the poster.

    Posted by s-staff at 07/14/2005 @ 11:12am

12. Thank you s-staff,

    I wonder if PhilBQ feels the irony that I do, in the fact that progressives love to tout their "right of free speech" when it comes to anti-war demonstrations, and hate signs during Bush rallies, yet Phil doesn't seem to believe that I, as a conservative am afforded that same right when it comes to posting on Blogs like "The Nation"……

    Interesting….

    What is it that progressives always are complaining about Christians, something about hypocrisy or something…. ?

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 12:01pm

13. Here in Pennsylvania, people of conscience look forward to voting Santorum out of the Senate in 2006.

    The 23rd Sigh

    "Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want. He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests. He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness. He restoreth my fears. He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office. Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me. Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion. Thou anointest my head with foreign oil. My health insurance runneth out. Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term, And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever."

    The Rev. John M. Good, Interim Missioner St. Alban's Episcopal Church Bay City, Michigan

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 12:12pm

14. Todd, are you really chiding somebody for hypocrisy?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 12:13pm

15. What can Bush do to enable the pullout of troops? What about the suggestion that we train Iraqi troops outside the country? Has anybody thought about revisiting that idea now, because it's better to train those troops in a place where they feel some sense of security.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 1:09pm

16. my goodness, what a stereotypical response by some here. "It's not fair, these darn conservatives are coming here and making me defend my views! I just want to share with people who agree with me. Then I will have an inflated view that most people agree with me"

    Think, dialogue, be prepared to defend what you believe. A belief that isn't worth defending is not worth having.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 1:12pm

17. Come on Nat! Yes, let's take 100,000-150,000 Iraqi's and ship them somewhere for training...even if financially and logistically possible, can you imagine the cry on the Arab street that will claim we are doing it to commit genocide so we can stay there because there aren't enough troops.

    Just a thought

    Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 1:14pm

18. Nattie, here's what Bush can do. I'm sure LL will agree that everything that the Bush administration has foretold about Iraq has been wrong (alright, I'm using "everything" rhetorically, but you get the point). This administration has said we can't give a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because the terrorists (or, is it the insurgents?) will wait us out.

    From this we can conclude that publishing a timetable for withdrawal is the thing to do. Surely there are a lot of law-abiding Iraqis who would appreciate regaining some semblance of security while the terrorists/insurgents wait for our withdrawal. Some might even be convinced to join the security forces if police recruiting stations aren't getting blown-up every other day.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 1:35pm

19. War is ugly and people die to bring liberty and stability where none exists. We are fortunate we didn't have satellite/cable news during WWII. You folks would have been screaming to bring our troops home after thousands would die bogged down in heavy battle for weeks and months without any sign of progress....that is war and thank goodness it is run by people who understand it.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 1:39pm

20. LL, stop telling us what we would have done 60 years ago, and start telling us what we should do now. And don't suggest the cabal of deserters and draft-dodgers in this administration understand anything about war (except, of course, 'tis best to save one's own ass).

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 1:48pm

21. Now I regret that my country didn't have but one Bush to give to me.

    And I believe that the average Iraqi has a lot more courage than the average Bush administration figure (when was the last time any of them spent a night in Baghdad?).

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 2:27pm

22. If we withdraw from Iraq, it would likely encourage Iraqis to defend their country, but it would also likely embolden terrorists to strike at the heart of the country. I think LL is partly correct when he claims that terrorists do not want to see a democracy in Iraq. I don't see how this would lead to a peaceful and stable Iraq, and I do believe it is part of our duty to do everything we can to ensure a peaceful Iraq.

    LL: I don't quite get your genocide argument? One of the central goals of the Iraq war is to train Iraqi security forces in order to enable us to hand over security to them. We could send a batallion to France to train while we increased troop levels in Iraq, and then immediately draw down troops once we had trained a certain number of them.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:28pm

23. Nathanhale: impugning the courage of administration figures is hardly productive. Yes, many of them failed to go to war, but this doesn't necessarily make their war-oriented policies wrongheaded. What makes their policies flawed is the unproven theories that underlay them. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, how do we most peacibly end this struggle?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:31pm

24. Zero: what happens to Iraq? What happens then to terrorists in that country and around the world? Will they suddenly abandon their efforts to fight America if we retreat?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:35pm

25. Nathan,

    Chiding? No, I would call it more throwing it right back in Phil's self-righteous, Holier than thou face.

    You know, the same terms that progressives usually use when refering to conservatives.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:41pm

26. By the way Nathan:

    ""Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want. He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests. He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness. He restoreth my fears. He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office. Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me. Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion. Thou anointest my head with foreign oil. My health insurance runneth out. Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term, And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever." "

    That was simply brilliant! I got a great laugh out of that.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:42pm

27. Love Liberty,

    You said: "Think, dialogue, be prepared to defend what you believe. A belief that isn't worth defending is not worth having."

    I fully agree, I have said something near that which is convictions aren't worth a dime, unless you are willing to die for them. I would rather die before I live for the world and what the world considers "ethical" if it required me to denounce my faith in Christ.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:45pm

28. I enjoy civilized discourse with those on the rightwing who are intelligent, and honest, who do not question my patriotism for opposing Bush's war. But I rarely find any rightwiger/Bushlovers like this. (I do not call the current strain of dittoheads conservatives because real conservatives opposed phony wars of imperialism like this one. Pat Buchanon is a real conservative, and he opposes this war.) All you flagwavers: ENLIST!

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 2:48pm

29. Todd, glad you liked it. My dad read it to me over the phone. He has voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1956, except of course, for 2004, when he voted for Kerry.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 2:50pm

30. Zero,

    "When will the Bush administration be held accountable for this disaster? "

    When more progressives get to the poles, and vote out conservative republicans, and vote in progressives, not just the centrist democrats like Hillary, who I predict will end up being the next President.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:51pm

31. " All you flagwavers: ENLIST!"

    I have and did; and currently have 3 members of my family currently hunting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. I couldn't agree with you more, like I said; convictions mean nothing if you aren't willing to die for them.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:55pm

32. Let me add this: Real conservatives, like Robert Taft, did not believe that the U.S. should be the world's policeman. It costs too much in taxes and blood. Taft was overpowered by the Truman/Acheson crowd in the post-WWII debate about the course of U.S. foreign policy. It was the Democrats who were the leading imperialists after WWII, and now it it Bush and friends. But don't call them conservatives. As a man of the Left, I respect real conservatives.

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 3:06pm

33. Frank: I like the Allah reference.

    You agreed with Zero: "We must allocate manpower and resources to find the real culprits as I've already pointed out. It is not a retreat but a wiser military strategy. The people of Iraq have to learn to defend themselves, sooner rather than later."

    If we were to leave Iraq, would Radical terrorists leave too? I doubt it. They would still be there, consolidating their power and destroying the secular government.

    If we leave Iraq to defend itself, who says that will happen? What if they fail? I oppose the war but I won't say the value of an Iraqi citizen's life is lower than the value of an American's life. How do we draw down in a way that will prevent an all-out civil war?

    Phil: Your isolationist policy is interesting. You'd rather we let the genocide in Bosnia and Sudan work itself out, then?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 3:18pm

34. The thing that Bush's immoral invasion of Iraq has left us with is, we're going to be there for a while, how to turn it into a moral occupation? And how do we get out without abandoning the locals to an impossible situation. Todd, what do you think it was that Bush's "Higher Father" was smoking when he gave the okay for this war?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 3:25pm

35. Frank,

    You said: "Change the word Christ to Allah and you'll understand the terrorists completely."

    Absolutely, which is exactly why we need to kill them first. Now YOU'RE getting it. I'm certainly willing to die for my God just as much as they are willing to die for thiers. And as our great general Douglas MacArthur said during WW2:

    "No one ever won a war by dying for their country, the only way to win a war is to get the other dumb son of a bitch to die for his country"

    Therefor Go Bush and troops, kill all those terrorists claiming "Jihad" before they kill us!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 3:28pm

36. Todd: I don't want to die for your god.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 3:30pm

37. Nathan,

    "Todd, what do you think it was that Bush's "Higher Father" was smoking when he gave the okay for this war?"

