« there once was a girl with a heart | Main | what would rall draw? »

couldn't the money used on this ad have fed some hungry children?

My sister Lisa (who is a great source of information and blogging material and should have her own blog) called me this morning to relay something she saw on Fox and Friends.

It was an ad for TrueMajority.org, featuring everybody's favorite socialist, Susan Sarandon. It was a simple ad, called Win Without War, with Sarandon speaking. (see ad here)

Susan Sarandon: "Before our kids start coming home in body bags, and women & children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know... What did Iraq do to us?"

Edward Peck (Former US Ambassador to Iraq) replies: "The answer is
nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al Quaeda. it's neighbors dont even think ts a threat. invading Iraq will increase terrorism, not reduce it."

Black background w/white letters: WHY RUSH INTO WAR?

Black background w/white letters: LET THE INSPECTORS WORK.

While speaking, in the backgrounds are images of military cemetery, Iraqi woman and child, bombs, shelled buildings, and fire....

Let's leave that question alone for a minute.

True Majority seems to be an offshoot of Priorities, Inc., which itself is the parent of Entertainers for Sensible Priorities, which boasts as one of its members that paragon of truth and virtue, Ted Turner. You know, Ted. The guy who married the woman who embraced our enemies in the Vietnam war; the guy who said the hijackers of the planes on September 11 were "brave."

True Majority itself was founded by Ben Cohen, the hippy who founded Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and the man who has spearheaded a campaign to let a cop-killer go free.

Now that you know about the people behind this "public service announcement," let's address the words in the ad.

Just as the left is crying for proof that Iraq has weapons and that Iraq has ties to al-Queda, they should offer proof that Iraq does not have ties to Muslim terrorists or that they had nothing to do with September 11.

However, it is widely known as fact that Saddam himself pays the families of Palestinian sucide bombers. But that does not matter to the very people who embrace these terrorists and the families who praise their terror as victims.

True Majority wants world peace, wants to end poverty and hunger, wants the world to be a wonderful place full of happy, shiny people.

Yet they ask the questions "What has Iraq done to us?"

A bit isolationist, no?

Let's ask instead what have the leaders of Iraq have done to their own people. I think we all know the answer to that.

Why doesn't Susan Sarandon care? Why doesn't TrueMajority.org want to free the people of Iraq?

Or perhaps they do want to free the people, but in their simple minds, they think we can just ask Saddam to stop - maybe if we ask real nice - and he will.

Well we did. 12 years later, we are still waiting

UPDATE: Nick Gillespie at Hit and Run blogs that the spot is supposed to ad before the State of the Union address tonight.

Comments

Black background w/white letters: WE DON'T WANT TO PISS OFF THE CRAZY PEOPLE, DO WE?

I wish someone would point out to Susan, et al, how close to Charles Lindberg's "America First" speeches her specious arguments are....

"before women and children are killed in Baghdad..."

Um...women and children have already been killed in Baghdad! Saddam has allowed, how many to die, because he'd rather build golden palaces? How many women have been snatched off the street to be raped and killed by his illustrious sons? Enemies, real and imagined, tortured for Saddams pleasure?

Susan has no problem with Saddam armed with WMD???

Idiotarian extraordinare!!!

Here's what I got out of it...

Susan Sarandon: PEOPLE OF IRAQ. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. WHAT??? YOU'RE HUNGRY? YOU FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE? YOU LIVE DAILY UNDER A DICTATORSHIP? YOU LEADER KILLS HIS OWN PEOPLE? WELL, NOW, THAT'S NOT AMERICA'S PROBLEM, IS IT?????

However, it is widely known as fact that Saddam himself pays the families of Palestinian sucide bombers. But that does not matter to the very people who embrace these terrorists and the families who praise their terror as victims.

Just replace "Saddam" by "Bush" and "Palestinian suicide bombers" by "Israeli Butchers" and we're getting somewhere.

Free Iraq!
Fry Mumia!

The Israelis are not butchering anyone. A few soldiers might get trigger-happy now and again, but can you really blame them when they're surrounded by a population of suicide-bomber supporters? The Palestinians advocate suicide-bombing because they think it's the only way to draw attention to their "plight." Last time I checked, though, killing innocent Israelis wasn't exactly working in their favor. Killing innocent people to promote a cause NEVER works.

Don't you just love the rhetoric that the Sarandons engage in?

"TrueMajority"

Who writes this stuff, high-school kids?

Rhesa, you might also point out to Jay that the "trigger-happy" Israeli soldiers are prosecuted, condemned and dealt with justly - Palestinian murderers on the other hand are worshipped and celebrated!

Sure let's liberate Iraq by killing them with bombs. That ought to help. Let's send in your kids first to do the dirty work, while the privileged and the connected stay home to hide in their bunkers and their biological-attack proof suits. You know Bush has more issues to deal with than just France, Germany or the UN or even the whiney left...he also has some pretty respected (and former vets) in his own party to deal with on this as well. I too am a registered republican, and I am not sold yet, sorry if that makes me a fascist, commie, pinko, lefty, anti-American ex-patriate. True Susan should just shut up and stop making flaky ads, Sean Penn should go back to making funny movies about life in high school, and Cheryl Crow should go back to trying to figure out how to make a living off one or two songs but some of their points are valid--and one of them seems to be before they send my kids off into harms way, they should be a little more forthcoming about why they are interupting their lives here at home to do so. Is that really too much to ask? Sure Saddam is a bad guy, there are a lot of those guys out there, what are we going to do send our kids over to every country that doesn't like us or doesn't run their show like we do? And what makes us so great anyway, we smallpoxed are own people once upon a time in this country ourselves---we had kurds too, but we needed to expand so we took their land by making them sick and starving them to death. Gas or small pox...what's the difference? And where is the proof that Saddam had connections to 9/11...show us that and I think the war effort would get far more support. What, did Saddam have a set of monkey bars that the al-Qaeda played on once somewhere out in the wilderness of Northern Iraq is that what we think connects him to the terrorism. If he funds the Palestinians, here is another idea, let Israel's military deal with that--they seem to be able to hold their own in such things--why don't they bomb him? Why don't they send their kids in there? So many questions remain to be answered, but all the answers seem to be geared towards some kind of makeshift JUST DO IT reasoning. I think we need to be careful. Maybe if Bush or Cheney or Rush or Hannity or Rumsfeld had ever actually had the sack to be in a war and not let their privileged status keep them from it, maybe they would be more careful.

