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.)

Getting in is always easier than getting out. Isn't it? It's too bad. The world would be a better place if that were reversed.

I think the news did say, in the case of the Boston protest, that the rally permit was applied for several weeks ago, before things got officially war-y.

Then again, what is the direct purpose of a protest? It's not necessarily to cause immediate cessation of the protestable activity; but to register displeasure with it in a public, numerous way. I don't think most of the protesters think that just putting everything away and going home would work, in this case; but they may be signalling their intent to vote against such policies in future, or even just trying to redress the opinion of their country in the world press. (I, for one, think it's a great idea to remind everyone that a country of 280,000,000 people ddoesn't all think the same way, and by "everyone" I mean both within and without the country.)

In answer to your (theoretical) question, Cindy, I think the only thing more irresponsible than getting into the current situation would be to acquit oneself half-assedly, once in it.

We can't just leave at this point-- but I wish we hadn't started. I tend to think I personally would demonstrate for peace rather than anti-war at this point because the horse is out of the barn now.

I've been wondering that, too, Cindy. As somebody who thinks this war is wrong (and who really, really regrets not DOING more about that), I don't know what I want the government to do. If the Good Fairy comes down, waves her wand, and says "For the next month, George Bush will do whatever you tell him to do", I have no idea what I say.

I cannot imagine us leaving with the war unfinished. It embarrasses us in front of the world, it reduces our ability to tell other countries (Korea much?) to "Drop that NOW!" But I can't see any way we can finish this war quickly, either. It's a tar baby.

Caroma, when you say "groupthink", that comes with connotations. The connotation is that people hold their position, not because they have reasoned it though, but because they have succumbed to peer pressure. I'm 43. I was raised among pacifists. I've been at best uneasy about war all my life. I assure you, it wasn't the Buffistas who made me disapprove of this war.

Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink

I do sympathise with your feelings, Caroma; so far in this discussion your view of current events hasn't been shared by most of the other people who have entered the conversation, and I know that must feel uncomfortable and perhaps frustrating.

For what it's worth, though, I'm very rarely in Natter and most of my conversations around here have been to do with fan fic or glitter or mememe stuff, rather than politics. Please don't devalue my opinions by suggesting that I'm just trying to fit in with some standardised Buffista worldview. I am acutely aware of the fact that I'm not an expert on politics, and I am prepared to question my own assumptions as well as those of others. If you are sufficiently interested in the discussion to engage with my points and show me that my understanding is flawed (as it may well be), then fair enough. I'm assuming that you have reasons for your views, and so I'm treating them seriously. If that isn't the case - if you're just making throw-away comments to be provocative, without caring one way or another about their accuracy, then tell me. Sometimes I don’t realise that people are joking, with this medium. I understood that you were serious.

Now, since I'm rarely in Natter I can't speak for the instance you cited. "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children" is, I sincerely trust, an exaggeration of the numbers of children that we're going to kill. So if you're pissed off about that exaggeration being allowed to pass, when a similar exaggeration that was pro-war probably wouldn't have been allowed to pass, then I can see why you'd feel irked. I don't agree with your take on this, but I can see why this could rankle. But, you know, we *are* already causing the deaths and injuries of civilians some of whom will be children. Even if it transpires that the market bombing was down to Iraqis - and, based on our past record with bombing the wrong bloody places time and again with our 'Smart' technology (and based on how many of our own soldiers have already been killed in "friendly fire" in this war, not to mention the fact that the Pentagon admits at least seven of its Tomahawks haven't hit their intended targets) I'm not very optimistic that we can pass the buck for this, but one lives in hope - still these attacks are the direct result of our presence. Perhaps whoever it was in Natter should just have bewailed the "unknown number" of innocent Iraqi children we were going to kill - but the underlying sentiment there is surely "our actions will cause the death of innocent people. Probably a lot of innocent people. This seems to me to be A Very Bad Thing." Perhaps this is too sentimental for your taste, and somebody should have responded with a post explaining why it would be worth inadvertently killing X many innocent people for the (presumed) greater good of the Iraqi population as a whole. But I can't agree that the statement was ludicrous, even if it was an exaggeration.

Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help…

Okay - my grasp of international affairs is patchy, I willingly admit. My understanding was that Saudi Arabia was pretty much allied with the US on most things. I mean, certainly that's part of the reason Bin Laden and co are so angry, as I understood it - because Saudi Arabia (which has a lousy human rights record itself) has a close and co-operative relationship with the US, largely based upon oil trade. The Saudis were key members of the allied coalition that expelled Iraq from Kuwait back in '92. Within the context of the Middle East, my understanding was that they're about as pro-US as it gets.

…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?

Just because our soldiers don't go out there specifically looking for innocent people to bomb instead of soldiers, we can't say "well, it's not *our* fault that we killed innocent people. How could we know? What the hell were they doing there?" That's impossibly disingenuous. We're bombing the places where people live. I do think that we have to accept responsibility for the fact that our bombs are killing, and will continue to kill, innocent people. Some people will weigh up the pros and the cons and decide that it's worth it. Some people will weigh up the pros and cons and decide that it isn't. But I don't think this means that they need psychiatric help.

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.

Respectfully, I'd suggest that you re-read this discussion, because there has been very little mention of Bush. I'm not interested in personally bashing Bush or Blair.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months!

As I said, I balk at accepting that he's anything like as stupid as he's portrayed in the media, and I also balk at accepting that any one person has the power to make *serious* world-altering decisions without input from a shedload of advisors. I'm working on the assumption that both US and UK policies do have something deeper than machismo motivating them, and that decisions to wage war aren't taken lightly. I'm not persuaded that these decisions have been taken for morally viable reasons, and I'm scared stiff of the long term effects, but I'm not putting it down to stupidity or evil.

edited for clarity.