    I don't know if insulting God fixes the problem in Iraq either…. I could be wrong of course, but I'm sure you don't expect me to actually answer the obviously stupid question.

    No offense of course…

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 3:34pm

38. Nattie,

    "Todd: I don't want to die for your god. "

    I certainly understand, however don't expect me to change my view or my vote for what you want. Just like, I certainly wouldn't expect you to change your vote or view based on my interests.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 3:37pm

39. Yeah, Todd, if that's the way you feel, maybe you should go live in another country where everybody is willing to die for your god. Or, at least, say they're willing. But, don't continue to espouse Christianity.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 3:37pm

40. Excuse me, Todd, I should have said, don't continue to claim to be a Christian.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 3:38pm

41. [Hey Jesus, I need a little help here, is this what you're preaching in the red states these days?]

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 3:40pm

42. There is a great advantage from having swept into Iraq thereby crushing a vicious, somewhat unpredictable dictatorship. It is a tactical advantage: you get closer to the real enemy, Iran. The horrible mistake was in BushyBoys mistaking a tactic for the stratgy. The U.S. needs to rapidly extracate itself out of Iraq now with or without Iraqi stability. They are in the midst of a civil war and we are standing there like a squad of Contracted Home Builders! The stategic issue is not in Iraq. It is in a mullah-fed radical Islamic fundamentalism that now has the real technology to blow nukes off. There is a gigantic difference between what Jesus would do and what Allah will do. And Progressives so far have not advanced a comprehensive program that unites both a realistic foreign policy with a new National Energy program. Bush has lost control of the strategy and squandered "political capital" and billions of corrupted dollars on Nation Building. Let Iraq have its cake. Withdraw the troops. Plan for Iran.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 3:40pm

43. I believe in intervention by a multilateral force, meaning the United Nations. Whether it be Bosnia, Sudan or anywhere, only the U.N. has legitimacy. I am isolationist if we cannot convince the world of the rightness of the intervention. Incidently, that principle is the core of the U.N.Charter, which was signed by this country. But usually the United States rejects world(U.N.) opinion. And because there was no final vote by the Security Council on the Iraq invasion, it is illegal as is the entire occupation. For those rightwingers out there braying about the U.N., the U.N. Charter was ratified by the U.S. Senate, and is the law. But of course we are an outlaw nation...

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 3:52pm

44. "But usually the United States rejects world(U.N.) opinion."

    Thank Goodness. The U.N. is a defunct, inept, evil entity in itself.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 3:58pm

45. The UN, the entire building and all its dipped in wealth, pampered and duplicitious diplomats should be moved right into Baghdad. Send them with concrete, hammers and nails...and bandages. They will need them. If the UN spoken of here is the same that went to Bosnia...legitimacy is the very last thing this gutless organization of entropy has. The world is vastly different from the UN of Cold War fabrications.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:01pm

46. Todd, why is the U.N. evil? Because it allowed Oil-for-Food money to get laundered through BayOil of Texas?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 4:03pm

47. The U.S. dare not turn an ounce of sovereignty over the this pack of duplicitious UN vipers. This nation surely needs to seek new alliances with Europe now. NATO is far more important. A reclarification of the strategy is most important for the U.S.A. now. It appears absolutely certain that Bush and his Oil-Compromised Corporados cannot do it. My concern is the the Democratic party cannot do so either. Congress is such a vat of corruption itself. Perhaps Joe Biden, a man with considerable integrity and knowledge, can mount a solid campaign.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:09pm

48. I still haven't figured out why we need to kill people. Weren't civil rights established through nonviolent means? Didn't Gahndi defeat the British Empire without guns & bombs? Did Jesus lead a violent uprising against his enemies? "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." -- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

    Posted by thejman at 07/14/2005 @ 4:13pm

49. Any political resolution of conscious such as that which John Nichols suggests, must propose not only a strong and spirited offensive against Radical Islam, the control and elimination of nuclear weapons, but also a most aggressive global revitalization of soft energy initiatives world wide. This will mean perhaps the nationalization of oil resources in America as strategic national resources. It will surely mean taking control of U.S. foreign policy out of the hands of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, et. al.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:15pm

50. ...thanks for that, thejman...

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 4:17pm

51. We should so much respect and honor Ghandi. Eisenhower was so right in what he spoke several times....and he should have fire the entire Dulles paranoiacs. But does one remember what dropped Ghandi to the dirt? There are many Ghandi's inside Iran. They are in jail and many have been tortured to death. Peace? There is no peace here. Sometimes the most honorable and merciful action is that which rams the spokes of the wheels of fascism; in this case, of Islamism...the neoFascism of the 21st Century folks.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:28pm

52. My goodness FrankGrits, this is the same organization the brought you the massacres of Srebrenica! The idiocy and waste of Iraq is in presuming that we need to stand around and nation build the place! Spare the military...they are not built to do that. Bring the troops home! Send 'em Geico agents! And the UN loves to fill the Human Rights Organization with leaders like Syria? Allah forbid it! The UN will be the last place to protect pacifists!

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:36pm

53. They sad part of the US tactic of bashing Saddam was that we were trying to work with so-called Allies who were quite in bed with him; money, weapons, industrial parts, machine tools.... I suppose one must expect this duplicity of business with tyrants that corporations are so willing to do...but, it was the primary reason we had no support from France, Germany or Russia....they were fine profiteers!

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:42pm

54. Perhaps a Biden Presidency can restore some "tough love" and conscious consensus among old allies once again and still have a U.S. military properly deployed to do what it is meant to accomplish.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:45pm

55. I know what you mean; it is hard to think of not having an international peace organization. A real one is needed someday again. The building is very useful for housing the poor and unemployed so it should stand. Seriously. I would like to see the UN address the issue of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism in an Emergency session at the General Assembly. That would be a literal riot!

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:51pm

56. "Todd, why is the U.N. evil? Because it allowed Oil-for-Food money to get laundered through BayOil of Texas?"

    Absolutely, look why do you people all think that just because someone supports Bush and the war, we are in bed with Bush and his band of Oil Buddies?

    That deal with BayOil was evil.

    BayOil was evil in being involved in it.

    I own ZERO dollars in Halliburton stock. I don't care about oil or the money that it brings people. I don't care about Texas. I support Bush because of his social agenda and his determination to exterminate terrorists from this earth, I also like his pro small business agenda. If Bush is doing under the table dirty deeds with the Oil people he should be exposed, JUST as Clinton needed to be exposed for his under the table dirty deeds he was involved in with Lewinsky (pardon the pun) but it's the same thing.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 4:52pm

57. FrankGrits you are absolutely correct: the Bush group of Corporados, his Daddy and the CIA have much grief and guilt to own up to in playing Machiavellian politics with an assassin like Saddam. In an attempt to counterweight radical Shia in Iran, we helped a tyrant! No excuses at all for this march of folly!

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 4:55pm

58. "Todd, besides the U.N. with all of it's kinks, can you name me one other world body that can provide troops and resources to keep the peace?"

    Well, I consider myself a federalist, and idealist. Ideally the world shouldn't need a governing body to provide police and military peacekeepers all over the world.

    The individual countries should police their own countries, however to answer your question there is no world "government" body that I would trust.

    But you certainly can't trust the U.N. when you have guys like Libya with its atrocious human rights background head of the human rights division of the U.N. I realize they no longer chair that position currently, but simply the fact that the U.N. and its hypocrisy would place a country like that in that position supports the notion that the U.N. is corrupt.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 4:59pm

59. The extreme danger [which the UN can never get the US out of] is that BushyBoy has allowed a strong tactical offensive to get completely confused with the most critical strategic issue: Radical Jihad. The longer he keeps our troops in Iraq, the more ugly and misguided the US will be. Europe is now starting to see the issue of open Islamic immigration for the woeful mistake it is. We need out of Iraq asap...and that does not ever mean to forsake the Kurds again! The U.S. military should bond with the Kurds very very strongly.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 5:22pm

60. Legitimacy: the rightful use of authority. As both Bush and the UN are finding out, legitimacy can be lost and treaties ended. The UN has shown no ability to stop genocide, little effectual ability to end nuclear proliferation, and no ability to deal even with the massacres in Darfur, Sudan...that powerhouse of a nation! In the War the US faces [for better or worse], the UN is only a political forum. It has no ability to deal with the horrors coming into the face of the British citizens, no ability to address radical Mullah-dictatorship...and that is so very sad.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 5:30pm

61. Joe Biden is what is wrong with the Democrats. He was one of the Demo hawks in bed with Bush pushing this war. If he is nominated by the Party, he will split the Party down the middle. I certainly would't vote for him for anything. He is a smiling snake.