The same thing could be said about our own government. I'm guessing that you have some clue of how much an add costs during the superbowl?
Well about half way through we had an add with the rediculous "Drugs cause Terrorism" campaign. I'm pretty confident the millions of dollars that was payed for this commercial could have been better applied to feeding the poor in this country. Or maybe helping drug abusers get clean but instead it went to an absurd add that noone listens to or belives anyways. Besides, who's doing opiates these days.

By the way...why not just send a special ops group in their to just wax Saddam and/or everyone that looks like him? Love your blog by the way...thanks for making me think.

If Susan’s ads are successful, and Saddam stays in power, Iraqi women and children will die. Maybe that’s why many Iraqi immigrants support the war.

What did Iraq ever do to us - do these people think that Saddam is our friend? He supports Palestinian terrorism. These groups have already killed American and have made several threats against the US.

It would be nice if the UN inspectors could work, but they’re being bothered by Iraqi dissidents pleading ‘save me’ and holding notebooks that could be full of useful information. It takes those UN inspectors so much time to turn those dissidents over to the Iraqi police that they have no time to inspect. And why do they always neglect to mention the fact that the threat of war allowed the inspections in the first place.

Insurance Salesmen use the term ‘fear, uncertainty and death’ – (FUD). They don’t use reason to sell you more insurance than you need - they ask ‘what would your family do if you were hit by a bus tomorrow?’ That’s what these anti-war types are using, with this ad and the Daisy ad - FUD, not logic.

I would be willing to bet money that "wilt" has never served in the military either.

That is safer money than "Bucs by 21" at 3 to 1 odds was a couple of days ago.

Tu quoque!

Milt- Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all served in the military. They are the ones making the decisions, not Hannity or Rush. Have YOU served, by the way?
'liberate Iraq by killing them with bombs'? Even the most outlandishly high estimates of civilian casualties for the Afghan conflict amount to less than four thousand. Even granting the fact that the count may be higher (though I suspect actually lower) in any takeover of Iraq, do you understand that Unicef has stated that over HALF A MILLION Iraqi children have died because of Saddam's misuse of the Oil for Food program and general poor care of his people? How many died in Afghanistan during just one month of Taliban rule? And I never understand the argument that because there are a lot of OTHER bad guys in the world we should ignore this one... what's with that? Even without any link AT ALL between Iraq and 9/11, there are over ten UN resolutions that he is in violation of, a cease-fire agreement that he has never honored, a history of obsession with WMD and the will to use them, and regime that is perhaps only second to North Korea's in brutality and totalitarian control through fear and hunger. And you wonder why our young men and women should get off the comfy couch and help these people while protecting our interests and safety, and those of the region, let alone world? Just WHEN SHOULD they then? When Iraq invades Kuwait again? When ANOTHER million Iraqi's starve? When Saddam DOES get a nuke and can vaporize Tel Aviv if we do something that threatens his regime?

Random thoughts... just saw a pointy headed catholic guy on TV saying we should talk it out with SHussein. Okay, but where the f* has he been the last ten years. Maybe the Lincoln bedroom.

"What did Iraq do to us?" Iraq didn't do anything to us. But as a citizen of the world (no I'm not a crazy bleeding heart liberal), Saddam Hussein has murdered countless untold of my cousins. Do I need more? And I am just a lame southern white boy.

"Why rush into war?" "Let the inspectors work?"

Oh hell, where did the 90's go?

milt:

"we had kurds too, but we needed to expand so we took their land by making them sick and starving them to death. Gas or small pox...what's the difference?"

So, you're saying that killing the Indians was OK? Oh, wait, you're saying that killing off the Indians like that was EVIL.

By analogy, you're saying Saddam killing off the Kurds is evil. Let's see, the people who killed of the Indians have bee dead for a hundred years or so, and Saddam is still alive, and we can stop him.

Logically, by your own comparison, we should go to war.

Nice how logic works, huh? You should try it sometime.

And the rest of your points are about as pathetic.

I haven't had the chance to read all the comments yet, but I wanted to make this one point before I leave for lunch.

What did Iraq do to us? Lt. Cmdr. Michael 'Scott' Speicher has been missing in Iraq since 1991 and I, for one, want to know where he is. I know he's probably not alive, but I want his remains returned to his family and I think Iraq can do that.

What happened to the idea that nobody gets left behind?

Milt,
Re the smallpox blanket cliche: Smallpox infested blankets were given by the BRITISH to Indian tribes who sided with the French during the French and Indian War. This happened before the US existed. If you have documented info on the American government handing out pox blankets at some later time, I'd like to see it.

Hostilities in Gulf War I were SUSPENDED by a cease-fire agreement of which Sodom has violated ALL the terms. I guess we just need to give him more time. Shame on us, thinking 12 years is long enough.

We may, in fact need to go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but let's please not kid ourselves into thinking that we're doing it for the benefit of the poor, poor Iraqi people. Human rights violations happen far too often throughout the globe without the United States taking any sort of active interest -- Africa, anyone? An AP story published just this morning talks about Congolese rebels eating -- that's right, eating -- their enemies (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/28/congo.cannibals.ap/index.html). Anyone think Bush is likely to contemplate an invasion there to help out the Pygmies?

Our reasons for a potential invasion of Iraq are much more pragmatic than any effort to liberate its people from Saddam's tyranny, as happy a side effect as that liberation may be.

>However, it is widely known as fact that Saddam himself pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Yes, and the victims include U.S. citizens, which to my mind is alone a casus belli.

Oh, and while we're at it, fuck Mumia.

Jon - It may not be our main goal in Iraq (freeing the Iraqi people from their current suffering), but when a main argument by many opposing intervention is the 'humanitarian disaster' that will follow, it makes sense to point out that the disaster is already happening, and in a far greater scale than any military action by the West could concievably cause.

Hey Jay. Just did a little bit of a deeper read into the comments over here, and your comment kind of brought me up short. Do you seriously mean to draw a moral parallel between Saddam Hussein's verifiable payments to the families of "Palestinian" suicide bombers (in quotes because there's really no such thing as a Palestinian) and America's support of our country's only reliable ally in the middle east?

I think you may need to do some work in remedial history; your argument's internal logic is way flawed.

Lee:

I couldn't agree with you more. Just want to make sure we don't start drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.

> they should offer proof that Iraq does not have ties to Muslim terrorists

"they should offer proof that Iraq does not have ties to Muslim terrorists or that they had nothing to do with September 11."

With that logic, lets go ahead and puruse all the world countries. Those that can't prove that they were not in some way connected to 9/11... let's kill 'em all dead, m' homie g.

And lets also make sure that Bush doesn't have ties with 9/11 considering that Osama Bin Laden's father helped set George W. Bush up in business. Tsk, tsk. If he does, lets be sure to kill him to. I'm all for that.

