This page was started shortly before the war, and represented my arguments against the war by means of arguing directly with the Bushleague talking points.  The war transmogrified into a Vietnam-style quagmire from an in-and-out liberation of grateful victims of a dictator created and supported by our president's father and Ronald Reagan.  It's fascinating how the allegedly liberal media has avoided bringing this up.  I wish I had "sound bites" of all the Reaganites cooing the praises of Saddam in the 1980's when he was gassing his own people.  They liked him fine because he killed people like the Shi'ite militants and Bin Laden to earn American financing for his weapons.  He made sure that Iraq was a secular state like Turkey, friendly to Western oil needs, and he was a model of democracy.  

Then came the Neocons, and the grand plan for an American Empire, a Pax Americana in the PNAC.  Long story....   anyway, today is November 22, 2005 and this horrific war is 2 1/2 years old and my wife and I are also finishing 2 1/2 years of no television.  We listen constantly to various public radio stations, read the Internet voraciously for information about what's happening in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East.  I confess that the constant procession of body bags and bad news has led me to somewhat despair of keeping links to everything I read about this matter.  I suspect that most of my readers are rather desensitized to the whole matter by now.  However, I do have a few interesting sites linked below that are great sites for getting more detail on the events there.  Further below that is  a list of common arguments for war in Iraq and against those who opposed it.  This is followed by extensive rebuttals of each point.  Scroll down to see the occasional updates I have made.  

March 5, 2006: The war is going terribly.  It looks like a civil war could break out in Iraq, and maybe even here.  Meanwhile, the Bush administration seems to be crumbling and melting before our eyes.  Recall Bush's mantra about fighting the war "over there so we don't have to fight it over here."?  In light of the apparent meltdown there and the rapid ebbing of leadership from the Whitehouse and the illegal wire tapping scandal, we see that Bush has been fighting the war at home so he doesn't have to fight it over there.  By that I mean that through propaganda and police state measures, he has been fighting the war strictly for the entertainment, deception and control of the American population.

October 28, 2004: [I wrote here some predictions, and one year later I'm looking at them again.  I'm unhappy to say that my prophetic skills were pretty good.]  The ultimate "lesson for posterity" from Iraq seems to me to be that in an information-based society, military and physical suppression are far less effective than the much smaller retaliations of the oppressed.  A few terrorists can cause a lot of havoc if they manage to convince a critical mass of people that their horrible plans are preferable to the activities of their common oppressor.  To state this a bit more plainly, the more a "superpower" attempts to eliminate the negative reactions of the people they oppress or suppress, the more their ability to defend themselves against those reactions decreases.  

With the most momentous election in US history just around the corner, I'd like to make a prediction: If Bush wins the election, he will make a really aggressive attempt to squash the resistance in Iraq.  This attack will outrage Muslims across the world, and many of our allies.  The result will be a loss of crucial cooperation in the war on terror and the complete conversion of America to the status of international pariah.  Bush's strategy of pretending he can "fight terrorists over there, rather than here" will collapse.  Retaliations will occur from many fronts--most probably Afghanistan/Pakistan.  Maybe Iran, but I suspect that it will come from the remnants of Al Qaida that John Kerry has been accusing Bush of letting escape.  (In case you missed this, it is quite clear that in Tora Bora, Bush let Pakistan's political interests trump ours in such a way that it compromises American security.)  The ultimate outcome will probably be that Bush's presidency will turn into a nasty situation that will make Clinton's second term look like patty cake.  If he doesn't pose a coup d'etat of his own government, he will be hounded and maybe even overthrown. 

And what if Kerry wins?  Here's my prediction: Evangelical and Orthodox Jewish believers will be so upset at the overthrow of their King David that they will instigate a new Civil War in which the Mason-Dixon line will be drawn through every metropolitan area: urban vs suburban/rural.  It's a war that will be fought by radial redistricting of cities, such as we saw in Texas.  This will assure that congressional representatives will remain conservative, no matter what happens in Senate and administrative elections (and a fortiori judicial appointments).  The war might even escalate to NRA members vs gun-fearing liberals.  I'm feeling pretty pessimistic because I realize that Darwinian laws assure that no matter what happens in 2004, we can only expect a more conservative electorate in 2008.  But, I predict that if Bush does lose in 2004, there will be the biggest damn global celebration since the .... gee, I can't think of anything that has been that huge.  The aftermath will be hell, but there's going to be one heck of a party.  I expect that conservatives will be very unhappy to see us all so exuberant over the defeat of their messiah.  By the way, this recent AlterNet article is superb.  It explains very clearly what's up with those people who have Bush signs in their yards.

October 17, 2004: James Baker III, close associate of both the Bush Gang and the Carlyle Group has been lobbying countries to forgive Iraq's debt at the same time he works behind the scenes to recover 24 billion owed by Iraq to the Carlyle Group.  We should not be surprised, I guess, that Baker is therefore simultaneously working for the president (government) and a private corporation in which the president's family has a financial stake.  That ought to help Bush make friends again in the global village.  Do these people have any understanding of the word "integrity"?   

As if that weren't disgusting enough, the Independent Women's Federation, a right wing anti-feminist think tank and foundation is receiving your tax dollars to go to Iraq and teach Iraqi women how to ... well... be submissive females I guess.  The IMF has connections to the pseudoreligious groups connected to Mellon-Scaife, and an appalling record behind them.  

Lastly, Babylon A-Go-Go tells the story of Fundamentalist mentality and the weird shit that's going down in Iraq.  It's a rather sarcastic article, but it tells some very interesting and important information.  

August 6, 2004 Update:  So, it's well over a year since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."  Which parts of the argument below have proven erroneous?  Basically summarized, the biggest error I made was to believe that Saddam was as dangerous and armed as Bush claimed.  I was not certain, but since I had no way to verify or refute their claims, I had no rational choice but to accept their claim as honest and verified. It's quite clear now that the war in Iraq was a total hornswoggle from the beginning.  Foolishly I predicted that our troops would face a horrible ground war.  Instead, the resistance evaporated immediately.  Another of the arguments has become more accurate over time--the fact that not all of the war's opponents are witless, bleeding heart liberals.  The number of people criticizing the war is growing rapidly, and includes many corporate figures, and lots and lots of military brass.  The common prediction that Bush would become a powerful recruiting tool for anti-American terrorists has proven frightfully accurate.  Apparently Al Qaeda even released a statement endorsing Bush for president because his impulsive, aggressive politics have helped them immensely to spread and strengthen their message.   This is all horrible news for Iraqis, who must suffer through the nightmarish chaos we have created.  However, it is all very good news for those of us who have distrusted the Bush family since the 1970's.  