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 5:33pm

62. That is what delighted Hitler and Mussolini with the League of Nations, they knew it was powerless and totally pacifist. A big null set. I cannot recall what effectually, Annan has done with Kim of NKorea in his enslavement of the NKorean peasantry and workers! Just cannot recall what Annan and the UN said to the Taliban to stop that regimes assassination and repression of man and women. Just cannot recall this little issues.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 5:35pm

63. Americans will not follow a pacificism that effectively does nothing to stop terrorism. The Democrats indeed have made many mistakes and too many compromises in running campaigns. I wish there were a dynamic third party...William Jennings Bryan where are you!!! But seriously, a weak foreign policy dependent on the stamp of UN approval will be the most dangerous action in the midst of a real War that this Nation could allow to happen at this point. Biden or some other Democratic must be able to unite a powerful middle class revolt against a radical right in the US. Unfortunately, a nearly spent but brave Nader could not do so although his environmental and economic platform was a smart one. America will need a tough Democrat welling to set a new 21st century course that is comprehensive, but yields not one inch to a militant foreign policy against both Iran and North Korea and wisely etches a new alliance with South Korea and Japan and India.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 5:43pm

64. "The UN, in Federal law, is about as legitimate as it gets. And the violation of the UN Charter that was the Iraq war was a violation of US domestic law."

    In actuality you are proving the U.N.'s ILIGITEMACY in that if all you said really is true, why is neither Bush nor the U.S. up on any kind of war crime charges? Answer to my obviously rhetorical question: because all that you said earlier is bunk due to the fact that the U.N. has lost it's legitimacy as a governing body through it's many years of non reaction to Saddam's repeated outright refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 5:45pm

65. Sportsguy: the U.N. Charter IS the law. Do some research- you will see. The reason the U.S. does not leave the U.N. is that the U.N. is a useful figleaf sometimes to clothe the U.S. with legitimacy, and when the U.N. is not obediant, the U.S. either vetoes or ignores the world opinion. But the ineffectiveness of the U.N. is because of the greatest rogue outlaw nation in the world...the U.S.

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 5:58pm

66. Oh,by the way, the United States has refused to join the International Court at the Hague. So war criminals like Bush and Henry Kissinger will not meet justice soon. But one can dream...

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 6:04pm

67. "the greatest rogue outlaw nation in the world". Wow. Hate to here an American say that. We have lots of problems and have many faults and made many errors, but you are not speaking either the truth, intelligently or as an American. An in this manner of speaking, you will not have but a thin sliver of support from any American for your perspectives; neither do you deserve it.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 6:06pm

68. It is fine to have the liberty to critique of course. That is what dialogue is about. I respected Fulbright during the course of his working through the challenges of seeing Vietnam as a mistake. He was as courageous as Gaylord Nelson. Barbara Tuchman's book The March of Folly describes the dangers of hubris and wooden-headed foreign policy. We should avoid them now in Iraq. Bring the troops home. Plan for Iran.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 6:13pm

69. Thats right, do what Rove said we do. Great idea.

    Posted by whyme at 07/14/2005 @ 6:31pm

70. Well not quite that simplistically. I hope that Mr. Rove speaks again from prison. But I think your categorization of ideas is alittle too quick and pat. I personally do not agree with NeoConization of American foreign policy. But I see and respect that many progressives do not see the U.S. in a larger War. That's fine. It will show its face again for you.

    Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/14/2005 @ 6:47pm

71. sorry I haven't been online to respond for hours, but I have insurance clients to help (and for the cynics, most of my clients are low income that I help get low cost solutions for-no real money in it but I sleep well)

    there are many things to respond to but one quick one to Philbq---enlist,,,I did at age 17...Nam, purple heart, and 2 sons who served in Marines, 1 special forces, 1 in Iraq...

    many low and typical cheap shots (not surprised).

    Frankgrits,..thanks for your comments.

    Nat...good dialogue today from you...your showing streaks of realism which is healthy..

    got to run to a city meeting (not for power to the cynics, I am a volunteer elected Parks commissioner to help bring more parks development to my city)

    Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 7:48pm

72. "Sportsguy: the U.N. Charter IS the law. Do some research- you will see."

    So is the elimination of Gay marriage in Oklahoma. So I suppose you agree then that since it's law OK has the right to discriminate against gays marrying. I mean it's the law right?

    Laws are in place but not always enforced. Enforcement has to do with several factors; public perception of the "law". The governing bodies' clout and respectability in it's ability to enforce the law and several other factors.

    Speeding over 55 MPH on many highways is against the law as well, however people do 55 to 60 all day long without being given a ticket for it.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 8:49pm

73. Chris B.-Most Americans are incapable of looking at this nation honestly or objectively. Most believe cherished myths that they will not let go of. That is why you justify attacking another nation who has not attacked us (Iran,etc).

    Posted by philbq at 07/14/2005 @ 10:25pm

74. legitimate law...Ask the Judge that let a known child molester out on the streets only to murder a family to steal their two children to rape both and kill one of them.

    Rouge Nation? Hmmm, UN officials raping African woman...nothing done about it, UN Oil for Food Scandal...a way for Sadam to buy votes in the UN.

    Why are we a rouge nation when Russia and China teamed up today and announced that the UN MUST REFORM?

    Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 11:57pm

75. Just because Americans enjoy BBQ's and beers over Cafe's and Latte's, doesn't make us any less of a cultured country. Have you ever been to a good BBQ with pork ribs? Opps, I forgot, that is the "unclean meat". How long will it take for the ACLU to sue the US Government on behalf of the Muslim religion to ban the sale and consumption of pork because it offends them?

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:02am

76. The subject we are supposed to be discussing is how to stop this war. That is the title of John Nichols' column...remember? This war is very similar to Vietnam in many ways:(1) The conflict began with a presidential lie about this small nation being a threat to the mighty U.S. (2)the massive U.S. illegal intervention attemted to prop up an illegitimate and unrespected government(3) once the invasion happened, the rational for unlimited occupation is "now that we are there, we can't appear to lose". This is a recipe for disaster, with huge bloodshed and expediture of billions for years. I say withdraw and let Iraq decide what kind of government they want.

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 12:02am

77. That's "rogue nation",Dan. What other nation bombs anyone they want with impunity?

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 12:05am

78. Maybe if we had a down home cook off and invited the Muslims we can stop the war. We don't tell them they were eating pork, which they will love, and then they will start to question the validity of their religion, thus stopping the war!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:07am

79. We will only stop wars when the end of the world comes. Sorry! Unless we totally cut off all religion, all freedom of thought and all progressive ideas, people will always have egos and egos can cause the greatest people with the best intentions to want to be on top. Ask any Russian how well cutting off Religion and creating a common mans government works. It will never work! As long as man needs food and resources to surive, conflicts will occur.

    We may be able to help poor nations grow crops to feed their people by using genetic seeds, but the green parties around the world will not let it happen because it is not pure. I'm sorry but if you asked a poor farmer if he wanted to take the chance to see what will happen in 30 years over watching his starving children die within a year, we should lift that ban!

