As one of the moderates pushed into the war camp, I found this article very interesting. I always thought it was horribly obvious (and depressing) that the anti-war movement only had pacifism on it's side.

But even an intelligent anti-war person such as yourself still hasn't presented a compelling alternative to war, which would also oust Saddam Hussein's twisted regime. From what I can tell, your alternative would be to continue international pressure, and to stoke (and probably arm) the Shia and/or Kurdish opposition into overthrowing Saddam.

Ironically, such a civil war, even if successful, would result in much more bloodshed and chaos. Furthermore, the resulting government would almost certainly be an Iranian-style theocracy. Frankly, your plan sounds like it came straight out of the CIA playbook: "Replace unfriendly facist regime with friendly facist regime. Minimal cost/publicity, sanctions get lifted and the oil flows once again."

You've got to come to grips with the fact that war was the least bloody option. And stop lumping all Western governments in together when it's convenient. You say that "Western governments and companies that armed the military we just fought", but fail to recognize that those selfsame governments also opposed the war. You can't heap blame on the U.S. for the despicable profiteering and corruption carried out by certain European powers.

Saddam was an American asset during the Iran-Iraq War, when some of his worst atroctities were committed, including indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against both the Iranian army and his own population. These atrocities were shamelessly used by the coalition in justifying the war. The US did not call for his violent overthrow then. Why not? Because of thousands of poisoned Kurds were not as important as protecting Saudi and Kuwaiti oil from Islamic revolutionaries. So spare us the canting lectures on the immorality of the left.
The fact is, they were among the enablers for Hussein at his peak, when he had the largest army in the Middle East and billions in food aid (and under the table military aid) from the United States, Britain, Russia and the Gulf States, as well as doing a brisk arms business with companies from a number of European states. In keeping with the WW2 analogies beloved of the pro-war faction, it is the equivalent of Chamberlain and Daladier coming back to power in 1945 to "finish off" Hitler. Gimme a break.

You keep saying that the anti-war movement should have outlined a method of getting rid of Saddam's regime that didn't involve war.

I don't see any evidence that the movement gave a damn. In fact, I think they mostly supported Saddam, precisely because he was opposed by the United States.

And that's another thing; why is the left abandoning the issue of morality? Whenever anyone brings up the humanitarian crisis in Saddam's Iraq, someone on the Left dismisses it with a snide comment.

What does the Left stand for anymore?

"Saddam was an American asset during the Iran-Iraq War"... ad nauseum.

Another self-destructive argument used by the anti-war movement. To the man on the street, this is pure trivia. We supported Stalin when he faught the nazis as you'll recall. Bringing up choices (even mistakes, even sins) of the past gives ZERO insight into how we should behave now. What are we to do, tear our clothes and beg the world for forgiveness as we spend the next decade in silent contemplation as the world burns? The past is an irrelevance except as a guide to how our choices may turn out now. In fact, this argument is self defeating. If supporting a tyrant was wrong in the past, isnt doing the opposite (ie removing him) the right thing to do?

I think all the posters on this thread raise good points to which the peace movement only ever fitfully articulated successful responses.

(I leave out St. Onge's comment that the peace movement liked Saddam Hussein -- that's childish. While I've heard many anti-ANSWER liberals say that ANSWER, alone on the left, supported Hussein, I have yet to see an instance of that support. That's not to say it didn't exist, only that it was never prominent in what the peace movement stood for.)

As someone who strongly believes that Saddam Hussein was rotten, that the war was wrong, and that the peace movement was more successful than Nathan gives credit but that some of his points stand, let me offer this:

I don't think we have an obligation to answer the question If not war, how should we remove Saddam Hussein? That's when we start offering CIA-like scenarios about fomenting civil war, which Rayonic above correctly identifies as something we customarily find suspect.

I think we respond by saying we need to stop arming useful despots and start developing democracy. And by developing democracy, that means supporting civil society where it manifests -- not just mushy-middle NGOs, but unions, student groups, etc. Is that a little colnial or patronizing? Perhaps, and I'd love to see a debate on how much is useful and how much is ... well, CIA-like.