And so Suddam has wronged Iraq, as so many dictators and leaders do to their own countries around the whole world (and yet we aren't going to war with any other such country under that guise). And we've wronged Iraq too. Refer to (http://www.deoxy.org/wc/) where USA has been found guilty of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof... against Iraq. I'm sure that made the average Iraq citizen warm and fuzzy.

More could certainly be said, but nothing is going to make a person that is prone to the Bush rhetoric listen to any form of logic or evidence to the contrary.

We tried the sit on our hands and do nothing approach during the 90s. It brought us catastrophe in Manhattan and Washington.

Some pro-terrorist types say "Korea is worse; why not attack N. Korea?" If we did that, they would surely scream "You can't DO that!" Their arguments are worthless; just an excuse to try to paralyze the only country that has a chance at ending terrorism among nation-states.

Once Soddom is removed, it may not be necessary to overthrow others. The Iranian people will do it themselves, soon enough, especially if given some assistance. The Saudis can't last long, either. They shovel cash to terrorists while bleating "Oh, the poor Palestinians." Hey, King Fahd, can the Palestinians come there and stay, and will you redirect some of those terrorist dollars to house them? Thought not.

Alanna -

In addition to advocating the death of our sitting president, you point out a report written by Ramsey Clarke, who recently spoke at the A.N.S.W.E.R. 'peace' protests, along with Rev. Jesse Jackson, actress Susan Sarandon, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and Rev. Al Sharpton.
Equating our effort to expel Saddam from Kuwait to the Iraqi dictator's lethal tactics of maintainig personal power is just another example of where your 'logic' breaks down, my dear.

I have to say there are some great arguements here. But not one of them really convinces me as to why the U.S. should go to war with Iraq without the support of the U.N. Security council. The U.N. is a form of global police. If the U.S. decides to rush into war with Iraq then they are no better than any other country that starts a war, regardless of their intentions. Whether it's to liberate the people of Iraq, to find the body of a soldier MIA, to get some Oil, to boost Bushes failing political image, to increase government spending by bolstering military funding, whatever. Attacking Iraq is NOT the right thing to do. The United States cannot act as some sort of global Vigilante. Maybe that's all it is, Bush has a Batman fetish. Who knows. There are dozens of points and counter points as to why the U.S. should begin a military offensive against Iraq, I'm sure all the reasons for and against are valid. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans feel that Bush has not sufficiently explained his reasons for War, nor does it change the fact that any action taken without the support of the U.N. is wrong.

Post Scriptum - This is quite possibly the best blog I've been to, you've provided a forum for ideas with no fear of censorship. Thank you. Although I don't agree with your opinions, I still like coming here to read them.

"But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans feel that Bush has not sufficiently explained his reasons for War . . ."

Actually, according to an informal poll by CNN (yesterday morning, I believe) 70% of people felt the US had enough reason to declare war now versus 30% who wanted to wait.

Granted, this is informal and it was early in the day when I checked it, but it certainly seems as if at least part of that majority has changed their minds.

Here is what I get out of it: Does Susan Saranwrap, Alex Baldwin and Sharon Crowe come to your work and support what you do or spend money at your place of business or give back anything what it takes out of the US? Spewing Foreign Policy and other poitical opinions to the media does not count.

While we probably shouldn’t go to war unilaterally (having the support of allies is necessary) the UN can’t in any way be considered a moral force. Jon mentioned an AP story published this morning about Congolese rebels “eating -- that's right, eating -- their enemies”

That cannibalism has been going on for a long time – and the UN has known about it for a long time. They’re investigating.

Libya has been name the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Only the US and Canada objected. The rest of the UN is ok with it.

..and there were those UN inspectors who turned the desperate Iraqi defectors over to Saddam’s men.

These are only this week’s atrocities. If the world was relying on the UN alone to enforce the rules, the inmates would have taken over the asylum a long time ago. Their natural tendency is to appease terrorists and to slowly, very slowly, investigate the crimes against humanity committed by dictators. That’s why the support of allies would mean a lot, but the support of the UN? Even Colin Powell is losing his patience with them.

I have to agree with Chip Tijuana. The US does not have a right, in this situation to act without the approval of the U.N. While I don't always agree with the U.N.'s decisions, this needs to be a world action, not a US/UK action. I do think that the UN should have set more definite guidelines as to what would constitute a material breach, and what the consequences would be for such a breach. But since they did not, it is still up to the UN to come to decision to go to war, not GWB.

As I contemplate the words of Sarandon, I wonder - what is the feminine equivalent of doofus? doofa? I want to tell the goggle eyed doofa, PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEWS! and your idiotic questions will be answered.

One topic that people are so quick to respond to and come to the defense of is Hollywood movie stars. This always gets people going. Why? I agree, they do nothing for theaverage American in return. They are not experts in politics. Amateur politicians are better known as professional protesters.
As for the UN? I saw a poll (dont listen to polls, I know) that said about 70% trusted th UN over the US Govt....Do these people know that Libya was named Human rights chair and all the other attrocities?

Hey Jay!

There were elections in Israel... Israeli Arabs won 12 seats in the Knesset.

Where are the Palestinian Jews elected to the Palestinian Authority??

Oh..right...its an authoritarian thug organization toadying for Yassar and involved in murdering Hasidim in Jerusalem and murdering moms and children within the "green line".

sorry...carry on...

Saddam needs to go.
That said...........
"Even the most outlandishly high estimates of civilian casualties for the Afghan conflict amount to less than four thousand."

Two articles I've read recently-one says we will drop 800 cruise missiles a day on Baghdad, "there will be no safe place to hide" and another says US to consider using nukes in Iraq.
If either of these stories are true, there won't be many Iraqis left to enjoy their newfound liberation or reap the revenue from the oil the US will hold "in trust".
It appears we will be liberating as many as possible of their lives.
Oh and regarding remedial history--
Israel is currently in violation of 69 UN resolutions as opposed to Iraq's 16.
"but they are allies!"
yeah.....for now..........Israel presently outweighs all other ME countries in acts of aggression against it's neighbors.......
I trust them about as much as I trust Saudi Arabia.

Many emotional arguments in this thread. Yet I continue to ask, how will a war with Iraq solve these problems? ANybody?