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:14am

80. We can fight a war to teach young woman in Radical Muslim nations that it is ok to take the mask off. That it is ok not to be submissive. We can teach woman how to be independent free thinkers like their sisters around the world. We can teach Radical muslims that it is ok for your sister to talk to another man as friends without being stoned and raped by the senior male community. Or, we can sit around and debate how we should contain our muslim friends and talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

    You tell me how to stop this war when we are fighting over the above issues. The majority of American military men and women beleive that is what war they are fighting and coming home with unbelievable success stories, but they are not being heard because we only hear about "car bombs", "president lied", "all the car bombings are americas fault". I have not heard one comment today about the article in yahoo international news that showed the muslim countries are loosing faith in Bin Ladden and radical islam. It is working in the surrounding Iraq countries, but is growing in nations that have a strong iron fisted muslim leaders. Whatever you may say, why don't we listen to the majority of the Iraq vets coming home only to re-enlist to help the Iraqis and not listen to the media about the men who don't re-enlist, but don't say why...the majority miss their families and want the rest. But if you ask the majority, they will go back if serious help is needed.

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:25am

81. Once again, the conversation seems to spin away from the main topic while non-sequiturs proliferate like jihadis in formerly jihadi-free Iraq. The topic introduced by Mr. Nichols, as I understand it, involves demanding a withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq (if not from Afghanistan) and how best to pursue this objective. It does not involve rehashing the long litany of now-discredited rationales for invading and occupying a country (or countries) that did not attack or threaten America.

    In my own posting above I tried to give a little background from my Vietnam experience warning of counter-strategies which our government will likely employ to stall or deflect perfectly legitimate demands for concluding our military occupation of Iraq and probably Afghanistan, too, at some point. The American government under five presidents -- Eisenhower(R), Kennedy(D), Johnson(D), Nixon(R), and Ford(R) -- appealed to all these same bogus counter-strategies for over twenty years (1954-1975) and nothing ever changed but the level of death and destruction. Repeating these same sorry irrelevancies today will have precisely the same effect. We need to point out and debunk these begged questions and non-sequiturs, of course, but we most need to concentrate on changing the conversation to "redeployment" (President Reagan's favorite euphemism for "withdrawal") in terms of how and when, not if.

    As one of America's military officers acknowledged recently, for every "insurgent" (i.e., formerly living Iraqi/Arab/Muslim person) he "kills," three more take his or her place. This fact surprises no one familiar with military occupations and guerrila wars. Military occupations of non-submissive peoples always produce more "insurgents," or "terrorists," or "freedom fighters," etc., than they eliminate. In the present instance, by practically universal agreement, the American military occupation of Iraq has at least tripled the number of persons actively trying to kill Americans and anyone else seen as their collaborators -- like the Italians, Spanish, and British. So looking only at the occupation policy in terms of its stated objectives, it has already proved a dismal failure. Discontinuing a failed policy makes good sense.

    Again, leaving aside the "moral" questions that arise from killing foreign peoples so that they can possibly enjoy some posthumous "democracy," the economic Law of Diminishing Returns has predictably set in with a vengeance -- with America on the wrong side of the "cost" equation. Simply put, in Vietnam America needed expensive aircraft carrier battle groups to blow up inexpensive bamboo bridges, and the Vietnamese could replace the bamboo bridges much faster and cheaper than America could replace and redeploy its aircraft carrier battle groups, their planes, and their pilots. One can easily multiply instances, but essentially America went broke and cried "uncle" before the Vietnamese did. The Vietnamese could easily afford to -- and did -- "wait us out" because they had no plans to go anywhere (ever) while we did. Similary in Iraq, the people who live there don't plan on leaving and can wage their kind of war much more cheaply (they simply "improvise") and for a much longer length of time than we can. The bad economics here will cause America to withdraw in any case, so the options again comes back to (1) "withdraw sooner while alive and solvent," or (2) "withdraw later when dead and broke."

    Now, to play the totally amoral and callous Devil's Advocate here, we could just say: Why bother? We now have a "professional" military that will follow orders, go where we send them, and shoot whomever we tell them to shoot. If they get killed, so what? They asked for it, didn't they? If we just leave them in Iraq and Afganistan -- or keep sending them back again and again -- won't they all just eventually die or get wounded? Won't that natural attrition solve the imperial military problem by simply leaving America with no Army to deploy overseas where it doesn't belong anyway? It could happen, because as the "flypaper" theorists fail to grasp, the flypaper (i.e., our military) always gets consumed while the number of flies (i.e., foreigners who don't want our military in their countries) never seems to get any smaller. Actually, I prefer to call this "use ourselves as bait for flies" theory the George-Armstrong-Custer-Bush strategy for royally screwing the pooch and fucking up a soup sandwich, if I may mix metaphors and relapse into my old Navy vocabulary for a moment.

    The Bush Bunch made a blunder of historic proportions and now can do little but search desperately for shifting, ex post facto rationales, hoping all the while to get past the next election still in office. We should not forget, however, that President Nixon won a landslide re-election but still had to slink off into a disgraced early retirement shortly thereafter. A Democrcatic Congress cut off funding for an insane military mistake and rid the country of an out-of-control President. A Democratic Congress can do it again. That means, as I said above, not taking the past as a straightjacket but changing the conversation to "withdrawal," changing the regime (starting with the House of Representatives), and ending the wars we cannot afford. We sometimes have to fight wars when others -- like our "friends" the Saudi Arabians -- attack us. We don't have to fight wars against the Iraqis and Afghans who didn't attack us -- even if our "friends" the Israelis would like very much for us to do so.

    America's military withdrawal from Iraq has already started -- more than 1,750 American soldiers have already come home -- dead. The longer this madness goes on, the more dead Americans we will "withdraw" from Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually (if national bankruptcy and/or default doesn't come first) we will "withdraw" all of our military from Iraq this way. Personally, I'd rather withdraw our military alive and let the Republican office-holders who created this mess fend for themselves. Accountability won't kill them. They can always get better paying jobs lobbying for the military-industrial complex.

    Posted by mrmurry at 07/15/2005 @ 12:32am

82. It appears from this poll and Libya abandoning both terrorism and their WMD after the Invasion of Iraq, that the President is (dare I say it...yes I dare) WINNING against terrorism!!...I always say that facts speak louder than opinions..Anyone who has ever seriously studied the middle east knows that except for the most fanatical, Muslims respect unyielding strength..And the strength of conviction manifested in force by President George Bush is winning..I know you "Neville Chamberlains" out there won't understand why I dare say winning but that's ok...it's still the truth.

    Poll shows Muslim Support for Bin Laden Declining

    By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer

    July 14, 2005, 4:49 PM EDT

    WASHINGTON -- People in several heavily Muslim countries have lost some of their enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden and for violent acts like suicide bombings, especially in countries where there have been recent terrorist acts, international polling found.

    Surveys conducted for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press looked at attitudes of people living in Indonesia, Jordan Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, all countries with Muslim majorities, as part of an international survey of 17 countries done this spring.

    In Lebanon, the number of people who think the use of suicide bombing and other forms of violence is justified in defense of Islam has dropped from 73 percent in the summer of 2002 to 39 percent now. A decrease in this number also was seen in Morocco, which fell from 40 percent a year ago to 13 percent now, and in Pakistan and Indonesia. In Jordan, the number of people who feel such violence is justified has grown slightly; the number in Turkey remains very low.

    Since March 2004, the sentiment for suicide bombing against Americans and their allies in Iraq dropped from 70 percent to 49 percent in Jordan, which neighbors Iraq, and dropped by smaller margins in Pakistan, Turkey, and Morocco.

    The polling was done before the terrorist bombings in London last week.

    Public confidence in bin Laden has dipped sharply since May 2003 in Indonesia, Morocco, Lebanon and Turkey -- all countries that have experienced recent terrorist bombings. In Pakistan and Jordan, a majority of people continue to say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, the Saudi who leads al-Qaida.

    And Can this be true?

    The surveys found that public acceptance is growing in some majority-Muslim countries that democracy is not strictly a Western way of doing things but could work in their countries. In Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco and Indonesia, increasing numbers of people feel that democracy can work there.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 12:35am

83. MRMURRAY, I apologize for getting off topic. But lets realize how many people we left hanging in Vietnam only to be murdered. These people had faith in the US after France had left them high and dry. France also wanted nothing to do with the Iraq war, but wants in on the rebuilding of the country and has unbelievable pull within the UN?