September 28th, 2003 Update: As of today, the Iraq Body Count civilian death toll is calculated at somewhere between 7300 and 9100.  We are approaching the point where the civilian dead from after the war supposedly ended is as high as those killed during the brief war.  In terms of our own soldiers, the death toll since the war is rapidly ascending above the number killed during the war.  But, the arrogant president had the nerve to tell the terrorists on international TV "Bring 'me on!"  It reminds me of the chicken hearted bully who starts fights that his bigger friend will fight for him.  

 It looks like Bush isn't going to be able to count on military absentee ballots being helpful to him this time around.  The way he is screwing the soldiers over, I wouldn't be surprised if they concoct a scam to prevent the counting of military ballots.  Funny how the whole war mongering crew in the White House is made up of draft dodgers and an incompetent AWOL soldier who got himself daddied into the Air Force Reserve.    

To the protesters who think that the way to handle the current situation is to completely pull out of Iraq now, I can only shake my head in disbelief.  Surely we should never have gone in there in the first place, but now that we have, we can't leave until order is created again.  The sad part is that Bush is just too greedy and arrogant to do the necessary mea culpa and turn over control to the UN.  That will probably never happen, so we can only watch the inevitable decay into disorder.  The only solution will be for Bush to stand up like the man he isn't, apologize, and give the UN significant power and authority.  Above all, there must be some economic incentive for the participating countries.   We all know that Bush is incapable of this sort of humility, but we can watch him squirm as the countries of the world shame him to death.  The bright side of this terrible sequence of events will be the ultimate defeat of Bush at the 2004 polls--an event that seems just as inevitable, given the voting machines aren't rigged.

April 24th, 2003 Update: So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?  Why is America trying to forget the weapons of mass destruction, while France and Germany are so wisely afraid of these weapons falling into the wrong hands now that chaos reigns in Iraq?  Why do the French and Germans demand a return of weapons inspectors, whereas the Bushies are hoping we all forget that they used the weapons as an argument?  Why did the Americans and British invade without careful scouring for such weapons on the front lines?  Did they ever believe there were weapons there in the first place?  If so, were they hoping they would fall into the hands of terrorists during the chaos that followed the war?  

Syria will be next, to complete the strategic route from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and to cut the Muslim world in half north to south.  They'll be able to build a pipeline and a freeway from Kuwait City to Tartus, Syria.  Groovy, eh?

Oh, and then the new dictator in Iraq, American military contractor and Bush family friend Jay Garner will not find receptive vassals in Iraq, or appreciative observers around the world.  The Bechtel Corporation bagged the construction contracts behind closed doors.  The British are supposed to be satisfied with promises that Bechtel will subcontract the work. 

April 11 2003: Where is Saddam?  Did he die under the bunkerbusters?  Did he, like Al Qaida, get American protection and assistance to escape to Pakistan?  Is he in hiding in the Russian embassy?  Is he in a Southeastern Afghanistan cave plotting revenge with Osama Bin Laden?  Did he commit suicide like Hitler?  Did his own inner guard betray and kill him?  Is he sitting in a bunker in Mosul waiting for the best moment to release a massive chemical weapon attack on Baghdad, now that his soldiers fled the area?  Will the ghost of uncertainty haunt the Iraqis, and poison their chances for democracy?  Are both Osama and Saddam really employees of the CIA?  There are so many conspiracies and speculations floating around now.  The only question that really matters for the future of the world is this: who will be president of the United States of America in 2005?  If Bush doesn't get Saddam'is head on a pike, will the world be satisfied with a bunch of civilians maimed and dead, and a cowardly army that dissolved before their eyes?  Maybe someday they will figure out that one can't fight a war against a personal enemy.  One can only fight a nation of innocent bystanders.    

Post-War Update Links: 

It WAS about oil: Excellent summary of clear signs that this war was planned to benefit the Bush Wing of the GOP, and not the Iraqi people, let alone American Homeland Security.

WATCH BILL MOYERS' NOW!!!  

Instead of supporting our troops, the Bush Administration is preparing to give them the shaft--big time.  This little animated advert from Take Back the Media tells the extensive story of how wretchedly the Republican fascists are treating the soldiers they have so often lionized in order to attack liberals who dare to question their evil "war."   

• Iraq Body Count web site: Since the government won't keep a tally of Iraqi civilian deaths, these people are taking care of it for us.  
• The Military Death Toll While Enforcing the Occupation of Iraq: A Weekly Data Sheet of US-uk Military Fatalities Post-May 1, 2003
• “The Ground Truth: The Human Cost of War,” and a provocative review/summary: "a collection of interviews with Iraq combat veterans whose experiences have, up until now, remained largely invisible to the American public. Producer/director Foulkrod lets her subjects tell their stories without interruption or prompting, and the effect is nothing less than devastating.
• Truthout Iraq Update
• C-Span Iraq War page--educational resources for classroom use
• Iraq Maps--lots of interesting maps! this is a very nice topo relief map.  General map of Middle East, and another of Arabian Penninsula area
• Info on Iraqi oil deposits at World Energy.org
• Caspian Sea area maps: North, South--show all the oil real estate!  Groovy.  Iraq makes a nice pipeline route, if they can knock a chunk of Northwest Iran out first.  

Contra Bellum: Arguments for War and Against the Anti-War Movement Debunked

First, let's start with a quote from the second in command of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering

And then this illuminating quote from the often misquoted Robert Jackson:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
     — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.

In a climate of growing tensions between those who support the war and those who do not, it is increasingly important to look at both sides of the issue.  I personally do not fear this kind of engagement.  The arguments provided in favor of the war are not, in my opinion, strong enough to stand up to the various criticisms made against them, no matter how loud, aggressive or offensive the rhetoric.  So, this page starts out with an introduction to the basic arguments that we have been force-fed to support this war.

Whatever your position in this debate, at the pragmatic level of geopolitical actions, the core issue is an argument over two choices: the most intense urban bombing campaign since Dresden, or weapons inspectors.  The hawks accuse the doves of supporting and placating or "appeasing" Saddam.  In order to hide the reality of their war plans, they do everything they can to get the TV cameras and inspectors out of Iraq so they can "liberate the Iraqi people" with a firestorm of cruise missiles.  There are other options and possible variations, but these are our choices: Expensive mass killing, or inspectors with cameras.  Only a naive simpleton would suggest that not doing anything at all toward intervening in Saddam's activities is an option.  I shall argue for intensive, coercive weapons and human rights inspections on an indefinite basis.  

There is also an important subtext at a national political level.  That battle is a brewing civil war between liberals and conservatives.  Perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as a battle over turning America into a 21st Century Roman Empire with socialism for the corporate elite class, or a European/Canadian style system of socialism that supports the lower and middle classes to assure food, health care and quality education.  Make no mistake about it--in spite of the ranting of Grover Norquist, the Republicans who are currently in power in the United States are not interested in cutting government spending, or shrinking government programs.  They are creating more government programs, hiring more administrative executive wankers, spending vastly more money, getting violent on the global arena, and destroying every last vestige of American internationalism.  In other words, this debate is carried out in the worst of faith, since they do not back up their own words with corresponding actions.  Rather than conservatives in the libertarian sense Grover Norquist lionizes, we have a Republican party that has clearly become fascist.  