I just have another add on to my previously stated thoughts and opinions. Many people here are talking about liberating the Iraqi citizens. But what happens after they've been liberated? Whether they're liberated with bombs or democracy, what does one do with a country that has been under the yoke of opression for so long? Do you force your culture upon them? Try to give them a democratic environment? I don't think this would work in a country with a culture that doesn't even let their women wear t-shirts.
And for those people saying it's about human rights, why won't the U.S. step in and intervene in the Congo to stop the Cannibals, or try to stop China from the genocide of Tibetans?
Oh and at the top of this post there was a mention of "our enemies in Vietnam". I'm pretty sure that every history class in the free world has determined that the war in Vietnam was a total crock of shit.
But what surprises me the most, is that it seems like no one is going to care if Bush buys off North Korea again, but goes ahead and attacks Iraq. He's a hypocrite, but no one seems to care. I think the Bush supporters should read some Michael Moore or something.

Amen Dave!

Viet Nam war may have been an important step in exposing and slowing the spread of communist dictatorships. At the moment it seemed wrong and may have been. Communism in SE Asis is on its way out. Bottom line. Letting Saddam keep defying UN and the international community will embolden other dictators and weaken the UN by exposing the fact that it does no good. Congo does not invade its neighbors; which Saddam has done twice.
Bush buyng off Korea: That deal was struck by the Clinton Admin in the '90's.
But what does Sarandon know that you or I dont? She must be smarter than you Chip. Plain and simple, she knows more than you about this stuff and is smarter than you and me.

Yet, I ask you: how will ignoring the problem better the situation? Not knowing is the answer? Out of sight out of mind? If Saddam is not willing to comply with the UN sanctions for the better of his own people....while he and his staff lives in wealth and luxury they suffer. So is it better that we just let him live it up while he chooses to let his people suffer. Keep in mind that this is a guy who set oil on fire and dumped billions of gallons more into the Gulf because he couldnt have Kuwait. Is that anymore rational than choosing to take him out?

Ok so the smallpox thing is debatable. My point is we seem to use human rights as a big whipping stick whenever we want to stick our nose into the business of others (politically)--as if we are totally innocent of such things in this country (we haven't even talked about the civil rights issues in this country). And yes in a circular logic kind of way, I do support taking out Saddam and to free Iraq--I just hope we don't have to kill even 1,000 Iraqi people to do it. But I guess if you want to count people as beans...yes, that is better than the 1,000,000 or so that Saddam has starved to death by being a dickhead. But is this the only way? Couldn't a covert operation work to assassinate him--just go in and shoot everyone that looks like him? By the way, speaking of known terrorists, whatever happened to getting the guy that we know to be largely responsible for 9/11? When is the last time that Bush even talked about bin Laden?

Speaking of our big excuse that we need to free the Iraqi people from Hussein the Horrible and all of his grievous human rights atrocities-- it sure is interesting that on the other side of the coin we are more than willing to sell weapons to countries previously "blacklisted" for human rights transgressions of their own, yes? So long as they say what we want them to say? Hmmm?

No I didn't serve in the military...nor am I sending anyone into battle--but if I were, I would sure feel better doing so if I had not wimped out on going to battle myself. What does that matter, anyway? Am I not allowed to have the opinion that our military should be used wisely, even though I have not served? It just seems odd to me that all of the previous chicken hawks are now all for war--now that that they don't have to do anything but sit in their safe places and call the shots or push the buttons. And if you don't like my opinion about Bush, read General Norman Schwarzkopf's. By the way, he did serve...in the last go round with this freak.

Oh wait, by virtue of being elected (not by a popular vote by the way) Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are now serving in the military, I forgot. Again, would they be serving if they were 21 today--with the same connections they had when they were 21 to be able to get themselves out of harms way? I doubt it.  But whatever. It didn't seem to long ago that we were knocking Clinton for the same sort of thing, and yes I am a Republican so I am on the side of most that post here and I am a huge fan of ASV.

As for the rest of my points being pathetic or whatever...that seems all to easy an answer these days to those that just want to take out their anger and frustrations on the usual suspects, but I would like to hope we could all hope for a better resolution from our country. Again, rather than use Michele's bandwidth which she so admirably fills up with her daily thoughts, you can email me personally to continue discussion at miltmuckraker@hotmail.com or you can visit my blog and comment or you can just write me off as an idiot and be done with it--because another part of me realizes that it really doesn't matter what any of us really think anyway, unless we are somehow in the loop.

Again, the article in Eject!Eject!Eject! was well written yesterday, I sensed a lot of anger and frustration still seething from 9/11. I am there too. But frustration or anger can make one a little prone to act drastically. I want to get the people who are out to get us. But I want it to be the right people.

Sylvain:

The US doesn't have enough cruise missiles to launch 800 a day for even a week. And I only think nuclear weapons are being discussed as responses to Iraqi chemical or biological, or even nuclear attacks.

So the 4,000 number probably is the upper limit, alarmism aside. No guarantees, though. War has always been risky and unpredictable.

By the way the link for the article about the US selling military items to countries formerly rated poorly for human rights is

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=%7bC2E80ED5-057C-4710-AB3A-009A45008FCB

Sorry meant to link that earlier.

Milt:

If you're serious when you talk about a covert mission to assassinate Hussein, it's time for a reality check. Cheap action movies aside, getting to someone as well protected, paranoid, and powerful as Saddam Hussein is beyond the ability of a small covert force. "Metal Gear" this ain't.

Chip,
You are misinformed. The UN is not a form of Global police. Not even close. The UN is a glorified debating society that has almost no power to do anything and the will to do even less. It was informed with good intentions but over the years has evolved to a forum for bitching at the US.
They can do and have done almost nothing of note in recent years.

here is a link to some feedback on Sarandon: http://www.chrisbaker.co.uk/guest.htm
Its pretty funny

Jon: "Palestine" was a state, at least before 1950. But you're right: one crime does not wipe out the other one. If Saddam needs to comply with all UN resolutions, why shouldn't Israel? We're talking about "occupied territories", right?

And sure: we, the US, never supported criminals in the past. Iran-Contragate? Who supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war in the first place?

This is in response to assertions made by Chip and Teresa. Note - not intended as a Fisking. Michele, I truly apologize for the long post.

Assertion 1: "The US does not have a right, in this situation to act without the approval of the U.N."
Response: The US has the right to act in its own interests. That's what the concept of sovreignty is all about. The UN is there as a forum to air disputes, but in the end, the UN is not the final decisionmaker of US foreign policy. Let us not confuse the means (should we use diplomacy or military intervention?) and the right (can we or can we not act in our own interests?).