    We can stop the war when we establish school systems for all the children of Iraq. If it takes Americans to die for that, they know that is what they will die for. It is honorable and they will never be forgotten. It amazes me that D-Day was no big deal to see American Soldiers dying for a war against an enemy that never attack our soil. Yet, because it was white Europe, America was justified in entering that war? What about the innocent civilians that were dying in nightly raids by both the axis and allied powers. That again is justfied because it saved "old mother europe". The main country that was sooo arrogant by telling the world that nothing will happen to them again after the first WW, was rolled over in less time then I drive to work. Again, it was the big F country. The same country that got us involved in Vietnam and left us hanging. If you want to stop wars, build a wall around France and keep their politicans mouths closed. We are always picking up their mess and if our journalists in this fine country start to focus on how France hates America and will do everything to see us fail, there will always be conflicts! They speak from both sides of the mouth and should never had the power given to them in the UN and even the EU today. Europe is in bigger trouble right now because the Reich has slowly taken over Europe by controlling the banks and is allowing France to dictate policy. We will end wars when europeans get their heads out of their arses!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:55am

84. MrMurry, you have said it well.What you said is the bottom line truth, from a man with military experience and a sense of history. And Dancall replies with something incoherent about building schools. "LOVE LIBERTY" ignores your points and talks about polls from the corporate media. They never respond to the points. LL, did you LISTEN to what MRMURRY said? Can you intelligently respond to his points? No, you just change the subject and talk about polls. Faith-based argument...hopeless. MRMURRY, I think you see this is not a place for intellectually honest discussion. They just spout platitudes. They won't address real facts of history. This is a waste of time.

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 01:39am

85. "LOVE LIBERTY" If you think this war is reducing the amount of terrorists in the world, I want some of what you're smoking. Because you are out there...

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 01:45am

86. obviously you don't read...the Pew Center that did the polling is a moderate to liberal polling organization. and read carefully, I said we're winning because support for Bin Laden and thus his supporters is declining in Muslim countries. By logical extension, that will lead to reduced numbers of terrorists. Their success comes when the normal Muslim population not only tolerates but refuses to reveal the terrorists. The sea change in the attitudes will make it more difficult for them to stay hidden

    Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 02:01am

87. I have reached the opinion that the blogosphere is a wasteland. There are few serious thinkers here. The rightwing dittoheads never respond to good points. This is a waste of time.

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 02:02am

88. God help me, but I must respond: Do you read? a recent CIA study reached the conclusion that more terrorists were being created by the occupation of Iraq. Muslims all over the world are being radicalized by Bush's war. Do you deny that?

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 02:07am

89. What I hear from you war lovers is wishful thinking. Here are the facts: Iraq is an artificial country created by the British. Its three major ethnic groups,Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd will never get along. Violence between Sunni and Shiite is growing every day. A civil war is coming. Only a brutal dictator could have held this nation together. It will eventually split into three sections. That is nature's way. The current Shiite-dominated government is going to be a pawn of Iran. Is that what you want? Under Saddam, women could go out in public without a covering. Now the Shiites are imposing a theocracy. Is this your idea of success in Iraq? It is insanity to waste any more blood and money in this doomed occupation. Forget your wishful thinking...get real...and get out of Iraq now.

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 02:21am

90. lets see Philbq,,Jordan is an artificial country created by the UN. or maybe Zimbabwe, Mozambique, I know, Lichenstein,,no that won't work either. Malaysia or Indonesia,,,still can't get there..'nough said...it's irrelevant to the need to stablize the middle east and it won't happen by pulling out...Perhaps you would be happy with the Baathists launching even greater genocide against the Shiite's and Kurds..

    and yes I read, but the poll I cite is more current than the CIA analysis which many disagreed with in ours and other governments.

    and to your glowing back slaps to MrMurray, such nonsense. MrMurray cites no facts; just his view of events; I have equal first hand experience and have different conclusions on Vietnam, and so we both have in common ---OPINION

    Wars like this one are waged based upon the best intelligence you have, the advice of your military planners, and then it comes down to your best judment. I happen to agree with the President's judgment and you all do not...you will have your opportunity come 2008 to change that...but given the current performance by Dem's I don't see a leader among them.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 02:47am

91. How to Oppose a War

    John Nichols writes:

    With U.S. troops stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq, it is obvious that the lesson was not learned. And the only way they will get out alive is if more senators learn the lesson that Nelson taught: Start talking about withdrawal early and don't be afraid to vote your conscience.

    The problem in Vietnam was not that we became bogged down in a quagmire. Quagmires, as for instance, the mother of all quagmires, the Italian campaign of WWII, can be overcome. Our dilemma in VN was that we had nothing important to gain, even if we won. We were on the side of a corrupt military regime and opposed to a genuine national liberation movement. Moreover, our massive presence in SEA was forcing China to support the USSR, our real enemy. That at a time when China's national interests and ideological bent had turned her into a rival of Russia. Thus VN was a strategic mistake.

    Today's Iraq commitment, on the other hand, is strategically sound. It will remain a slog until enough motivated Iraqi troops become available, but there is every chance we can go the distance. No serious people on the home front doubt the importance of our effort. Our casualties are light. With loses at the current rate, we would not approach the Vietnam total for another 80 years. We have opened up tremendous possibilities for a critical region. We have much to gain in seeing it through.

    In February the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt told David Ignatius of the Washington Post:

    It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.

    In the Vietnam era various senators like Nelson, Morse and McCarthy, and journalists like Halberstam, Lippmann and Cronkite turned against the war; but not because they realized that the war was a quagmire. Rathern because they realized that it was not important to insist on a victory, it was not worth the candle. We did not hold the moral high ground. We did not have a vital stake there. To the contrary, our effort undermined America's overall power position.

    The motivation of today's pull-out advocates, like Nichols, is the reverse. They sense a victory is possible. Administration policy goals may be realized. America may come away with a splendid success. So let's leave quickly before we win.

    Nichols prefers to see Iraq in the hands of fascists who have declared democratic elections, free speech and religious toleration hateful to God. Better that than a Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz triumphant. That is his idea of real evil.

    Unconventional wisdom indeed. The Nation is establishing a curious record.

    Posted by nacl at 07/15/2005 @ 07:17am

92. To all you cheerleaders for this war: I have heard your arguments for continueing this occupation. I have found some of you to be reasonably interesting. I have not heard any convincing reason to continue to lose more U.S. personel, kill more Iraqi civilians, spend $5 billion per month while the Bush government is running record budget deficits. The argument that this war is making America more safe is ridiculous. Building democracy in the middle east was not the reason given for invading a nation who had not attacked the U.S. Congress authorized military action because of the supposed threat of WMD,remember? The war was sold as a lie. I am often critical of the history and policies of this nation because I hold the government to the high standard of truth, justice, and support for democratic principles. We enjoy the most free speech in the world. I have heard you, and you have heard me. I believe opposition to this war is a rational position. Enough said.

    Posted by philbq at 07/15/2005 @ 08:41am

93. I may not always come, but It still amazes me that people like Phil referenced MRMURRAY's opinion as fact and discredits LL when he does have facts that back his opinion. Let's face it, there are some people in the world that just want to see the US fail in everything we do. It is sad to say because we do have troops in heavy action and the tone is more of "I told you so", then what can we all do to help. It doesn't matter if you like the Pres or not, but we actually do have allies in the middle east and they do want democracy. Everyone dismisses these places as third world countries, but in places like Iran, the people are university educated and want to break free. They are looking for the spark to revolt against the "machine". I know you all think the US is the "machine", but over there it is the radical clerics that control everything, much like the Kings and princes of old Europe. The critical idea is that we work with the grass roots of the people, so Phil, if these "insurgents" that want peace in Iraq would allow the US to fulfill the promise of helping get the government established, rebuild the infrastructure that was badly in need of it (US bombing or not) and yes, build school systems tht will help the children of Iraq suckle on the principals of democracy. You never once mentioned the US involvement in WWI and WWII. My father was a WWII vet in the Battle of the Bulge. The children of that region, even today, write thank you letters to the American vets that helped free their nation of a brutal dictator.

