brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?

Very much like that, I expect.

Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink. And please don't think there isn't one--I remember a post in Natter, right before the war started, where the poster said that she couldn't sleep because "we were about to bomb hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children".

Now, did anybody call her on her BS? Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help, or even say what exactly led her to believe that the military of three very civilized countries was too evil or dumb not to target children in the first place?

Nope.

And that is why I have a realllly hard time taking political discussions here seriously. There's a few people, like Cindy and Wolfram and Gar and Victor, who try to steer the conversation from the endless rounds of Bush-bashing. And thank God for that.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months! And unless the war is a total disaster, which it isn't quite yet, Bush will win or not depending on what happens in the last four months before the election. That's what always happens. People who hold grudges or disagree with him won't vote for him anyway. And he won't mind at all--all he needs are his red states and a crop of uninspiring Democratic candidates.

Caroma, are you responding to something in particular? I don't often agree with you, but I like hearing your perspective. We do take things seriously around here, it's true (and for me that's a selling point) so people who disagree are going to respond to your posts.

Caroma--are you saying that bombing, even of mostly military sites, does not injure civilians? No one is that naive. I don't think anyone thought we would ever TARGET children--that's laughable. I don't think that poster meant that either--although I may be wrong, that's how I take that statement, anyway, and why I didn't respond. But civilians have been killed by our forces and will continue to be. I have deep moral qualms about this and I think you denigrate my reasoned opinion by calling it bashing. I believe you also have reasons for your opinion and I don't call you a war-monger, as that minimzes the thought you put into your ideas.

Saddam is a monster, but I think there were other ways to bring about his leaving power without the deaths of so many--and I am thinking of Iraqi civilians and of our own young men over there.

Caroma, our bombs ARE killing children. You know that, right? Likely hundreds. Eventually thousands if our non-blitzkrieg goes on long enough. It isn't hyperbole.

Like the people who drank the poisoned water, I don't think the lack of intent matters much to the parents of the dead.

I think she was referring to the exaggeration of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi children. And I'm not sure this was exactly her point upthread, but some economies like Germany and Japan benefited from the U.S. military hegemony-type thing. They would've had to buy more guns and less butter if we hadn't paid for guns in South Korea and Western Europe. With the split in NATO and our low profile on North Korea, we might be about to lose the stability of Pax Americana as our allies try to fend for themselves.

...the poster said that she couldn't sleep because "we were about to bomb hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children".

Now, did anybody call her on her BS? Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help, or even say what exactly led her to believe that the military of three very civilized countries was too evil or dumb not to target children in the first place?

Why is it BS? The poster said "bomb ... Iraqi children" and that is exactly what is happening. The US is lobbing cruise missiles, plus 1,000 and 4,500lb bombs at Baghdad, a city with hundreds of thousands of children living in it. Now, it doesn't matter if 1, or 1,000, or 100,000 Iraqi children are killed b/c the act of bombing that city is traumatising those kids for life and turning them into potential enemies of the US and the West in general.

Caroma ... I think this sums up the war best of all.

"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will.
Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.

We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.

We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them."

- PETER FREUNDLICH

No matter how anyone tries to "spin" it, the US -- and by default, Australia, the UK and the other coalition forces -- are the aggressors in this war. We have invaded a soverign state, based on faulty "intelligence", be it faked, or just plain garbage and as a result, have totally undermined the purpose and power of the United Nations.

The US is using Saddam's alleged breaches of UN sanctions as an excuse to attack them. Okay, why haven't they attacked Israel, which is also guilty of defying UN sanctions and which also has WoMD and which has also murdered women and children (Sabra & Shatila)?

This whole war is bogus.

Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink.

Caroma, you might consider working on your tone. Is it no longer legitimate that people disagree passionately with you? I tend to take the longview, and notice how (rightly or wrongly) other nations' poor opinion of the US may cause havoc in the future, but isn't that a legitimate opinion to have?

Is an opinion any less well-reasoned -- or nuanced, or encompassing of ambiguity -- if it happens to be the majority opinion at a cocktail party? More frustrating, perhaps, for one who disagrees, but not necessarily less well-reasoned.

We can throw our weight around without simultaneously insulting the people we're ignoring.

This makes me laugh (in that I-agree way). Because it shows how much politeness matters, even when politeness is intended to mask something really obnoxious; because sometimes obnoxiousness is a legitimate tool of statecraft, but there's no point in crowing about your own obnoxiousness.

Hypothetical and not looking for any certain answer, but this question came to me as I was reading the paper this morning. There was a very successful peace rally in Boston (successful in that it was peaceable and resulted in no arrests) yesterday and it got me to thinking.

What would happen if the Bush administration and its allies listened to the protesters? What if (how more hypothetical can you get) the coalition said, "Okay then, we'll stop," -- what then? How should they handle it? Do we just pick up our ball and go home? What would the peace movement want to see happen from there? What would the coalition's responsibility (for bombing their country) to the Iraqi people be? How could they meet it with Saddam still in power?

Gosh, can we understand better now why getting OUT of Vietnam was such a problem for everyone? (That sounds more sarcastic than meant, but I'll let it stand.)