Assertion 2: "[I]t is still up to the UN to come to decision to go to war, not GWB."
Response: Same as above. I should also note that the UN is not a sovreign entity. Moreover, when has the UN ever "decided to go to war"? The dispatch of peacekeepers is not the same thing.
Let us not forget that the UN has a proven record of ineffectiveness. When is the last time the UN has engaged in armed intervention? Kosovo was not a UN intervention. Since when has the designation of a "UN safe zone" been anything more than a sick joke? Ask the shades of Srbenica.

Assertion 3: "I don't think [establishing democracy] would work in a country with a culture that doesn't even let their women wear t-shirts."
Response: Your underlying assumption then is that democracy is a culture-specific phenomenon. Consider the conditions of various nations prior to the establishment of democracy in which democracy not only survives, it thrives. Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan. Boer-dominated South Africa. Civil war ridden El Salvador. Military rule in Chile and South Korea. Pre-Ataturk Turkey. Who's to say democracy couldn't flourish in Iraq with a little nurturing?
Moreover, the benefits of democracy are staggering. For example, Indian economist Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that famines were not linked to a lack of food, but the absence of functioning democracy.

Assertion 4: "I'm pretty sure that every history class in the free world has determined that the war in Vietnam was a total crock of shit."
Response: How so? In means or ends? Granted the means blew - constant cycling of draftees in and out of combat units, allowing the VC safe havens, bombing but not invading North Vietnam. As for the ends, why was it a "total crock of shit"? Sure, the South's government sucked, but it could have been eventually turned around like South Korea. And as for the much-derided "domino theory," look what happened after Vietnam fell. Laos fell, followed by the ascension of the murderous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. While the wisdom of our involvement can and should be debated, by no means can it be considered a "total crock of shit." Such a characterization belittles the memory of those we lost.
I traveled to Vietnam last year, and noted the fervor with which people pursue capitalism. However, to say that a current favorable outcome made our previous involvement a "total crock of shit" is to pronounce judgment with the clarity of hindsight.

Assertion 5: We should handle North Korea first.
Response: One problem at a time. God knows I've no love for the NKs - I have a maternal grandfather I've never met because they kidnapped him before the war. Moreover, any regime which throws whole families into gulags in which 20-25% die annually, inmates are used for bio and chem weapons testing, and the women are forced to have abortions pretty much deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth. See here: (http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp?0cv=CA01)
But, one problem at a time. The current problems arose after the Iraq crisis did, and we don't have the ability to make the threat of force credible against both nations simultaneously. The fact that another threat is out there doesn't relieve us of the need to address the current one.

Assertion 6: "I think the Bush supporters should read some Michael Moore or something."
Response: Michael Moore has clearly subsumed truth telling in favor of ideology. See this: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

-Tony

American soldiers do not come home in body bags. This is leftist imagery meant to demean the service that they pay to their country, and to demean the country for which they gave their lives.

It makes it sound as if the government and the military care no more for the people thatgive the ultimate sacrifice to this country than to wrap them up in a plastic bag.

They may leave a battleground that way - they surely won't come home that way. Americans are placed in caskets and accompanied by honor guards on the trip home, off the plane, and to their final destination.

Unlike Ms. Sarandon, America loves its soldiers.

Re: The "smallpox thing"
Anyone who doubts that US Calvary soldiers supplied smallpox-infested blankets to Native Americans can find this fact substantiated over and over again with just a little reading, or even internet research. But don't read the revisionist historians of the last 20 or so years. Start with "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown (pub.Jan 1971). God! How I hate revisionists!

Jay, I'm not going to let you go on this.

The has never been a "state" of Palestine. Prior to 1947 it was the 'mandate' of Britain. Prior to that it was merely a region of the Ottoman Empire, under who's "loving Islamist" ministrations, non-believers lived as dhimmis.

however, contemporary Israel is the third state of Israel in that area.

Back from work to discover that Darleen has beaten me to the punch.

Don't get me wrong, Jay; I'm no blind fan of our current administration, though I do support military intervention in Iraq provided we are able to go in with UN support (more out of consideration for the aftermath than anything else). That said, I think the left has got some very real problems with the way it's approaching the situation.

Your post illustrates one of the main problems the protesters have had in making their opinions heard about Iraq: They can't stop conflating that issue with so many others. From Iraq to Israel and Mumia, they muddy the water with multiple messages and make all of them incoherent.

There are no angels in the Israeli/Palesinian conflict, and there's more than enough blame to go around. That situation, though, is completely unrelated to what may or may not go on in Iraq.

Here is a petition for "citizens against celebrity pundits." Its funny: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hollywoodceleb/signatures.html

Michael Savage tonight said that movie stars (ok female movie stars) are usually quiet on the issues when their ass is high and tight, but when it starts to sag and drag than they suddenly have to find a cause to get noticed--and they usually go to the left. Thought I would throw that in, for what it is worth.

Thanks for the corrections, Darleen and Jon. If there is no connection between the situation in Israel/Palestine and Iraq, why the hell are we going there then if not solely for the oil in the region? Surely we don't have to pretend to care about a dicator's regime in a far away country that is absolutely no direct threat to the US in the first place? And if the Bush administration says that it has clear evidence of Iraq's posession of weapons of mass destruction, why not immediately give that information to the weapons inspectors so that it can be verified?

Eh hullo,

Have I missed something. My understanding is that the accused is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.

Why should Iraq not be given the same rights as anybody else?

What rights does GW have to go and kill people without PROOF?

I think everyone needs a serious reality check....

We ARE talking about killing people and removing THEIR head of state. Do foreigners have the right to remove GW if they don't agree with our policies?

Think about it...

WaltD

While I object to celebrities undertaking acting as political pundits, the American media provides no viable alternative. To paraphrase another anti-war celebrity, Jeanine Garofalo, when she appeared on a talk show: "I'd rather it was Bishop Tutu sitting here talking about Iraq, but he wouldn't be invited to this show. So it's me or nobody."

I applaud Ms. Sarandon's sentiment. Do I need to describe America's record on state-sponsored terrorism and releated "wetworks" activities around the world? Perhaps the US should lead the way in declaring its interests.

And anyone who dares espouse America as some saviour to the Iraqi people needs to take a good hard luck at US foreign policy over the past few decades. For every country where they've claimed to take an interest in injustice and exploitation, there's a dozen countries they haven't. What of Tibet? Chechnya? Serbia? Where are the US when there's an oil-free country being invaded?

Here a few facts:

Al Quaeda is a movement originating in Saudia Arabia. Saudia Arabia is an absolute monarchy which has no respect for human rights - check out chop-chop square any day and you'll know what I mean. Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian. He became disaffected from that country because it is a client state of the US. That means that the US pours billions of dollars a year into that country to keep it on their side - democracy or no democracy; human rights or no human rights. Al Quaeda supports a fundamentalist Islamic state. (ref: Afghanistan...)