    You all seem to defend the idea of a dictator as if it justified. Yes, we do live in the US and our policy was to take care of our own people. However, like most of bitch about how the consitiution must evolve in becoming a progressive "up to the time" system, then our view of the world has to change because the world is getting smaller. To sit back and know that innocent children are dying and not being feed by a dictator is wrong! I am not talking about Iraq. I am talking about countries in Africa and other places where the US and our EUROPEAN allies do not have interests. Places where the UN sends in UN Troops only to rape and kill them and have nothing done about it.

    The bottom line is that you all hate Bush and want to see him fail, so at the same time you are wishing our men and women come home in bags so you can make your case.

    If JFK was in office for a full 8 years, he would have kept the troops there. As much as the movies say and try to make him look like he wanted to pull out, he also knew deep in his soul that they couldn't because they were making a stand against the USSR. China did not influence USSR, that was in N Korea, so get you facts straight. I bet you all would have supported a full with draw from Korea! But look how well South Korea is doing because we actually saw something through.

    All the liberals always go to Vietnam, but Korea is the best case study to see how things can be successful.

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 08:56am

94. Phil, I'd like to hear more from the somnambulents out there who are still toeing the Bush line. Specifically, I'd like to hear their take on the pre-war pronouncements out of the administration (active WMD programs, vast WMD stockpiles, greeted as liberators, down to 30,000 troops by 09/2003, Iraqi oil revenue paying for the reconstruction, etc., etc., ad nauseum). NACL, LoveLiberty, Todd, et al, let's hear it...Were the administration mouthpieces telling lies, are they incompetent, or is there another explanation?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 08:57am

95. and Phil, it is ok to disagree. That is what we are trying to do...find better ideas that either side never thought about to come up with a better solution. I respect your opinions and do not think you are not a Patriot. We all need people with diverse opinions and if it takes screaming at each other once in a while, so be it. At lease we are walking away knowing we can express ourselves! All the best!

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:02am

96. I also though Nathan that this blog was for how to oppose war...I was blasted already for getting off topic.

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:03am

97. Dancall, you hopped in there while I was typing. Many of us who oppose Bush (and even some who hate him), do not wish to see him fail, because as he fails, this nation fails. Turn your sentence around: Because Bush continually fails, we "hate" him. In any event, I will assume that your non-answer means that, yes, the administration's pre-war pronouncements were one or the other, either lies or incompetence. I look forward to the other Bush apologists to weigh in on this question

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 09:10am

98. Nathane, I see your point and it is valid! Here is one that fits perfectly into what I think the problem is, France: "We have done everything we can to fight against terrorism" French president Jacques Chirac

    That is a pretty bold statement! Everything? Meaning if they are attacked he is passing the buck?

    Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:18am

99. Dancall: nice attempt at a parry, but you missed the thrust of my question. The Bush administration (i.e., the people who hold the executive power in U.S. government) with their pre-war pronouncements: lies, or evidence of incompetence?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 09:27am

100. Well, let's look at what this Wilson story is actually uncovering...that Iraq was actually looking for Yellow Cake in Iraq, which was reason to go to war. Wilson is a fraud. He was receiving and referring classified information that the CIA did not even have in the US 8 months prior to receiving them. You know, the documents that were said to be frauds to make it look like someone was trying to make the story real. How could he have known about that Nathan.

     Sadam did have Chemical plants in Sudan. we have the financials and we do have samples of soil that were the exact match to nerve gas. But in your world, it wasn;t in Iraq, so it doens;t matter. Let's see, we gave Sadaam a bunch of WMDs in the 80s and knew what the count was. They were never accounted for. Wouldn;t you think he had them? The Intel on the Senate confirmed the reasons to go to war, so hold your Dem Senators and Congressmen accountable because they saw the same thing coming from CIA and British intel from the days of the Clinton Administration. Let's find out why and what Sandy Berger stole and destroyed when he entered the highest classified documents in the US government. Was it a memo that Clinton himself said we need to go to war within the next 5 years to get Sadam out of power?

     Where did they go. Ask Clinton and the UN when we were not allowed in Iraq for 10 years after he broke every UN and US peace agreement. Maybe he sold them to Syria and Egyptian radicals who are using them inside Iraq today... Where are these guys getting their stuff from?

     Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:56am

101. Bush could have been stopped, but your Dem leaders have no backbones!

     Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:00am

102. Now, can we get back to John's question on how to oppose a war?

     Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:01am

103. Dancall, are you speaking from the Mehlman talking points on this? Please, no more diversions! According to the Bush administration, we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction, we would be down to 30,000 troops in Iraq by 09/2003. Lies or incompetence or something else?

     Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 10:07am

104. p.s., Dancall, this is on-topic: one of the themes of the article is, don't blindly accept the administration's lies.

     Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 10:28am

105. "I have not heard any convincing reason to continue to lose more U.S. personel, kill more Iraqi civilians, spend $5 billion per month while the Bush government is running record budget deficits. "

     My reasoning: we are killing the people that blow themselves up in airplanes in New York, and buses in London, before they kill more civilians.

     I know you don't like the reasoning, but for me, it's that simple.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/15/2005 @ 10:38am

106. "I will assume that your non-answer means that, yes, the administration's pre-war pronouncements were one or the other, either lies or incompetence. I look forward to the other Bush apologists to weigh in on this question "

     No, I would classify them as a "duping", in my opinion, Bush new he would have the "neocons" on board, he knew we would like the fact that we are killing terrorists. However he knew that just the neocons wasn't enough support to get the authorization legislation through congress, so he got with Blair and the whole downing street memo strategy was put in place to "form" the evidence around the policy.

     My gut say; moderates and progressives got duped.

     Anyway, that's just my two cents worth.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/15/2005 @ 10:41am

107. If the U.S. gets out of Iraq tomorrow, there will be an intensification of the Civil War between Shia and Sunni. At the present time, U.S. soldiers and contractors are trying to patch together some stability in electrical and water systems and protect vital oil distribution and revenue. This is not how to fight a strategic war. It is however exactly how good military tactics get entrapped into a long term civil war that takes on all the vulnerabilities of a "quagmire". BushyBoy is not a good commander in chief at all. He has allowed the strategic plan of fighting a no-holds-barred war against terrorist non-state agents and States, to become de-railed. The U.S. troops that have and are fighting have, overall, been amazingly effective. The mess of policing prison detainment [like Abu G.] was been a horrendous mess and well exploited by many opposed to the Iraq-smack. BushyBoy was not up front with the nation at all, lied tons and didn't need to do any of that. A real strategic war requires no lies like that. And U.S. intel was and still is shallow. We have few who understand the Mideast, fewer still who even speak Arabic. This places the US at a great disadvantage and opens the US to major tactical errors and adds to loss of life. It will take years to build the intelligence networks in the Mideast so as to be able to break down Sunni militia networks. And the U.S. will have to assist moderate Sunni and Shia to do this work. The Iraqi's will have many years apparently to fight for the building of their new nation. The U.S. military will do best in halting as much as possible, both Syrian and Iranian efforts to keep the US "tied down to Baghdad". The U.S. military needs to follow through and strike Syria and Iran. No occupation needed. Reduce their industrial, electrical and military installations to rubble...and that includes all nuclear facilities. Doubt any of this will please the UN.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 11:46am

108. Philbq, glad to respond to your request below:

     Phil, I'd like to hear more from the somnambulents out there who are still toeing the Bush line. Specifically, I'd like to hear their take on the pre-war pronouncements out of the administration (active WMD programs, vast WMD stockpiles, greeted as liberators, down to 30,000 troops by 09/2003, Iraqi oil revenue paying for the reconstruction, etc., etc., ad nauseum). NACL, LoveLiberty, Todd, et al, let's hear it...Were the administration mouthpieces telling lies, are they incompetent, or is there another explanation?

     If the consensus of intel organizations around the world agreed that Saddam still had WMD (and would not provide any proof that he had destroyed them) and posed a threat to 1)regional stability, 2)Israel, 3) his known support and relationships to Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations (see 9/11 Comm Report), 4) his continued firing on US and British Aircraft, 5) his history of WMD use, firing SCUDS at Israel during Gulf I, 6)his meglamanicial belief that he was either the reincarnated Nebuchadnezzar or a modern version who would rule all of the Middle East, the future threat of how his sons would rule who were by every account totally mad and even more bent on cruelty than Saddam himself; then President Bush acted prudently as anyone reasonable person would if faced with a rabid dog who must be put down before they hurt someone, NOT AFTER.

