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

Thank you Betsy, I'm bookmarking it now.

Trudy - most of these guys already have a bundle, not that that decreases greed. But I don't know that it's the only motive. I think there's world-order sort of motives in there, too. Which, given who's on first, also carries the potential with it to be scary. I don't think this is only a greed endeavour though. I think it's our try at a domino theory. I just hope the dominoes don't fall on our frigging heads.

**popping in**

Another reason that many Americans are protesting may be to let the rest of the world know that, as someone said above, not all Americans agree with this war. Maybe trying for a preemptive strike against an (probably inevitable) anti-American backlash down the road.

I'm also frustrated with the assumtion I keep encountering--the one that says anti-war=anti-military. For some people, sure. But I just keep thinking about my cousin, who's 25 and joined the army a year ago. I fully support him, and realize that risk comes along with the job description. But if he (God forbid) has to die in combat, I'd like it to be for a hell of a lot better reason than anything I've seen associated with this war.

Trudy - most of these guys already have a bundle, not that that decreases greed.

It's not just cash, naturally, it's power too. The Bin Laden money all came from Daddy's contracts to build the roads in Saudi Arabia.

Every time I hear "but our oil doesn't COME from there" I want to scream "and don't you think that pisses us off?". "We've gone to war for industry before.

But if he (God forbid) has to die in combat, I'd like it to be for a hell of a lot better reason than anything I've seen associated with this war.

Word. Those boys all look like sons to me. (And girls, daughters.) They look like my kids. I want them safe.

And I don't want them forced to decide between being killed by a civilian terrorist and killing an innocent civilian, because there is no livable choice there. Fighting a guerrilla war is soul-killing. (Not to say that the people who survive them are soulless, because they certainly aren't.)

I don't have kids, but I hear you. I'm always thinking when someone tells me not to disrespect the fighting men and women in our armed forces, "I do respect them. I respect them so much, and think they're so good at what they do, that they shouldn't be sent to fight unless we have no other option. We owed them the respect of letting the inspectors inspect, of making sure we were doing this for sound reasons."

I'm not claiming any moral authority coming from parenthood; far from it. It's more that it influences how responsible I hold myself for the rest of the world. If I don't want something for my own children, I should try to protect other children, too. (For the big stuff. Not for stuff like Internet violence and saying rude words.)