Although Bush campaigned on the principle of being "a uniter (sic), not a divider", Bush has been the single most divisive president I am aware of--at least if we factor in the fact that Bush has clearly failed in the most pitiful and miserable way to communicate effectively with our allies.  Unlike Clinton, Bush has proven himself to be a first class jerk--capable of angering and offending just about anyone who questions his obsessive-compulsive agenda.  Excuse the strong words, but these are the kindest English terms to describe this sort of behavior.   The only people who would disagree with my remark are partisan Americans who still support him in spite of the clear and resounding, global vote of no confidence he just had slapped on him.  As CEO of America, the superpower of the world, he has been no more successful than he was as CEO of Arbusto and Harken.   Michael Moore's latest open letter asks Bush the appropriate question, "How much do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein?"  I notice that conservatives who chafe at such harsh criticisms of Bush refuse to really deal with the fact that most of the world agrees with us liberals and not with them.  They like to make a lot of inconsistent noise about an internationalist elite with a conspiracy of communist homosexuality, but the truth is that it is and always has been a fight between those who do the work and those who live in idle luxury. 

Whatever the outcome of the Bush War, it is evident that in a very important moral sense that he has already lost the war before it began.  But, I'm sure that not everyone who reads this will agree with me, so I am going to carry out, to the best of my ability, something that the American media has avoided like the plague--an honest debate, argument-by-argument for and against the Bush War (and probably Bush Wars if he continues on this path).  In order to avoid the nasty sound bite food fights we see on FOX and CNN, I will use the more cool-headed and substantiated arguments available on the Internet.  I have reproduced some of the nasty rhetoric I have been hearing on the right wing media.  I provide it in the spirit of honesty--to help bring out the nuances and psychological subtext to the Bush War rhetoric.  

Given the simple fact that there is so much low-quality and irrelevant rhetoric supporting the war available to us, it is important to focus our attention on the more influential and coherent positions.  In my opinion, some of the strongest statements available are found at the following web sites:

• The White House web site: I guess the  front page is supposed to make us think they are handling other things than promoting the Iraq war and setting up their Orwellian, nepotistic oligarchy.  There is no better source of official, up-to-the date information.  
• Project for the New American Century:  [be sure to keep an eye on the PNAC Info site for updates on what these warmongers are up to.]  This ambitious organization embodies the neo-Roman Empire plans for liberating the world from the tyranny of socialism, religious extremism, terrorism, disease, etc.  Not surprisingly, their first order of business is regime change in Iraq, and then the rest of the world.  Less surprising is their penchant for using bombs and deceit to get us to comply.  Here you will find the essential and most seminal arguments that burble up out of Bush's folksy arrogance.  These are the people who devised the current Iraq scenario back in 1991, but with the Clinton White House found no support.
• David Horowitz's FrontPage: Although the reasoning is skewed, and based on deceptive contextual information, this is one of the better sources of pro-war blogging.  Essays by an assortment of Republican hawks present editorials based on official policy: pushing the pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-Clinton, pro-Republican (in that order) organism that controls all branches of our government now.  

Much lower quality hate speech and lunacy is available at the fountains of AM Talk Radio "wisdom".  These sources provide very narrow bandwidth, high amplitude, propaganda for mass consumption by the working class, and "conservative media" (infotainment) consumers.  I will include some of their discourse for picturesque flavor, just in case you have been, like most educated Americans, avoiding the corporate, right wing media.

• Rush Limbaugh: apparently shame and greed have driven him to hide the majority of his web content by charging money.  You can't see much of anything except the latest headlines and images he wants to share with you.  Listen to the show on your local Rupert Murdoch radio stations.  
• Michael Savage: Absolutely no substance on the web for this guy.  Clearly, he is even more ashamed than Limbaugh of putting those words into print.  Also available on your local Rupert Murdoch franchise frequencies on the radio dial.  Archetypal AM hate-orgy call-in radio.  Excellent dispersal of object lessons in bad reasoning suitable for a beginning logic course, or College English composition course.  For more on Savage, look at my essay on the Puppets of the Right Wing Media.
• Ann Coulter: Insanely vicious PR harpy for the Republican party, she has two best-selling books of dubious invective and some essays for your edification.  See also the Federalist Society website, where you'll find her work along side the Washington right wing elite who brought to us the pitiful, inescapable, irrelevant story of Bill Clinton's sex life--committing the most vile and violent sedition I have seen in my life.  She's aspires to be the political equivalent of the National Enquirer, but lacks the imagination to use aliens and human freaks in her stories.  Since Rush and Savage lack her overhyped, aggressive bimbo panache, she's the one that Murdoch likes to put on TV to insult, slander and "strawman" the  liberals, the Clintons, feminists, gun control supporters and war protesters.  
• Examples of the effects of too much info-porn from the Murdoch fast-news chain on the minds of typical American citizens:  Tom Olsen
  
  
• My older Links collection for the Iraq War (and some essays about the war mongers)

Here is a very brief summary of the arguments that the Bush administration has provided to support this war.

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

Even the country western music star Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks went way out on a limb to criticize this war.   Alienating much of their audience, she has made a lame apology.  Some adroit satirists made a parody of her apology that I find absolutely fitting and appropriate.  Click here.   

I heard a recent poll that indicated 60% of Republicans are opposed to war.  It seems implausibly high.  Whatever the real number is, I have personally met quite a few historical Republicans who are not behind Bush.  That's because they are true fiscal conservatives and libertarians, and they know that this war is going to cause great damage to the economy and to our civil liberties.   Whatever you want to say about Mr. Bush, you can't say that he has done anything toward shrinking government.  He has created more administrative and executive positions than LBJ, and he has destroyed our economy.  At the protest marches I have seen a surprising number of blue collar workers.  There is clearly a growing and organized contingent of working class anti-war protesters.  Bush is starting to lose his grip on his core of AM radio listeners.  The best possible outcome of this would be the final discrediting of Murdoch's Media Minions.   

Finally, the most significant rebuttal to the argument is the large number of Democratic congress members who support this idiotic war.  It could be that they are terrified to speak out against the war.  Bush's media controlled police state has been amazingly effective at manufacturing passive consent from fear.  The only Democrats who are directly confronting Bush on this are the ones no longer in office: Clinton and Gore.  Oh, and then there's Byrd, who is still in office, and who has redeemed himself to some extent from his KKK past by making some of the most eloquent anti-war arguments.