     As to being greeted as liberators, well while an overblown claim, it did happen and I have seen the proof from my son and his buddies who were with the 1/5 Marines that first crossed the Euphrates into Baghdad. Their pictures told the story; and their stories to me about the gratitude of many, many Iraqis were very heartwarming. To suggest or even think that anyone was suggesting there would be universal and complete joy denies reality.

     As to "down to 30,000 troops" comment. Anyone who knows anything about warfare is that seldom does any warplan go exactly to plan. I seem to recall that Clinton told Congress and the American people that we would only have troops in Bosnia for a year. Last I heard they are still there.

     As to the oil revenue, a good point and question. But that is not by negligence or due to some greed by the US. It is mainly due to the insurgents who don't want to see a new Iraq that is free to develop...

     Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 11:46am

109. If anyone is looking for "the moral high ground" during a War, it will be quite difficult to find this heavenly space. The irony is that in seeking and trying to apply it, many more lives will be wasted. If the U.S. is to "leave Iraq", it will be to leave it to its own magnified civil war. The U.S. did not create the irrational "State" of Iraq....Britain did. Check out a terrifically brillant book by Fromkin, "The Peace to End All Peace". Excellent history. The U.S. cannot change that history. We have done well to open a moment of space so that some basic forms of Democratic practices can begin. But the Iraqi people have to seize the day. It is there children's future that Radical Islamic Fundamentalists are blowing up. Sadly enough, "at the end of the day", the civil war now unfolding in Iraq may well end to be fought. Iran is actively trying to make sure that pro-Iranian radicals successfully de-rail any democractic state in Iraq. US military strategy should be pointed directly at the forehead of the Mullah dictatorship in Iran.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 11:57am

110. BushyBoy is a poor commander in chief because he did not listen to his commanders knowledge of what it would take to carry this war into Iraq fast and effectively and then "settle in" to "bring order out of chaos". Commanders in the Army, testifying that many more troops would be needed, were removed from command. Rumsfeld's political program failed miserably through hubris, underestimation of the enemy and failure to take absolutely seriously "worst case scenarios" like guerrilla warfare. Even progressive folks should be willing to examine the real possibility that this War is real; not a creation of a U.S. rogue-states, even if there is real and correct rejection of BushyBoys duplicity and ravishment of the U.S. environment and his allowing corporations to profitize Social Security. These domestic agendas have and will continue to pulverize the middle and working class of America. But the fact that I believe is inescapable is this: reclarification of the real strategic plan to blast terrorist powers to pieces needs to be swift. I do not see this being possible without an expansion of War into Syrian and Iranian territory. The President has not made this clear at all to either the people of our nation or to the Syrian and Iranian governments. It will be too late to wait for the next election to do this; but Democrat's that plans to offer themselves as a Presidential candidate can make this point now while at the same time offering the absolutely connected point: the U.S. needs a new Strategic National Energy program started on the basis of a New Deal type-emergency. Off oil dependency as fast as possible; solarize the entire nation, development of all soft energy; manditory hybridization of all vehicles in the US; oil as a strategic resource owned by the US government, not Exxon-Mobil.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 12:41pm

111. ...and lastly, withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S. troops should end the illusion that "nation building" [which was the ideological great concept during the Vietnam War -- remember Walt Rostow? -- by the U.S. military can or should ever be allowed. When this started to occur, Sec. of State should have resigned under public and loud protest. He did not...and the massively poor planning and march of folly unfolded onto the lap...again!...of the brave American soldier. That is why the U.S. should remove U.S. troops immediately. Let the Iraq people build their nation.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 1:44pm

112. CHRIS BARRETT

     If anyone is looking for "the moral high ground" during a War, it will be quite difficult to find this heavenly space [in Iraq].

     That is patently untrue.

     How could the high moral ground be less difficult to find?

     On the one side is a regime freely elected by 8 million voters, an electorate that risked its life when it trooped to the polls. On the other there are insurgents who behead journalist, ram explosive laden cars into civilian crowds and declare democracy, free speech and religious toleration, against God.

     To gloss over that is to ignore the vilest criminal fanatics since Heydrich hanged democrats from meat hooks.

     Instead of ceaselessly yapping, think.

     Posted by nacl at 07/15/2005 @ 2:26pm

113. Sorry. Did not mean to "ceaselessly yap"! As you state in your contrast, morality is bloodily evident and distinct. And many good humanitarian people of many nations have worked so hard and displayed amazing and loving courage in helping so many Iraqi. There are some good points of openings towards a future of Democracy in Iraq...surely in part because of these honorable efforts. And I do try and think careful.....sometimes I do over simplify.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 2:45pm

114. And I find your historical reference to Heydrich/the SS and Saddams squard of fascists absolutely on target.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 2:47pm

115. Having said this NACL, we would then encourage U.S. troops to continue "nation building" you think? Perhaps fortify the Green Zone with higher walls?

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 2:58pm

116. I review and note your thought: "Today's Iraq commitment, on the other hand, is strategically sound. It will remain a slog until enough motivated Iraqi troops become available, but there is every chance we can go the distance." Strategic? Hope so. I hope that the Bush team has also a strategy for Iranian missiles with nuclear weapons on board. I say this not flippantly but with prayerful hope. I am hopeful as well that the Iraqi people continue to build a democratic coalition with moderate Sunni who get tired of murdering there of Islamic brothers, sisters and children. ...just thinking.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 3:22pm

117. In reply to loveliberty.

     Perhaps i should first state i'm an Australian. I know little of American politics, of what your media tells or withholds from you, or of what your political divisions mean, beyond what can be discovered from the internet. That may or may not be evident from what i say here.

     You start by stating :"If the consensus of intel organizations around the world agreed that Saddam still had WMD (and would not provide any proof that he had destroyed them)"

     First, if you go back to the reports shortly before the war, you will quickly note that the UN inspectors after 10 years of poking, prodding, digging and destroying had looked all over Iraq and were stating that it was unlikely any WMD existed, pointing to the history of WMD destroyed in Gulf War I, their own history of investigation and weapon destruction, and the fact the WMD's had limited useful lives that had expired before war was declared. You might say Saddam had the inspectors wrapped around his finger of course. Subsequent history has shown them to be absolutely right, so i don't regard that as a serious argument.

     Second, there was no consensus of intel organizations on the subject of Saddam's WMD, indeed during the build up to war, even the CIA's own reports and analysts were split between those that said yay and those that said nay. I believe your Senate's report said the opposite, however that is only what they say now. At the time there were as many anti-WMD reports from intelligence services as pro-WMD ones. It was the Bush administration which transformed uncertainty about the subject into claims of hidden factories and rebuilt nuclear ambitions. Which is to say that it was Bush who lied purposefully, consistently, deliberately, and since it was in an effort to start a war that must mean many deaths, maliciously.

     Finally, to "provide proof that he had destroyed them" is the same as saying "provide proof that he did not have them", which is virtually impossible - no matter how many sand dunes are checked and DONT have secret WMD factories under them it can always be claimed the next after where they stopped did. Therefore, where the burden of proof lies on the defendant, suspicion alone, even where prudent, cannot be treated as proof.

     You then list 5 reasons war was necessary. None hold up to scutiny, to wit:

     "posed a threat to 1)regional stability,"

     He most certainly did not. a) he had not made any moves for 10 years at that time, since he had nothing to move with. b) he had lost all support regionally and globally, and would not have been positioned to make any moves had he been able to. c) If he had been positioned and able to, he would have been moving against countries well able to defend themselves - please recall that 20 years ago, with Iraq at its peak and the support of the west (and even the east), he was unable to beat Iran, which had lost most of its army in a violent revolution.

     "2)Israel,"

     See response to above. I only add that of all the countries in the region, Israel is the MOST able to defend themselves.