Iraq is a secular state. Saddam hates the fundamentalist states. He suppressed Al Quaeda and threw them out of the country. This was a fact acknowledged by Blair/Bush until a few weeks ago when they very slyly started adding 'terrorism' into their Iraq centred rhetoric. SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

So what has he done? Brutally suppressed his own people with chemical weapons SOLD to him by the US! Fought Iran supported by the US! Put into power by the US! He invaded Kuwait (another absolute monarchy) and was punished for it - by a UN led mission. In fact the US could easily have dismantled his regime then but chose not to because they very cynically thought that a weak Saddam was better than SHOCK HORROR a new unknown leader elected by the Iraqis.

The only reason this new crisis has been manufactured by the US is because they have copped on to the fact that their ally Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists (see above) and want to replace it as its Arab base in the Middle East.

Anyone who blindly believes the absolute rubbish sold to them by George's Daddy's mates from the 80's seriously needs to do more research. They are not even pretending any more to obey international law. Don't you just love that line about how Cheney's former employers Haliburton will 'keep in trust' the oil wells for the Iraqi people. Imperialism is so last century.

Oh, and by the way, those references to the US as a sovereign state that can decide its own foreign policy? The countries it decides to invade are sovereign states as well. Protecting sovereign states from invasion was the reason the UN was set up in the first place. That's why they agreed to go to war over Kuwait. That's why they don't like the US claiming the right to invade who ever they wish. US self-interest does not count as a legitimate reason. I'm sure Hitler made the same point.

Walt:

The problem, as I understand it, is this: Previous UN inspectors have documented Iraq having certain types of chemical and biological weapons, which it now claims it does not have. It made no mention of them in the 12,000+ page document the country provided to the UN. It can provide no evidence of what happened to them (or has thus far chosen not to provide it), no proof that they have been destroyed. So where are they?

That's the problem with the "innocent until proven guilty" line here -- there's factual proof from an independent third party that they're not innocent.

Had to add this, from this morning's Lileks (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html):

The line that clarified everything: I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country – your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

It brought to mind Susan Sarandon’s ad, in which she argues against a military effort to depose Saddam. “What,” she asks, “has Iraq done to us?”

Aside from shoot at our pilots, and attempt to kill an ex-President, I’ll grant that they’ve done no more to us than Hitler did to the US in the 30s. But that’s not the point. Sarandon has turned into the very thing her ilk decries: an insular self-satisfied wealthy Westerner who couldn’t care less what happens in other countries, as long as no Americans get a nick.

Jon: As opposed to an isolated self-satisfied wealthy American who couldn’t care less what happens in other countries, as long as no-one touches our (potential) oil supplies, you mean?

Hmm, an ad hominem attack. Well, I'm conviniced now. I guess I'll go buy a Prius or something now.

This is disgusting. I was told America was a country of fascists but I never believed it.
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???
Irakis deserve to be killed because their dictator previously put in place and armed by the USA to fight Iran.
I'm happy there's little oil under my country, we'd be all dead!
Sure it would be better if Saddam wasn't there. If the treath of war wasn't legitimating his rule, he'd be history by now. But taking him out by force, and replacing him by yet another dictator, why not a taliban, your country didn't hesitate putting them in power in Afghanistan! (the 1979 Afghan government was a communist democracy. Say, was Chile's Allende a dictator???)
That your government is doing such things, okay it's not your fault; it's not like America was any model of democracy, but that you, you mere citizens, with no real interrest in this bloodbath being continued, approove of that... you frighten me. If such a militarily powerful nation is to follow Hitler's way, I see dark days ahead.
You can kill millions people, this is not going to defeat terrorism. Millions have already died, and see, the problem is still there! It'll take another solution. Why not peace? Cooperation? Yeah, international solidarity, you know, treating other human beings as equals, even if their skin is a little darker than ours, or if they don't call god by the same name, or etc.. Why not?
Ah you've got the answer! Because Saddam is a dictator! You beat me!!!

BTW Mumia is innocent and everyone know it. He's a political prisonner.

P.S.: Yes I'm a commie, if that makes you feel better to know it's the big bad ennemy who think like that.

"Irakis deserve to be killed because their dictator previously put in place and armed by the USA to fight Iran."
Explanation of that sentence: lack of proofreading. Sorry.
Anyway I think what it's supposed to mean is clear enough even though it's unfinished so I won't touch it. Bye!

In the interests of clarification, a few points:

1. You accuse us of being fascists. Merriam Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (taken from www.m-w.com)
So, we have a two part definition:
A. exaltation of the nation and often race above the individual
The Consitution defines our rights in the negative, that is, defining limits on what the government can do. See, e.g. Article 1 Section 9, Amendments 1-10, 13-15 (www.law.cornell.edu). Our courts have more or less consistently protected the rights of the individual over the state, e.g. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (schoolchildren not compelled to recite Pledge of Allegiance). While our allegiance to the idea that individual rights are not lightly intruded upon by the government has been shaky at times, our history as a whole shows a trend of expansion of individual rights, e.g. Griswold v. Connecticut (finding the right to privacy as being implied in the Constitution and protected from government invasion).
B. centralized autocratic government with a a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Our president does not have unlimited power. The president can be replaced by election after a four-year term, and must leave office after two terms. Economic and social regimentation? All I have to say is come visit San Francisco sometime. Forcible suppression of opposition? I sure didn't see any FBI, ATF, or San Francisco police beating up on protestors during the demonstrations.
As you can see, there's no way the United States can be fairly characterized as fascist.

2. I have no idea if we propped up his regime during his war with Iran. If we did, point me to a mainstream news article about it. If true, then we made a mistake, which we have an obligation to correct.

3. You say Saddam would be history absent any threat of war. How do you know? Show us the proof. Otherwise, your assertion is mere speculation. The indicia indicate otherwise - the use of chemical weapons on civilians in northern Iraq, the extensive internal security apparatus, the crushing of a two year old girl's foot to coerce her mother into stating the whereabouts of her father. Again, show us the proof.

4. We did not put the Taliban in power. We armed mujahadeen in the 80s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. We pretty much finished arming the parties there after the Soviets left. There are indications that the Taliban were supported after that time by sympathetic elements of tje Pakistani military and intelligence agency (ISI).

5. You say Afghanistan was a communist democracy. I don't recall any sort of opposed election in Afghanistan during the 1980s, do you?

6. You say the US was never a model of democracy. Prove it. If the US was never a model of democracy, then why has democracy never been a viable force in modern history until the United States came along?