Poll Watching

Polling data offers a bewildering picture of public opinion.  It also shows that the way the question is asked is very important.  Clearly, the media propaganda has persuaded many Americans that Saddam is a threat.  However, we can also see a great deal of anxiety over the idea of bombing Iraq without international support.  We can also see Bush's approval declining.  Still, I find it bizarre that anyone can take seriously polls conducted by telephone in an age where caller ID, voice mail and answering machines mean that the results are scientifically invalid.  Are there not demographic determinants involved in describing the category of people who either do not have technology to defend them from unidentified callers, or who willing pick up the phone to answer such calls?  Besides, even if these polls are accurate, they tell us more about the effects of media propaganda than they do about the degree to which people have informed opinions. Polls are used by politicians to support decisions they have already made.  Given that the polls are disseminated via the conservative controlled media, I have never trusted those numbers any more than I trust NASDAQ numbers.  Nevertheless, the rather conservative Christian Pew Charitable Trust poll from February 20th shows a further erosion in American citizens supporting Bush.  This poll gives pretty solid evidence that Colin Powell's plagiarized and falsified presentation to the United Nations turned more Americans away from the Bush administration.   Even the conservative media channels appear to be abandoning Bush slowly.  I even heard Chris Matthews criticizing Bush's insistence on Iraq instead of Al Qaida.  The tides are shifting now on the brink of what seems to be an inevitable war.  

Nationality and International Politics as a Factor

We have been told that the French and Germans are trying to hide their collaboration with Iraq in weapons and equipment.  We have already debunked that silly idea--pointing out that inspections reveal this kind of thing, whereas bombs hide evidence and create more profits by destroying things that must be rebuilt.  Richard Perle gives rather telling spins on the German and French resistance.

"In the German case, there is strong evidence that the Chancellor, in his bid for reelection, tried hard to improve his standing in a group within the German electorate where he was falling below the anticipated numbers. The group, as I understand it, was women in the 25 to 40 age category. The Germans, like us, now conduct their elections with extensive polling. That's the antithesis of leadership and I'm sorry to say we all do it…. So they hit on appealing to the antiwar sentiment, the pacifist sentiment if you will, that was present in that group in the population and more broadly to be fair and there was a little surge in the polls and it was repeated and there was a further surge in the polls and it became the chancellor's policy to elicit the strongest possible constituency among people who were alarmed at the prospect of war, frightened at the prospect of war, opposed to military action to deal with Saddam Hussein, and he painted himself into a corner, a corner so extreme that it became the chancellor's policy that Germany would not participate in a military action against Saddam Hussein even if the United Nations mandated such a doctrine. It was precisely the sort of unilateralism of which the United States is frequently accused: separating himself completely from any possible international consensus.

The emphasis was added to help point to key elements of his rhetoric.  His characterization of using the only source of democratic opinion allowed by the new world order--polls--as an unfortunate evil of both our societies hints at the Bush Administration disrespect for mass public opinion--DEMOCRACY.  In the last sentence, he resorts to a typical neurotic strategy of projection and inversion.  Turning your faults into the other party's.  

Of the French, he says:
"Now, the French motivations, I think, are different. Let's be candid about it. France has found a way of dealing with Saddam Hussein that simply wouldn't work for the United States because it entails a degree of cooperation that is not acceptable for us. The commercial relationship between France and Saddam's regime is on hold owing to the sanctions but I think it's clear that the moment the sanctions are removed there is a pipeline of contracts that would be promulgated and they're important for France. We shouldn't kid ourselves, they're important for France. It's my understanding that the Total contract with Saddam is worth $40 billion to $60 billion…. So there are commercial interests and for those people who accuse the United States in being interested in oil in this matter, I submit to you that our interest in oil is in purchasing it on the world market. That could best be accomplished by lifting the sanctions, hardly by going to war against Saddam Hussein. The French interest in the promulgation of contracts that will only go forward with this regime is perfectly obvious.

First of all, the hypocrisy of this remark is shocking, though Perle isn't as guilty as Cheney would be making this same remark.  The details of American ties to Iraq are already clear in this essay.  The last sentence is interesting and ironic.  Halliburton continued to deal with Iraq until Cheney was elected, at which point he stopped lobbying for lifting trade restrictions, and instead began pushing for war.  Halliburton continued to make deals with Iraq.  America is currently the number one buyer of Iraqi oil.  EVEN NOW.  The idea that France won't have contracts with the new regime hints at the truth--Since Iraqis won't be in control of their own country, American puppets will prevent France from winning any contracts.  If this weren't the case, do you honestly believe that Iraqis, left to their own designs, would choose American businesses like Halliburton over French businesses to rebuild their country?  Don't make me laugh....  Absolute poppycock and megalomaniac delusion.  

To further illustrate his delusory world view:

"If the German government does not explain to the German people what is at issue, it's not unreasonable to assume that antiwar sentiment will prevail. In the absence of a serious debate, the default position is opposition to war, of course. But I don't believe that there has been a serious, balanced discussion in Germany about the risks posed by Saddam Hussein….

Where have we heard anything resembling serious debate of this issue in the American media??  WHERE?  More neurotic projection.  Aside from the official lack of support from France, Germany, Russia, China, South Korea,.... we ought to take a look at England, and especially Spain, our closest official allies.  Spain has turned into the anti-war capital of the world.

Michael Kinsley provides an insightful discussion of the implications of this pre-emptive war in terms of an American revolution against internationalism.  

In Defense of Partisanship and "Sedition"

First of all, sedition is essentially a subjective matter that exists in the eyes of the beholder.  Since the "beholder" is always the party in control of the government, sedition is a tool by which a corrupt or unpopular government can circumvent justice in order to assure their survival.  It is the firm and profound belief of the opponents of war that George Bush and his gang are either completely wrong or completely sinister.  Civil disobedience and protest are constitutional rights.  

Even if the opposition to Bush's War were a case of merely partisan politics, such as we saw in the 1990's directed against Clinton, nobody in their right mind can deny that America's response to 9/11 has been to move far to the right, and engage in the most silly fascist behavior from Ashcroft, and from many citizens.  For example, the shopping mall that arrested the father and son for wearing anti-war t-shirts.  It isn't surprising that in such a climate, citizens of a free nation would stand up and protest.  A palpable psychic wave of extreme patriotism and aggressive behavior has swept away quite a few people.   We can thank AM radio and FOX News for that.  This verbal warfare against anyone who questions the Republican platform has been heating up vigorously since November of 2000, independent of 9/11.  Given that there is very clearly a rhetorical war on between the Republican partisans and the Lib'rals, it is only fair that the Lib'rals fight back against this slanderous onslaught.  After all, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, in dissenting to a decision to uphold the First Amendment rights of a Nazi rabble-rouser: 

"There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Ask any fourteen-year-old what a "liberal" is.  I bet that nine out of ten answers will be to the extent: "I don't know, but it's really bad."  As a Dada-protest, I have been considering getting a blue triangle with a big L in the middle for "liberal", and wearing it on my clothes like the Jews and homosexuals had to do in Nazi Germany. 

