How would people here feel about this war today?

Probably the way I felt about the first Gulf war and the Afghanistan war: sick but resigned. I hated Gulf I, but I honestly couldn't see an alternative.

This time around, I don't believe that alternatives were seriously considered.

Already the war isn't going as smoothly as the administration assumed. If things continue in this vein, I think a lot of people who supported the war based in part on those assurances of easy success will be looking around and trying to figure out where things went wrong.

I just saw some statistics on that. The percentage of people who think the war will be harder than it was made out to be is over half. Support for it hasn't gone down that much. I respect those people who haven't quit their belief even though it looks like it's going to be harder. It seems that they were probably at least realistic about the horror that war is. I still think they're wrong, but at least they didn't go into it buying the cakewalk line.

Maybe they'll take a look at the protestors still out there and decide that their views perhaps bear looking into. If the anti-war contingent has packed up and gone home, we miss a huge opportunity to reach people who are searching and questioning.

That's a good point too.

Dissenting views are already, IMO, being scoffed at and ignored by those in power. By leaving the field, we tell them that if they just barrel through and do everything they can to lock things in, it'll all get easier. We tell them that we don't need to be listened to, that if they present us with a done deal it'll all go away.

This gets to the heart of my feelings on why I can't seem to stop voicing my dissent.

How would people here feel about this war today?

I might feel at least better about the damage to our ability to work with other nations, and their trust in us.

The dolphin's back.

But first, we get the immortal Australian quote:

"Flipper's fucked, mate."

So the dolphin wasn't in league with the terrorists? Go figure.

Well, we don't know where it went in the interim, now do we?

Interesting article about a protest. There was an anti-war protest in a mostly Arab neighborhood of Paterson, NJ. It was organized by people from outside the neighborhood, and a lot of people who live there are complaining because it's hurting their businesses and they think that it's giving people the impression that they're anti-American or pro-Iraq. I've seen similar articles about protests in the same neighborhood before. The feeling usually seems to be, "You want a protest? Protest where you live, don't bring it to us." The people organizing it say that they want to show the Arab-American community that it's OK to express their beliefs.

Maybe they'll take a look at the protestors still out there and decide that their views perhaps bear looking into. If the anti-war contingent has packed up and gone home, we miss a huge opportunity to reach people who are searching and questioning.

That's a good point too.

It really is a good point, and it's probably the main point, too. I was impressed (touched) by the protests in Boston yesterday and like them, this just leaves me wondering. If/once people are reached, what's been accomplished in reaching them, if (and if you don't agree with this next point, my question is moot, but...) if stopping the war now would be worse, would have worse consequences on Iraqi citizens, on our relations with the Islamic world, and on our international image? I agree this war has the potential to spawn a whole new generation of terrorists. But I think pulling out now would do that as well, as well as strengthen the current generation.

Dissenting views are already, IMO, being scoffed at and ignored by those in power. By leaving the field, we tell them that if they just barrel through and do everything they can to lock things in, it'll all get easier. We tell them that we don't need to be listened to, that if they present us with a done deal it'll all go away.

This gets to the heart of my feelings on why I can't seem to stop voicing my dissent.

This I do (personally) understand. I think I understand it because I had such a strong meltdown, for so long during the 2000 election debacle. I walked around sputtering, for about 6 months, 'til finally even my husband and mother (who originally felt the same way) had to tell me to let it go. I was going to have an unfunny aneurism.

Also, for many people the concern was not just what the U.S. and allies would do in the immediate sense, but what happens afterwards. Many, including myself, take their pledges to guide Iraq to a free, democratic state to be complete and utter BS. And that's not a done deal yet. There's still a chance to impress upon the PtB that in taking on Iraq, they've taken on a responsibility that doesn't go away when Saddam does.

I'm very concerned about the aftermath, too. I'm afraid of it short-term, and long term, too. Do you think the message above is coming through in the protests, or does the focus need to change from, "No blood for oil" and "Support the Troops, Bring them Home" - to something that more directly addresses the aftermath?

This time around, I don't believe that alternatives were seriously considered.

I agree. Betsy, do you still have the link to your f-i-l's piece in the paper? I saw it linked in Natter the other night, went to read it, had to do something else and didn't save the URL.

we need to be doing our damnedest to look to what we can build once it's all over, and how we can keep this from poisoning our relations with other countries throughout the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world.

But that will never happen. The war was engineered as a business venture.

They got their guys in office, dismissed the international community, and hornswaggled the public into believing it would be "quick" so they could make a fortune.

Any protest for a quick sane and sensible re-build would have to outline what the problem was in the first place and they couldn't even do that before the bullets started flying.

Cindy, America can win, yet suffer defeat