sexual_chocolate

Hey fairweather, I like how you're coming along with this anti-war stuff. See ya Saturday!

But I do drift, don't I? "1,2,3,4, We don't want your fucking war! 1, 2,3,4, we don't want your fucking war!" Or maybe "Hey hey ho ho, little shrub has got to go! Hey hey ho ho, little shrub has got to go!" Now doesn't that get you all excited?!?!?

They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President, if I'm not mistaken. It shows you don't have a clue about the military community, Iain. It was already mentioned by Off White, but I thought I'd chime in. Nice idealism, greg, but many of our recent "war" engagements have had rather dubiuous constitutional underpinnings. Only the "obey all orders" section really speaks to reality. Remember: As a member of the military, you are a tool for the political establishment, plain and simple. The president, who is often elected by a majority vote, holds the keys to your future. Remember this when thinking about enlisting.

Oh trask trask trask, my little pony. What troubles your mind so on this bee-you-tiful evening? Something about NATO? A little premature to start war preparations when we haven't decided to have a war, right? Trask goes "Grr frrk arrr brrrphhh".

Ouch. The painful truth. I hate the consequences of what iain posted above, but how can anyone argue with it? Anyone in the military is simply the current administration's tool for implementing their version of foreign (and domestic) policy. This can't be argued. I have respect for individuals whose ideals lead them to service in the armed forces (depending on the ideals!), but I personally don't want to be ANY administration's tool. Plus, almost every military situation has a non-military solution, I believe. Violence only seems to beget violence, and I'd rather leave this earth having done my best to promote peace and understanding, instead of militarism and nationalism.

Hey, you're learning US foreign policy just fine! Saddam would appreciate your sensibilities....

Thanks, Bilbo. And Dwayner, of course I agree with at least part of what you say. There is effective protest, and ineffective protest. The more marginalized the protest, in terms of fashion and tactics, the more marginalized the results. But I'm not gonna sit here with a sanctimonious tone lecture to others about their chosen form of protest. Personally I'd like to see a businessman's protest, with major media and business and political elite in suits and ties, headed by Schwartzkoff (put your money where your mouth is!). I think this would turn some heads. But so will millions of people marching in many major cities world-wide. I truly believe it will make a difference, if not now, at least in the longer term.

Sounds like the only solution left. Will the battle cage be in your backyard, in the chicken coop next to the rusting El Camino?

True. Hence the quotes.

Simple minds, simple cliches.

I think we already know each other's arguments.

Is this why gas prices have spiked of late? Hardly the only reason, Sparky. Perhaps instability about Iraq might have something to do with it? Hmmm....You seem to know better than most futures traders!

Ah Jeez, fellas. What were your thoughts on the Long-shoreman strike here on the west coast last fall, you know, the one that Bush threatened to end with federal troops?!?!? Hmmmm......

Ah yes, the ever-present "pseudo hippie wanna-be", outnumbering us "normal" folk by such a wide margin!

What's the bigger picture?!?!?

Jesus people, this was stated in the original declaration given to the UN. Hans Blix will recommend dismantling them, hopefully Iraq will comply (kind of a tough one though, with the US on the border, ready to attack. Give up your weapons, then get attacked!?!?!) More proof that the inspections are working. Simple.

As far as North Korea striking us with a pre-emptive strike. I find that laughable. * As soon as they launched a missile toward this country ten more would be in the air going the other way. That ought to be enough to end that problem. Kim Jung II may be a nutcase, but he is not suicidal. If Korea strikes the U.S., Korea will cease to exist as a country. * Suppose anyone in California is still opposed to a ballistic missile defense system? hehehe Substitute "Iraq" for "North Korea" above. Any questions?

Interesting reactions! Thanks for that info, jb. Pretty amazing the international reaction to Bush's war-mongering! I think people overseas see so much more clearly the foreign policy aims of the US. If you have misgivings about the potential war, I'd seriously consider attending if I were you. Don't let the cynics here sway you with their opinions about the street puppets and what-not. They seem to be simply tired reactionaries, old before their time. Sure protests draw freaks, so what? I'd rather hang with the street puppet freaks than the cynic freaks any day! And I personally wouldn't hang with Dwayner, at least until he gets his ass into therapy for his delusions of grandeur (and humor).