Look at the facts--the smallest government presidents of the twentieth century were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  The biggest government presidents include, from the top down: Dubyah, LBJ, Bush Sr.  and Reagan.  Bush is already ahead of LBJ in proportional government expansion.  Three out of those four campaigned on the principle of shrinking government.  Only Clinton was able to do it without destroying services.  Bush, on the other hand, responds to a crisis in emergency preparedness by funding administrative positions in security rather than firemen and cops.  Instead of putting more actually productive workers on the street, he gives us a buffoon like Tom Ridge who will be micromanaging special agents, cops, etc.  Meanwhile, cops and firemen are still waiting for their increased funding.  Instead, state budget crises are leading to layoffs of firemen and policemen.  One could very easily make the argument that Bush isn't interested in national security.  Instead, he is more interested in maintaining a fascist, Kafkaesque, bureaucratic-intelligence stranglehold on America.  

Obviously, I dislike everything about Bush, but I am not the only type of person protesting this war.   I am biased, but then again, the overwhelming majority of the louder voices in the media are biased way off to the right--to the point where they clearly abandon all pretense of rationality and honor, and turn into shrieking, frothing maniacs.  I have been called various names, accused of sedition, blithely described as a supporter of Saddam Hussein, and even called bizarre racist epithets referring to my respect for Muslims and Islam.  Condaleezza Rice, commenting on the strong anti-war movement, remarked ambiguously that Saddam Hussein cuts out the tongues of political dissidents, so we should be happy Bush doesn't.  Class warfare has been declared by the wealthy Republicans on middle class and working America--not to mention the racial and gender war they are also conducting.  The Bush War makes a splendid smokescreen for this ideological war on the home front.  

Don't expect us to roll over and play dead during a fascist takeover of America.   This war will go down in history as the first war that was impeded, or maybe even halted, by the power of the Internet.  Not a single violent or destructive act was needed.  Bloggers connected us together, various organizations tapped the energy, and e-mail helped set up protests.  No wonder they are so desperate to set up Patriot 2, and scare people with the Sedition Act.  Right wing cities are even joining in the lib'ral pogroms.  

If the ultimately partisan argument against partisan criticism of the president had any merit in an absolute, deontological sense, then we must also conclude that nearly everything the Republicans and Federalist Society did between 1992 and 2000 was sedition, treasonous and without merit.  I have not seen a single liberal media figure make the sort of violent, hateful, treasonous remarks that Ann Coulter made about Clinton ("to impeach or assassinate?")  Keep in mind that during the Kosovo war the Republicans were constantly accusing Clinton of using the war to distract us from Monica's thong underwear.  Sex scandals are trivial in comparison to the accusations and suspicions that surround the Bush White House.  People are now being arrested for saying things as innocuous as "Bush is out of control."  If Ann Coulter said anything about Bush as vicious as she normally does about Clinton and liberals, she'd be an enemy combatant in the Gauntánamo Bay goulag.  

Face it, this is karma.  Everything bad that has been happening to Republicans since Bush came into office has been a karmic backlash--and it's only beginning.  I haven't felt this optimistic in a long time.

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

7) Sedition:  The arguments against this are quite simple.  a) The First Amendment is not intended to be withdrawn during times of war or other special situations.  It is precisely in these types of situations where it is most important.  b) The more we implement things like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2 and the Sedition Act, the more we resemble Saudi Arabia, and Stalinist Russia.  c) the majority of Americans (according to telephone polls done in a country where caller ID makes it impossible to get a statistically representative sample) support the war only with United Nations support.  The VAST majority of people on the planet are opposed to it.  We are seeing the largest protests in the history of the world.  Spain's February 15th 2003 protest was the largest single protest in history.  Spain is our strongest ally.  When public opinion diverges so radically from the opinion of one government, then we must question the wisdom of that government.  The attempts by this government to suppress, pressure and buy-off opposition only make the need for dissent more evident. A pro-Bush, pro-war website posted these embarrassing pictures of the March 1st Pro-War Rally in Washington DC. Check out the miniscule crowds.  This may change since Rupert Murdoch started promoting pro-war rallies with all of his radio and media outlets.  But, it's rather difficult to get people to come out with signs and slogans in favor of blowing people up.  There is an inescapable shame factor, which explains the fact that pro-war voices tend to put the emphasis on supporting our troops.  Obviously, they are suggesting that anyone who dissents is harming our soldiers, even though the basic goal of the anti-war movement is to protect our children from a worthless war.

In conclusion, there is a huge difference between treason and criticizing an unjust and/or misguided ruler--that is a basic principle of John Locke's philosophy, which informs the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Inasmuch as we see penal action taken against critics of the Bush War, then America has become like Nazi Germany, like Stalinist Russia, like Maoist China, and Islamist Saudi Arabia.  When we start arresting people who do nothing more than speak out against the government, then we can truly say that the terrorists have won--assuming that they really do hate our freedom.  This brings me back to my introductory quote:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.  

8) Traitors: This argument is merely a strengthening of the previous.  The idea is that there is a necessary connection between protesting the carpet bombing of Baghdad and secret or unconscious support for Saddam Hussein.  We first heard this argument from Attorney General John Ashcroft, but it disappeared from official channels and is only heard now on AM Talk Radio.  Condaleezza Rice revived it in March.  Perhaps the most subversive argument against this position is the argument that bombing Iraq will help Al Qaida by eliminating Hussein and creating a huge outpouring of anti-American sentiment that will help him recruit thousands of new terrorists.  In other words, we can equally argue that supporting Bush's war is treasonous, or at least subversive to the War on Terror per se in that it will actually help terrorists to cause us more harm.  The Patriot Act is patently a violation of Bush's oath to protect the Constitution, and therefore an act of treason, which is clearly the reason they chose to call it "The Patriot Act."  Orwell would be impressed.  Skeptics are suggesting that Bush wants to create more terrorism to justify further restrictions of civil rights.  Given all the information at our disposal here, it's not very surprising that a whole lot of Americans feel this way--at least those who aren't too busy watching "Survivor" or rented DVDs instead of paying attention to what's going on around them.