7. You say killing millions won't end terrorism. True. But killing the people responsible for this sure will. During the 1980s, terrorists in Lebanon tried the kidnapping ploy with Soviet citizens. The Spetsnaz (Soviet special ops) kidnapped four terrorists in turn. The Spetsnaz decapitated one, sent the head back and warned more would follow. The hostages were returned unharmed, and the Soviets were never messed with in Lebanon thereafter. http://www.vlewis.net/page25a.html See also the SAS rescue of the hostages in the Iranian embassy in London.

8. Yes, Saddam is a dictator. Are there any internal, structural limits on what he can do? Nope.

9. Mumia? What does that have to do with Iraq? I have no idea of the merits of the case, but that's what the court system is for.

10. So you're a communist? See http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/

So basically, your post consists of conclusory allegations without factual support. If your intent is to convince rather than harangue, please, show us facts.

I have no idea if we propped up his regime during his war with Iran.

We sold him fifty or so civilian helicopters, also gave him some food aid.

It's a very popular meme, for reasons that escape me, that the US "created" Saddam Hussein or "armed Iraq", but it doesn't happen to be true. Iraq was a Soviet client state throughout the Cold War. Its arms are mostly old Soviet and Russian stuff, along with some fighter jets from France, and bits from Germany, China, and (if I recall right) Poland. But the facts are powerless against the meme: America created every dictator in existence, America armed every dictator in existence, there are no exceptions.

This society has a problem where it is more willing to listen to a celebrity than a politician...Politicians are not the best people, are celebrities any better? do they have an enhanced sense for politics or decision making that you or I dont have? Sarandon can sit on it...she is a bozo and so is anybody else who listens to her

Heya, Jay: When you mention "Israeli Butchers" I assume you meant the International Brotherhood of Kosher Butchers and Meatcutters, right? I didn't know the administration was supporting them. How nice.

And Starhawk, the UN isn't so much a "glorified debating society" as the world's largest faculty senate meeting. It's every bit as pedantic and incompetent as the average US university senate, too.

"1. You accuse us of being fascists. [...]"
I'm not saying the USA is an openly fascist state, though fascist trends are present. But when the murder of millions innocent Irakis is so easily justified by the overthrowing of one single man to replace him with - lets not be naive - a nearly identical man, (I know that's a very shallow analysis and the reasons for war are different, but it's what the press mostly presents) then I'm afraid at least the part of society who comes in this kind of board does show a fascism-tainted culture.

"times, our history as a whole shows a trend of expansion of individual rights, e.g. Griswold v. Connecticut (finding the right to privacy as being implied in the Constitution and protected from government invasion)."
I'm not saying the USA hasn't accomplished anything good in all its history. You know, it's not because I distrust your government & ruling class that I hate the whole country. There is an admirable effort from most levels of society to keep it free and fair. Unfortunately, it's in conflict with other's efforts, because democracy and justice isn't in everyone's interrest; Those who have power want to keep it. And well... they're more powerful. When an occasion like sept.11 comes, you can clearly see how the ruling class takes advantage of the situation. The USA PATRIOT act is unacceptable by any democracy-loving person, yet it passed. The USA isn't Nazi Germany, but its citizens must be vigilent, it could become.

"suppression of opposition. Our president does not have unlimited power."
Maybe not unlimited, but he sure has a hell lot more power than rulers of most countries. The attack on the WTC has allowed very worrisome measures. Judiciary power and government aren't as independant as before, people can be judged by secret military tribunals, I could list more but, to the risk of sounding lazy, I prefer so finish this message before midnight if possible. I may refer too much to the USA PATRIOT act here, but if you haven't researched on it yet, it would be a good thing to do so now, not only for the sake of argument. I sincerely am worried about the rights of American people, and though I am critical of American democracy, it is clearly better than a possible American fascist dictatorship. I am leaving the Irak question and my own political opinion aside here: fascism isn't a reality yet, but it is a treath, a treath to you American citizens first. Be vigilent. Don't let your rights be taken away.

"The president can be replaced by election after a four-year term, and must leave office after two terms."
The USA's democratic system is obsolete and has been abandonned by all countries except four.(GB, USA, Canada, India) Proportional election is more representative and doesn't cause some to virtually lose their vote because their party is either not represented or unpopular in their county.
Efforts towards participative democracy are made throughout the world.
In most countries, if elections are boycotted they are cancelled and reported to a few months later. The last US election had a ridiculous participation, it ended with the election of a president who had support from less than a quarter of the people!

"Economic and social regimentation? All I have to say is come visit San Francisco sometime."
From a Canadian perspective, the American legislature is amazingly repressive. No country in the world has a higher percentage of people in prisons. Damn, it is NOT normal to have one person out of 32 in prison, one person out of 5 including one black out of 2 who will do prison at some point of their life. If you say that's because the crime rate is high, well maybe that prooves repression isn't the way to deal with crime.

"Forcible suppression of opposition?"
Currently the opposition is weak. Hitler attacked the KPD first because it was powerful. He tolerated the other parties a while because they were no treath. If the CPUSA was as strong as the KPD was, I don't doubt it would make its way to the terrorist list in no time. The only actual opposition right now is the Greens, and it's still marginal. The Democrat/Republican bipartiism doesn't offer real alternatives, I'm not sure it can be called opposition. A switch of party in power influe on the politicians' careers, but not on the system in place. They are too similar.
Besides, many Canadian progressists who have traveled in the US were arrested for totally ridiculous reasons. My stepfather was detained for having a copy of the "Black Book of the United States" in his hand luggage. A friend from school was jailed six months for conspiracy for participating in a Greenpeace protest, in California I believe but I'm not 100% sure about the state. People are actually afraid to cross the border because they're not sure what can get them arrested once on the other side.

"I sure didn't see any FBI, ATF, or San Francisco police beating up on protestors during the demonstrations."
You are right, the authorities were amazingly tolerant during the peace protests. What do you think of the outlawing of the docker strike on behalf of national security? Spookily opens doors, doesn't it?

"As you can see, there's no way the United States can be fairly characterized as fascist."
As I said, the USA isn't fascist, but it could become. I'm not saying that as a cheap argument or an insult, the American people would be the first to suffer from it and that's not something I want.

"2. I have no idea if we propped up his regime during his war with Iran. If we did, point me to a mainstream news article about it. If true, then we made a mistake, which we have an obligation to correct."
That's no mass-media, but would the CIA declassified files do? It also contain scandalous information about countless other cases. It's easy to find on yahoo and other search engines. I don't have a specific source to recommend though. The files themselves are lenghty, so it might be better to find a reliable source and read an analysis instead.
As for correcting the mistake, the after-Saddam as it is planned now would be another mistake. A coalition of islamist, nationalist and monarchist extremists is no good news. The Iraki people must be given a chance to take its destiny in its own hands.