What is this a) option? Giving in? I kinda thought he'd already done that.... Can you tell me which particular article in Resolution 14(??) he's in violation of? And yeah, I'm all in favor of allowing more time for inspections. I think it gives time for the debate to flesh out a bit, gaining a bit more context than at present. Right now the argument is being fought on the US' terms, and it's quite not healthy. I love Ari Fleisher's line: "We'll see if NATO makes itself irrelevant." As if relevancy is only awarded to those who agree with the US! What a vulgar bastard! Bush is using this same form of argument with the UN, and it really stinks, and I wish more people here would see through it. I think many others do, especially overseas. I would imagine that a lot of anti-US sentiment is being fomented right now, and I can only imagine what form it might take in the future: Larger and larger alliances between nations, in opposition to US hegemony? Harder and harder for the US to win cooperation on trade and other issues in the future? More terrorist attacks are a given....Certainly unsafer for all of us to travel anywhere. Thanks, Bush. We don't have an armed cavalcade to march us around. And now the administration is trying to use the recently released bin Laden tape as evidence of Qaeda/Iraqi ties? Come on, people! Osama calls Hussein a socialist infidel! Not a sign of an alliance, for god's sake!

What has Saddam conceded, mattp? What does he HAVE to concede? I swear the administration has the most liberal thinkers here pissing their pants about the potential of Iraqi aggression. They weren't a threat previous to '91, nor are they a threat now, although we've tried our hardest to make EVERYONE a threat through our empiric methodologies. And the division between us and our "allies": I'd hardly call it a problem! I'd call it the voice of sanity staying the course in the face of bribery, threats, tantrums. I heard even the IMF has gotten into the game of bribery, telling certain countries that if they don't toe the line, funding will be threatened. Cool! And again I ask you all: What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? No one seems to want to tackle this one, which I find quite telling....No one wants to THINK about it, cuz it puts a blush on war rhetoric....

For those of you who feel it imperative to let your voices be heard, February 15 offers a great chance to do this. There will be a Protest March from Seattle Center to the INS, starting at 1 pm. A rally will be held at 12 pm, prior to the march. More info. (Just scroll to the bottom of the page!) Hope to see everyone who doesn't agree with the current state of affairs. Cheers!

Maybe you are privy to information that I haven't seen. The only reports I have seen indicate an active Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, including the rebuilding of their military training camps. Again, based on what I have heard, most of the approximately 8,000 US troops are concentrated around Kabul, protecting the presidency of Karzai, while the rest of the country has fallen under the "aegis" of warlords. Women still wear burkas, because they fear being raped. Extortion and bribery are common, with disappearances the norm. The aid promised by the western allied forces has not materialized. If the above is true, then I would think that our adventure in Afghanistan was entirely pointless, and models accurately what the people in Iraq can expect. Such is the case when national foreign policy is dictated by a short-sighted domestic axis of evil: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Another point worth making: Many voices opposing the US/Iraq alliance aren't necessarily objecting to the "hypocrisy". I believe one huge objection is Bush's continued portrayal of Hussein's "gassing his own people" as an uncondoned act, immoral beyond belief, when in fact the US knew very well it was happening, WHEN it was happening, and even moved to block UN censure at that time. The US could very likely have ended the gassings with a strategic intervention, but obviously did not wish to do so, since that would not have been in accord with our national interests. If this is not objectionable to you on many fronts, I find empathy welling up for you. You seem to excuse much in the name of "national interest". Again, regarding my statements about Afghanistan, if you have info to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

Of course those would be the apologist answers given when justifying US foreign policy maneuverings. Anything else would be "un-American", by golly, and verging on "intellectual dishonesty", right? WWII I personally feel to be a rather poor example through which to examine any conflict we have had since. Hitler, if I understand his motives correctly, was intent on an expansionist policy (much akin to a policy of ours which unfortunately "inconvenienced" a few Natives) which had as an end goal perhaps global domination. The argument can certainly be made that the former USSR had a similar plan, although I'd be hard-pressed to say right now that they had one any more pressing than we did. To compare these cases to Iraq borders on hysterical, and if it wasn't for this possible explanation, would certainly reek of more "intellectual dishonesty" than anythign I've heard said here before. And a question to the war advocates: What do you think we accomplished in Afghanistan?

We're lining up votes in the senate. It'll be close, but I think with the republican majority, it might be out of reach. All humor aside, I think everyone should read the former attorney general's book on US war crimes during the first Iraqi war. Compelling, to say the least. The massacres were horrific, and if any other country had behaved that way, inditements would have happened (unless they were a US ally!). And as we prepare for Iraqi war (which I'm still not at all certain will happen), we should take a moment to see how we're faring in Afghanistan. Did you all know that most of our 8,000 troops still left in the country are concentrated around Kabul, protecting Karzai's "presidency" (which only has influence over that city). The rest of the country seems to have fallen back to the war lords that reigned supreme before the Taliban, with rape and murder, extortion and bribery the name of the game. And the women still wear burkas! And the Al-Qaeda training camps are rebuilding themselves, and Osama is nowhere to be found. Quite the victory there, let me tell you! And blindly we rush forth to our next military exercise, ready to destroy another country, making it free for umm...well... hmmm....haven't thought that far ahead, now have we? God, just gotta love our foreign policy! We'll all be paying for it for years to come. Thanks, Bush inc.

People minded. I minded. I also never really did like the guy too much. Duplicity.