In response to the accusations of not supporting our soldiers in this war, there is one very simple and powerful fact.  Gulf War I veterans have filed 198,716 claims for physical harm blamed on Gulf War Syndrome.  That's 28% of the total military deployment to the area.  156,031 of those claims have been granted.  That means only 21% of them have been denied.  Even more important, 7,758 of the veterans of the war have died since they returned.  That's a bit over 1%.  [click here for article, and click here for VA document - information is starting to come out already about similar effects on the current soldiers ] At first that might not seem like much--given the historical difference.  However, would we be prepared to lose 1% of the current deployment to strange diseases after they return?  That would be about 3,000 of our boys dead from mysterious, painful illness.  There are also birth defects appearing.  Add to that number another 84,000 veterans who will spend the rest of their lives as invalids in wheelchairs, addicted to pain medications.  Add to all this the simple fact that this is the potential risk our soldiers face even if a single one isn't killed on the battlefield. 

Another important argument issues from the concept of international justice.  Bush and his neocon puppet masters are clearly hoping to overthrow internationalism, and become a new empire in alliance with the two great colonial empire nations: Spain and England.  Along with their agenda of anti-internationalism, or exceptionalism (an extension of the Monroe Doctrine) Bush, and Clinton were adamant in resisting the International War Crimes accord.  Why?  Because they didn't want to see Henry Kissinger or George Bush go on trial.  They talked about our soldiers being tried, but everyone knows that it's the Generals who go to war crimes courts.  

These facts point to an acute awareness that they planned to do something they knew would not be popular at the United Nations.   The only reason to fear that international court would be a fear of being morally judged by your peers.  Out of this situation of conscious transgression against the global community, our soldiers are being forced by uniform military code to invade a country that can't effectively defend itself.  If the war does indeed turn out to be short and decisive, with minimal harm to our troops, they will be coming home in a global community that will label their war as a crime on the order of Hitler's and Milosevic's.  In other words, reluctant warriors may find themselves accessories to war crimes in the opinion of the international community.  It's unlikely the soldiers themselves would be tried, and rightly so.  But is it acceptable to emotionally abuse our young men and women in this way?  Bush may be able to isolate America for a while, but it won't work.  Eventually the pendulum will swing away from fascism, and it will probably swing hard to the left.  When Bush falls from grace, imagine what will happen to our soldiers back home.  I highly doubt that any anti-war liberals here in America will treat them that way, but the soldiers will know that people all over the planet believe that what they did was much more evil than what Saddam was doing.  

If the war is long, and the current events indicate that it will be very, very long, then another scenario will take place.  The Vietnam Flashback.  Since the war has started, I personally have been worried sick about our soldiers.  The strategy they are applying was clearly designed by Perle (who just resigned), Rumsfeld (who is an obsessed maniac), and Wolfowitz (who is also obsessed) under the assumption that Iraqis would joyously greet our soldiers and overthrow Saddam.  Penetrating deep into Iraq, they are now completely surrounded by Iraqi guerrilleros. (I speak Spanish, so it drives me mad to see people incorrectly use the word guerrilla which means "a small war", whereas the correct word for the soldier who fights in guerrillas is guerrillero)  With the sandstorms and treachery of these "irregulars", our soldiers must be terrified right now, and the only solution is going to be stepping up the war to the level of WMDs.  It's disgusting, and our soldiers will have to pay for their stupidity with their lives and souls.  No matter what the right wing tries to say in blaming the left's resistance to war for this situation, there is no rational connection.  The real cause for this fiasco is stupid battle plans based on stupid "intelligence," which were all warped and twisted in the interest of the Bush agenda for oil and democracy in the Middle East.   The ultimate responsibility belongs to Rumsfeld and Bush.  The military was deceived and used.  Hell yes I support our troops.  It's the administration and their blind greed that I don't support.  

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

9) Actors in Politics:  In general, I agree with this strongly.  Ronald Reagan was an actor who got involved in politics, and there are many people who assert the he was not effective at either one.  Whether or not you agree with this criticism of Reagan, the presence of Reagan, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura and Clint Eastwood in the political arena proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the argument is stated in bad faith.  These entertainment figures have the support of these same conservatives who criticize Streissand, Penn, Sarandon, and others.  How many liberals have made the jump from Hollywood to DC?  

The argument is hypocritical, and the reality is that actors are not a problem as long as they are conservatives. Isn't it interesting that the usual cast of pro-Republican figures in Hollywood are keeping such a low profile lately?  James Woods made some remarks back in October of 2001, but appears to be silent now.  Schwarzenegger and Barbara Mandrell are lying low too. Tom Cruise & Steven Spielberg on tour to promote their new movie tell European press they support the war.  After they get negative press, and presumably lower ticket sales, the remarks are retracted.  Recently, a politician who went into acting, Fred Thompson, has been promoting the war with the usual non-sequiturs: Saddam & 9/11.  Other conservatives supporting the war include Kid Rock (now that's classy, eh?), Kelsey Grammer and the tasteless Dennis Miller.  Meanwhile, entertainment industry icons all over the world are presenting anti-war messages.  

Yet, one of the more humorous and ironic aspects of the anti-Hollywood argument is quite simply that nobody on the left is paying attention to these Hollywood attention seekers.  The only people who are watching them and listening to them are conservatives.   For more on this willing self-abuse among right wing talk radio zombies, click here. 

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

10) It's not just about the oil: After two years of close scrutiny of the facts and rumors surrounding this question, I am convinced that oil is not the only reason, but it is certainly a very big reason.  What intrigues me most about this argument is how quickly and seamlessly they shift the thrust of the argument away from oil in Iraq to a general attack on those who stress the importance of peaceful solutions to extremely complex issues that very arguably cannot be solved with military action.  The hidden truth here, I believe, is an unwillingness to accept the fact that war is no longer an effective solution to major international political issues.  The reason I make this assertion is based upon the observation that every time I hear a media hawk respond to the accusation that this war is about oil, they shift the argument to ad hominem mode, and try to defend the militaristic "oilygarchy."

For those who believe that we intend to help the Iraqis profit from their oil, remember how Enron supposedly was going to help Argentina?  It is an inescapable fact that oil is power in both senses of the word.  (See this excellent Mother Jones article, and this investigation of the Carlyle Group) Also, the Bush administration is proposing the use of the same trust procedure used by the Federal Government to "protect" the resources on Native American reservation lands for the use of the Native Americans.  Ask the Native Americans what they think about the procedure.  

But, all of the debate on this particular point is castles in the sky for now.  We won't be able to verify success in this regard for five to ten years after the war.   Given that Britain is now angry at us at the revelation that only American companies have secretly negotiated to rebuild Iraq, we ought to be a bit suspicious as to how willing Bush is to share the spoils of his precious war.  He is already showing signs of having the character of a bank robber who kills or betrays his partners.  Not surprisingly, the list of companies corresponds with the list of big Bush campaign contributors.