     "3) his known support and relationships to Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations (see 9/11 Comm Report)"

     The report speculates about, not establishes, ties to Al Q. Further, the CIA, who have been directly concerned with Iraq for years, themselves have dismissed this accusation as unsupported by evidence.

     ", 4) his continued firing on US and British Aircraft,"

     He has sporadically fired on aircraft that were CONTINUOUSLY violating Iraqi airspace, an obviously defensive action that was not any kind of serious threat to any other country. I add that Iraq has also been sporadically bombed throughout the period since Gulf War I ended. This may explain why foreign military aircraft over Iraq were shot at.

     Further, it is now acknowleged by both US and UK that they started bombing Iraq BEFORE Gulf War II officially started. The Japanese tried something similar just prior to WWII i recall. No doubt you will see no similarity.

     "5) his history of WMD use, firing SCUDS at Israel during Gulf I,"

     He never fired WMD armed scuds at Israel, and never would have, not against the only nuclear armed regime in the region. His history of WMD use, like his history of WMD construction, had ended 10 years before Gulf War II, and Israel can defend itself against attcks both WMD and conventional. Also, since you would no doubt point out that in war we must do all kinds of ugly, out of character things, why select what decisions were made DURING WARTIME as examples of dangerous behaviour? Now if you could show where he did this in PEACEtime, i'd agree he was a mad dog.

     "6)his meglamanicial belief that he was either the reincarnated Nebuchadnezzar or a modern version who would rule all of the Middle East,"

     This is propaganda. Embarrassingly obvious propaganda by demonisation. Whoever wrote that expects us to believe they personally know Saddam so well they can read his thoughts, to the point of even knowing his most silly, irrational beliefs.

     "the future threat of how his sons would rule who were by every account totally mad and even more bent on cruelty than Saddam himself"

     Agreed, they were chips off the old block, but the block was falling apart anyway, so where is the danger to the region or the world?

     Thus we see that Mr Hussein was contained in what disasters he might cause, that his ugly history of WMD and attacking his neighbours was neither a clear nor present danger, indeed was receeding into becoming historial fact, outside of political speeches anyway. He had not changed of course, but his horrors must be weighed against the horrors of war to remove him.

     Thus Mr Bush was not simply being prudent, was not being reasonable, and was being rational only in so far as he and his power base could profit from war, regardless of its overall effect in the region and the world. He was being the absolute aggressor, confident no doubt that any excuse would be good enough for his supporters (you have already shown this, thank you very much)

     Your story about your son's experiences was good to hear, but just one problem - Take a look at Mike Moore's "Farenheit 9/11", and you will quickly see that he includes similar footage from inside Iraq taken while Saddam was still in charge. I conclude that happy Iraqis might well be heartwarming, but their existence PROVES very little indeed. A zogby poll from last year found 71% of Iraqis wanted western forces to leave, and a majority wanted us out, even if the security situation worsened because of it. Given that they have been invaded, this is exactly what commonsense would indicate. I conclude that contrary to your implications, it is the Iraqis who support the occupation that represent minority opinion.

     Finally, your last sentence is full of errors:

     "As to the oil revenue, a good point and question. But that is not by negligence or due to some greed by the US. It is mainly due to the insurgents who don't want to see a new Iraq that is free to develop... "

     My mind always boggles that conservatives, of all people, can't see that the insurgents are mostly average Iraqis driven by the fact their country, and in many cases their neighbourhood, have been invaded by a foreign army. It is mind boggling squared when you expect them to simply put blind faith in the good intentions of an invader.

     Your statement "that is not by negligence or due to some greed by the US." is true only in so far as Halliburton and its rivals are not "the US". In the real world though, the oil and the profits made from it have been handed to foreign companies, are largely produced by foreign contractors, and so the bulk of the profits leave Iraq for overseas. (We see now why US companies, like Halliburton, were given such preferential treatment in the handing of these contracts).

     Some will say here "but only [insert large company here] has the resources and the knowledge to rebuild their industries". Wrong again. Iraqi history shows they built their own industry in the first place using local people and resources. There was some external assistance and instruction, of course, but they did the bulk of the work themselves, and maintained Iraqi control over it. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein, which tarnishes that fact somewhat, but still, the profits stayed in Iraq and they were responsible for their own wealth - a situation utterly at odds with the one imposed on them currently.

     But worse than the direct corruption (ie. Theft) involved is that by taking over their oil industry, far from giving them jobs, they have effectively been shut out of their own industry, and worse still, their country's only real source of wealth. This is why many of the most educated and highly trained Iraqis have been leaving the country. In many ways that will be as damaging to their country as the war itself - it can only lead to large segments of Iraq becoming locked into poverty. Pop quiz, libertylover, what ideology recruits from large poor, primarily arab populations?

     So in effect, not only are they asked to put faith in the good intentions of their invaders, they are asked to ignore clear evidence to the contrary as well.

     Thus we see now that the average Iraqi has no reason to support "development" that will be no assistance to them. Thus they have every reason to attack what is now the property of the occupier, and virtually none to care what happens to it. So they attack us by blowing up pipelines and interrupting our fuel supply, QED.

     Posted by passerby at 07/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

118. I find some solid points here Passerby. I work with a fine Kurdish fellow at my workplace; he is quite well educated with a doctorate from England. But he does miss his entire family. They did not make it out of their village near Mosul before Saddam rockets with chemical toxins killed them all. Of course, Allied jets prodded and probed and tried to pull out Saddam's defenses...for all the UN sanctioned rules, the US did consider itself at War. Saddam was quite militarily defanged by Desert Storm indeed. I find that you are largely correct about the resentiment and anger, the frustration and anguish of many many Iraqi of the mess and mayhem of what they see as "occupation" and this pulls with the force of gravity Al Qaeda into a fresh field to exploit. And as well, the Bush teams duplicity and much of the corporate theft is entirely repulsive. It was also duplicitous and repulsive to know of French and German corporations profiteering from armaments and missile parts to Saddam and such. I believe this is where all hands can be found to be not so clean. For example, and related to the regional issues of trying to extricate from War as Nichols discusses, Russian investments in Iranian nuclear technology cannot help but continue strategies of war. Pakistan supplying nuclear technology the same. The drift of things is dangerous for all. So U.S. withdrawal from Iraq may not after all but much more than a time to reload. If the UN had any influence left at all, it should well support measures to place inspectors permanently inside Iran and push hard for global nuclear disarmament. Let us hope this happens....and soon.

     Posted by Chris Barrett at 07/15/2005 @ 4:20pm

119. Passerby..I'm not sure where you get your information from; I and others have posted the remarks of more than just the current US and British gov'ts, but the statements of Chirac, Bill Clinton, the Butler Report (Non partisan UK commission) and Saddam's neighbors all indicated belief that he still had WMD

     The Inspectors did not have 10 years of prodding and investigating and finding no proof of WMD..There were no inspectors from 1998 until those few months before the invasion in 2003. The UN inspection team themselves reported to the UN that Saddam had submitted a report saying he destroyed them but provided no proof. Only a fool would take that with any confidence.

     Where do you get that the insurgents are mostly common people..There is no intelligence reports that show that. The 4 primary factions of "insurgents" are as follows:

     1. Zarqawi and his Al Quaeda supporters

     2. Former Baathist military personnel

     3. Mullah Al Sadr with help from Iran

     4. Foreign nationals/suicide terrorists (these make up the largest group of suicide bombers) but not necessarily the largest group

     Finally there are those who feel (mostly from Sunni factions) that their only way to show their contempt for the occupation but also as shown in their recent negotiations are using force as a negotiating lever.

     Anyone who gives Michael Moore any level of credibility displays either ignorance or willful desire to ignore fact. Because that is Moore's modus operendi. He has virtually disappeared here in the US because he is so discredited and proven to be a liar and hypocrite.

     On Israel, I assume therefore, you don't support mutual defense agreements between allies? Fortunately in your own country, your leaders do find them worthy.

     on Saddam and Nebuchadnezzar, there have been reports and some documentation over the course of more than 20 years showing this to be his belief as noted in this article from the History News Network.

     http://hnn.us/articles/1305.html [url]

     I hope this provides some additional clarity to my points

     Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 4:38pm