"3. You say Saddam would be history absent any threat of war. How do you know? Show us the proof."
There is no proof to a "what if" situation. I could ask you to proove he would still be there without treath of war, too. It is logical to believe he wouldn't because Irak was a developed and laic country, with an educated and organised people, that even with most of their infrastructure destroyed are still in contact with the outside world. Even if repressed, - especially if repressed - dissent would fester. Currently, Saddam is the one resisting the imperialist agression, this is what legitimates him, and gives him too much support from his people for a people's movement to overthrow him. Even anti-Saddam activists are joining forces with him, because it's not about the leader but about the whole country and the countless people who live in it. If it wasn't for the exterior treath, it's civil war that would have taken care of him.

"The indicia indicate otherwise - the use of chemical weapons on civilians in northern Iraq, the extensive internal security apparatus, the crushing of a two year old girl's foot to coerce her mother into stating the whereabouts of her father."
Human right abuses are only more motivation for the people to overthrow a dictator. Irak had a revolution before, and it could have one again. Repression is a sign of weakness. It shows the population isn't under control, and feeds people's anger. Many despots have been taken down by the people, one more wouldn't be surprising.

"4. We did not put the Taliban in power. We armed mujahadeen in the 80s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. We pretty much finished arming the parties there after the Soviets left. There are indications that the Taliban were supported after that time by sympathetic elements of tje Pakistani military and intelligence agency (ISI)."
You are right, I oversimplified my statement. But your country started arming the many groups including the Talibans before the Soviet (requested) military intervention. The USSR actually refused them military aid for a while, fearing an open confrontation with the US, then sent it in when the US troops occupied Afghanistan. The ensuing war virtually destroyed everything in Afghanistan and ended in 1992, then nothing would prevent the Taliban's raise to power.
A similar fate might await Irak.

"5. You say Afghanistan was a communist democracy. I don't recall any sort of opposed election in Afghanistan during the 1980s, do you?"
Free elections are impossible when a country is being invaded! How could that technically be done? The war was devastating and began only 2 years after the communist government was in place. After that, the country was too disorganised to hold such a complex event as general elections. In the second half of the 80' there was no government at all.
And I don't think the electoral mode can alone define democracy. If it does, then you have to include Cuba in the definition. (Cuban democracy is far from being perfect, but it gives a good try) Colombia too holds elections regularily, but it's one of the most repressive, despotic, brutal regime in the Americas. It takes an awfully cynical person to call it democratic.

"6. You say the US was never a model of democracy. Prove it. If the US was never a model of democracy, then why has democracy never been a viable force in modern history until the United States came along?"
USA democratic movements came about in the same time as other countries', but it didn't exactly initiate them. American people tend to confuse democracy and capitalism, while the two concept are not only totally independant, but hardly conciliable. The USA took an awful long time to legalise unions, it kept racial segregation laws unbelievably far into the 20th century. The USA may have been an inspiration at some times of history, it wasn't the worst after all, but a model, hardly.

"7. You say killing millions won't end terrorism. True. But killing the people responsible for this sure will."
If they are responsible for isolated acts, perhaps yes. But when terrorism occurs in response to a situation unbearable to a significant amount of people, kill ten terrorists and you'll have twenty new ones on the arms. We are faced with a situation where the ruling class of the world's greatest military power has interrest in the oppression of the majority of mankind. A situation where any individual looking for someone to blame will have one same obvious target. No use of force will ever make America safe if it keeps making ennemy with the entire human race. Repression feeds revolt, remember. Desperate people resort to terrorism. Submit the world to you, and you will never be safe again.

"See also the SAS rescue of the hostages in the Iranian embassy in London."
Yeah, an act from the very same terrorist group who later received support from the US government against Afghanistan. Way to deal with terrorists! Fight them when they're in the way, fight with them when everyone's looking away.

"8. Yes, Saddam is a dictator. Are there any internal, structural limits on what he can do? Nope."
Pretty much, yes. Like having virtually nothing to support his power, destroyed infrastructure and industry, and little penal facilities.

"9. Mumia? What does that have to do with Iraq? I have no idea of the merits of the case, but that's what the court system is for."
With Irak nothing, but this message chain also mentionned his case repeatedly.

"10. So you're a communist? See http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/"
Before I respond to that, let me get one thing straight, looks like all anticommunists start every argument with the same line.
--> We communists do perfectly know what Stalin did. We choose to defend communism aware of what mistakes and abuses occured in its history. We believe we can avoid repeating past mistakes, no one is trying to deny they happened. We believe the hope of building a society where prosperity and freedom would be guaranteed for all is worth giving another try.

I feel a bit sad when i read all this hatred in ur messages.

I have to say I am French and already hear you call me chicken. Going or not going into war is not a question of fear: after all, if US go to war, they will not attack before having destroyed everything on ground by bombing, right? (like in Irak 10 years ago or in Afghanistan) So the human losses in your army (and in ours if we decide to go with u) will be very few. We dont fear that kind of "war", which is in fact not a war, but a massacre.

Here in Europe, we can't understand why u absolutely want to kill thousands of irakians. Is Saddam a dictator? Yes. Has he killed hundreds of his own people? Yes. But are the USA going to go into war against each country that has a political regime not fitting ur wills? Of course u already did that: in Afganistan when CIA helped the talibans to win, in Iran, in Nicaragua, in Congo... In these 4 countries u created a new political regime... which is even worse than the one before.

We had an occasion to kick Saddam out of power, ten years ago. Then the war was legitimated by the agression of Kuwait. It is the USA who decided to keep Saddam then, and now, we should help you to bomb thousands of civilians because u changed ur mind?

We have always been ur allies, since the Independance war to the allied intervention in Afghanistan, but this time we don't agree with u. I know ur president told that all who will not be with u will be against u... strange conception of negociation and conciliation, isn't it? USA are the most powerful country in the world, that is undeniable: u can destroy any country when u wish (including France). But is that a reason for us to agree in any cases with u? Are we supposed to be ur allies or ur vassals? If u find it logical that u decide for us what we shall do, then I would say the same that ur founding fathers: This is taxation without representation! If the US Congress and gvt decides what is good for the rest of the world, then the modern world is seeming to the political system in Athens in the Antiquity: a minority of full citizens, living in democracy (the US citizens), and a majority of slaves (the rest of the world). Is that ur vision of democracy?

AUTHOR: mogu