There is no point in responding to oil hawks who snidely remark that we who criticize their petroleum lust should walk to work or ride wood burning busses.  There are no such busses to ride.  The oil special interests who control the White House are vigorously suppressing alternative fuel research.  The hydrogen fuel cell initiative is a joke.  The technology is so far off that we might as well do nothing.  Besides, the only viable source of hydrogen fuel now is, guess what?--petroleum.  For more information on the American Empire plans, examine these links: [ 1, 2 ]  

In regards to the typical strategy of short-circuiting criticism of Bush's and Cheney's ethics with a tirade on the Clintons, there isn't much to say that hasn't been said, except this: Clinton was the best Republican president of the Twentieth Century, and he was complicit in a number of duplicitous and corrupt activities.  However, he was never taken to task for the truly dubious things that he did because they were all things that various Republicans were doing or supporting too.  Instead of going after the real ethical failures of Clinton, we got a crazy, inescapable barrage of crap about Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinski, and the lies that his staff helped him fabricate to cover his ass when the Kenneth Starr Spanish Inquisition came after him--seeking any trivial moral flaw so as to avoid drawing attention to the general corruption of the stock market bubble and the sinister international policies in economics and politics.  I could go on for hours about Clinton, and not touch a single criticism you ever heard from a Republican.

But, more to the point, using Clinton's corruption as a defense or shield for Bush's ostensibly venal behavior and widely alleged corruption is a very lame technique in debate and logic: what x does is not evil because what y does or did is more evil.  Besides, few humans would agree that the corruption uncovered in the Lewinski scandal can even be mentioned in the same breath with the very solid and plausible accusations directed against the Bush administration.  The fact that the Sedition act is being called up on the AM Talk Radio outlets indicates their fears in this regard.   

In summary, the majority of arguments that are applied in this argument involve ad hominem and non sequiturs instead of actually engaging the issues.  

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

11) Platform for Democratic Reform in Middle East: This is by far the most attractive of the arguments available to the hawks.  It appears that there is some degree of honesty in this too, though the definition of democracy in their minds is not the same as mine.  They see it in terms of privatization and foreign ownership of resources & utilities.  In other words, it's the IMF/World Bank model of parasitic "democracy."  However, even granting them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the US works toward creating an American style democratic state on the order of Turkey, there are a number of issues: a) can it be done with all the fractious conflict in Iraq?  b) one of the reasons it didn't happen in Gulf War 1 is because the adjacent states are more afraid of democracy than they are of Saddam.  The royal families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not fond of the idea of elections.  c) can you create democratic good will after carpet bombing a country?  d) will we have the resources to support them?  We only had 500 million to give to Afghanistan next year.  That won't come close to fixing Iraq's problems.  I highly doubt that it will solve Afghanistan's problems either.  

The lack of international support for the war has many consequences.  I believe that the most significant is the lack of future participation and cohesion on their parts.  We could very easily find ourselves in the same sort of international diplomatic position as Israel--a pariah.  This will necessarily result in a likelihood of increased domestic terrorism, and an increased need for military activity that is not economically supported by other nations.  We will not be getting the kind of help we need to keep this new Iraq going either.  In order for the plan to work, democracy and regime change will have to occur all over the Middle East--Iran next, then Syria, then Egypt...it is social engineering and Ann Coulter's dream of forced conversion of the "heathens" to the civilized religions of free market Christian capitalism.  However, this political/economic/religious conversion of the Middle East will be very, very expensive.

The idea of using military violence to create peace and democracy is ironic enough on its own.  Rumsfeld has even set himself in opposition to top officials in the Pentagon.  When they gave him a pessimistic picture of military necessities to make this whole Iraq thing work, he threatened to fire them.  We are looking at a maniacal lot of people utterly obsessed with promoting this war, to the extent that they are willing to bully whole nations and the very military by which the Wolfowitz-Perle-Kristol-Cheney cabal plan to rule this planet.  

This will be the first war since Vietnam that has been fought largely without international financial backing.  Bush may succeed in creating a government like Turkey's, but it will lack legitimacy and respect.  It will be won at the price of integrity and honor.  Bush may win his battle, but in the long run, he has already lost the war.  Foreign investment will evaporate, military costs will bleed the middle class dry, and America will be destroyed.  There is a remote chance that I am wrong on this, and it is obvious that Bush is willing to gamble on it.  But, he was obviously willing to gamble on getting UN approval of his manufactured war.  He lost that gamble.  This leads us to the next argument--economics.

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.

12) War Makes Jobs: This positively sinister argument has been made more than once in front of my very eyes.  Even if it were true, it is an evil and cynical perspective.  I have seen self-proclaimed Christians make this argument.  To show that the idea isn't just evil, but also false, we need only look at Wall Street and the growing deficit.  Why spend 100 billion on a war nobody wants?  Libertarian, anti-government, Clinton-hating, pro-corporate commentator Lew Rockwell speaks against the economic nonsense spewing from the White House. 

This war could actually inspire people to attack us, and thus create a REAL need for military self-defense.  Even more problematic is the fact that many of the soldiers on the front lines in this war are taking leave from their First Responder jobs as policemen, paramedics, firemen, etc.  We are more vulnerable with them out of the country with the National Guard. 

Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list. 

13. Christians Vs Muslims:  I am appalled that I have to address such an argument.  Since it is a religious argument, there is little possibility of refuting it with any success.  Besides, the obsession with apocalyptic religious nonsense and argument between the Palestinians and Israelis are really at the heart of this emotional argument.  Rather than attempt to contradict it, It is more important to point out that some very influential people and many American citizens do agree with this position.  A few rational people do not believe that there are religious motivations hiding behind this war.  Bush's rhetoric has frequently masked and deceived us on this point.  

US Attorney General John Ashcroft said:  "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends His son to die for you."  Clearly, the man didn't think about the fact that he and Bush were sending our sons and daughters to die for them.  Jerry Falwell [and his point-by-point criticism of Mohammed] Pat Robertson's Crusade  The USA Jewish Tabloid provides lots of angry, anti-Muslim rhetoric too.  Some citizens who favor the war have religious motivations--it's not surprising that the best place to hear them is the call-ins on AM talk radio.  Ann Coulter, the best selling author of Slander, an ironically titled invective on liberals in the media and academia said of Muslim countries in the wake of 9/11: 

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.  We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (click here for full article)

 Interestingly enough, this appears to be what George W. Bush has planned for Iraq--since these Federalist-Fascists see no difference between neo-colonial crony capitalism, democracy and Christianity.  

Whether or not Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson represent the voices of mainstream Christians (a notion I do not believe at all), these two fanatics do indeed have close ties to Bush.  They do indeed represent the Christians who most strongly support Bush and the war, and Israel's treatment of Palestinians.  Therefore, I think that it is quite reasonable to suspect that the Bush administration has a hidden religious agenda, though they have been very proactive in veiling it. 

So, rather than trying to refute this argument, I think it better to reveal how prevalent this hidden argument really is, and how close the ties are between them and the current administration. 

Another important religious dimension of this war is the phony support and respect that Bush claims to have for Iraqis.  Iraq's population is about 70% Shi'ite, among whom are some very devout Islamists whose hearts are closer to the much hated Islamist state of Iran.  America has hated Iranian Shi'ites, and anything that might bring together the Iraqi Shi'ites with the Iranian.  A quick look at a map of the Middle East that shows the national boundaries overlaid on the Shi'ite-Sunni distribution will reveal that after WWI when the Turkish Empire was cut up, they gerrymandered the area to divide up the Shi'ites from each other.  Saudi Arabia fears most of all the uniting of these people with Iran.  Not all Shi'ites are Islamists, but the secular Stalinism of Hussein has helped drive them into more Islamist cultural modes.  In the north, the Kurds tend to be fairly secular, but the infamous city of Halabjah where thousands of Kurds were gassed is an Islamist community.  When Hussein killed them, Reagan's administration tried to whitewash it, and continued to support him.  During the 1991 Gulf War, a town of Shi'ite dissidents in the South of Iraq was encouraged to revolt, and then left alone to be slaughtered by Saddam's army.  In short, I see no reason to take seriously Bush's claim that he will turn over Iraq to these dissidents.  [Nov. 22, 2005 update: Perhaps the biggest problem in the Iraq situation is that America's explicit dedication to democratic principles has forced us to reverse our normal pattern of doing diplomacy.  Our old Sunni allies are none too happy that the much-touted elections and constitution don't help their Sunni brothers and sisters.  

Furthermore, the American pro-war rhetoric of "liberating Iraq" is also a lie, especially at the level of Republican citizens with yard signs that say "Liberate Iraq."  You want proof?  Take a boombox into your backyard on a sunny day, and play some Iraqi pop music--preferably by a Shi'ite singer.  Crank it up loud, and wait for responses.  Will the neighbors come over to groove to the tunes and wistfully speak of a democratic future for Iraqi citizens, or will they accuse you of being a terrorist sympathizer?  If the latter, tell them "I want to liberate Iraq!"  "This music is by an Iraqi dissident.  He hates Saddam, and loves the Ayatollah in Iran.  Saddam hates fundamentalist Muslims.  We must liberate Iraq from that godless dictator so that Iraqi Shi'ites can be free to be Islamists."  There is a blatantly erroneous argument from the especially ignorant wing of the right wing that uses the veiling of women as an argument for killing Saddam.  Until the recent heavy pressure on Saddam, the Ba'ath party was extremely Western and secular in nature.  Before the first Gulf War, Saddam's government was the most pro-American state in the Middle East.  It's possible to buy liquor in Iraq.  

My irony isn't intended to suggest that Saddam is actually a good person, and the religious extremists who oppose him are bad.  Saddam is clearly the bad guy, and it would be nice to see the Iraqi Shia majority liberated.  The point is that the people who support Bush's War are either lying through their teeth, or they do not have the slightest idea as to what is the religious and political terrain of Iraq.  If they did, they would probably be much less excited about it.  This lack of enthusiasm stems from a veiled hatred of Muslims and Arabs.  Although gutter bigots like Michael Savage refer to the liberation of the poor Iraqis, you will hear in the next two minute segment between commercials a rabid tirade against the religion of Islam.  These people have no interest at all in liberating Iraqis--it's the oil for their gas guzzling SUVs and 4x4s they want.  They are using the plight of Iraqi citizens as a veil for their greed and hatred.  I am unsure of the Bush administration's feelings in this regard.  I have heard various talk radio "personalities" commenting that they dislike Bush's overt respect for Islam and Muslims.  In spite of Bush's attempts to shield Islam from the wrath of bigot-warmongers here in America, there is a rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment that cannot be understood in combination with alleged interest in freeing Iraqis, unless they mean it in Ann Coulter's sense--forced conversion to Christianity.

This disgusting hypocrisy makes me, an avowed agnostic, want to cry out: "Allah huakbar!"

It's also important to note that the Shi'ite majority are largely against Bush's Oil War, and are not being especially helpful to the troops advancing from the South of Iraq.  By staying South of the Euphrates River, they can penetrate the country and skirt around these Shi'ite areas.  [click here for a discussion of the Shi'ite-Sunni split, and the Wahabi sect]  Perhaps the deepest irony of the situation is that the war is driving Iraqis from the Ba'ath party to become more religious again.  

Miscellaneous Links

And, if these counterarguments weren't enough for you, here are some links:

March 25th slide show with images taken during the sandstorm.  Uncanny, disturbing, creepy light.  Beautiful photography of the horror of the Bush War.

American War Crimes? "American intelligence agents have been torturing terrorist suspects, or engaging in practices pretty close to torture. They have also been handing over suspects to countries, such as Egypt, whose intelligence agencies have a reputation for brutality."
– The Economist, London, January 11

Do you have what it takes to sacrifice your life for multinational corporations?   An Australian advertisement parodying a military recruitment campaign on college campuses there.  This would never be seen in the same country with Oliver North, but it's quite appropriate. 

Veterans Affairs report on Gulf War deaths and illnesses in Gulf War I veterans since 1991.  See also the article at Alternet on the topic. Whereas only 147 soldiers were killed in Iraq during Desert Storm, and 457 were wounded in action, the number of dead and injured has been increasing dramatically after they returned home.  "So far, according to an April 2002 Veterans Affairs report, an additional 7,758 Desert Storm vets have died, while 198,716 vets have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits. Of the claims filed, 156,031 have been granted as service-connected, with more vets being designated casualties as each day passes. The 198,716 figure represents a staggering 28 percent of the 696,579 vets who fought in the Gulf War conflict!"  (David Hackworth)

The Anti-Antiwar vs Antiwar debate. This article provides an interesting examination of the current and past historical peace movements without the typical partisan idiocy.  One point I strongly agree with--it is most unfortunate that more extreme voices supported by radical political organizations tag on all sorts of "Bonkerist" demands at the peace rallies.  I am sympathetic to general demands for social and economic justice, but I have frequently heard offensive, questionable and distracting nonsense screamed rhythmically at protests.  

Rebuttal of Kenneth Pollack's pro-war The Threatening Storm

John Brady Kiesling, the Greek diplomat who resigned because of Bush's arrogance spent his final night in Greece at the ancient temple of Nemesis, the goddess of retribution who punished the Persians.  He poured a libation to her, and prayed "God save America."   He made it clear that he believes Bush has gone beyond the pale, and will suffer divine consequences.  Undoubtedly, this news will infuriate fundamentalist war mongers.  But, having strong pagan tendencies myself, I encourage everyone who feels that we need a little supernatural boost to fix the problems in the world today, Nemesis is an excellent archetype--a goddess who specializes in kicking the asses of imperial rulers who overstep the bounds of divine law.   The buzz is that lots of neopagans are busy whipping up anti-war juju.