But it means that we don't get to overthrow governments that attempt to provide social democracy that approaches or exceeds the protections we demand for ourselves.

Now, that's not an easy answer for someone whose family has been tortured by Hussein's thugs. War is a much easier answer. But it's also an easier answer for those who are suffering in Liberia, the Congo, Bolivia, and every other hot spot in the world.

In the case of an imminent threat, then we have to debate war and other heavy methods. But no one is saying that Hussein was an imminent threat anymore ...

I agree that there's no obligation for the people who opposed the war to come up with some alternative method of toppling Saddam Hussein. There were many various alternatives short of invasion and takeover for dealing with whatever threat Iraq was posing. The U.S. and allies were already imposing sanctions, no-fly zones, air strikes and two different weapons inspections regimes. Besides, the main threat to the U.S. was and is al-qaeda and that's where the focus ought to be. The U.S. should have been involved in Iraq only to the extent of Iraq's involvement with the 9/11/2001 acts. Otherwise the U.S. doesn't have to invade Iraq any more than it has to invade Zimbabwe. OTOH our national security should mandate that first priorities, i.e. finish the job on al-qaeda and bin Laden, should be handled first before moving on to other adventures.

The mistake you make is that you have made Bush your focus and not policy. It is the same mistake Clinton haters made. A part of the public is
likely to vote for Bush just to piss off the haters.

Lieberman will be seen as the Goldwater of the Democrats in times to come. In fact their positions are not too far apart. Muscular defence including
the spread of limited government democracy, free market economics, and social liberalism. It is what the center 40% want.

Josh,

In the case of ANSWER:

You lie down with fleas (ANSWER) you get up with dogs. (Saddam)

When ANSWER is speaking in front of 100,000 marchers the left gets tarred.

Next time ANSWER has a rally - tell your friends - don't go.

#7,

Of course the anti-war movement didn't have to come up with an answer to Saddam. OTOH that position makes you responsible for 200 Iraqi deaths a week vs the current situation.

There was a time when progressives were against brutal dictatorships. It is why I was a progressive 40 years ago. The boat people of Vietnam cured me of progressive politics. It appears Saddam is performing the same function for this generation.

No, the position of those who questioned and opposed this war in no way makes them responsible for Saddam's atrocities. Absolutely not. Not any more than the fact that former President Bush did not call for invading China makes him responsible for the deaths in Tiananmen Square and every other human rights violation that China has committed. That's a complete fallacy to make such an assertion.

The default state of this country is not one of being at war, pure and simple, and the U.S. cannot be everywhere sticking our nose in where there isn't a meaningful threat. There are ways to address human rights, moreover, without always resorting to invasion and takeover.

The problem is that the American are frightened of or at least very concerned, and justifiably so, about terrorism, want to strike back at the bad guys and don't distinguish one Middle Eastern bad guy from another. Very many people are not thoroughly engaged in careful thought as to what exactly the U.S. needs to do in terms of specific objectives and as long as the U.S. is striking back at somebody, they're happy. How many people still think that there were Iraqi's behind the 9/11/2001 attacks? That the middle 40% are a bunch of raging warmongers or imperialists, however, I don't accept.

I don't think the peace movement completely failed as much as the pro-war movement had an easy sale to make.

When you vocally oppose a policy (as well as rallying and recruiting others to oppose it) that is to remove a murderering tyrant, while offering no alternative to prevent the evil deeds of the man, how does that not make you a de facto defender of that regime?

Look, you are not obligated to come up with a solution for Saddam, true. But on the other hand you cant go around calling yourself progressive and falsely claim to represent the interests and rights of victims when you so callously oppose their only hope for salvation. Especially when you admitedly have no other recourse to offer those people.

This is like a hostage situation where you tell the cops not to shoot the bad guys. They say, well then what should we do? and you tell them, hell I dont know but dont shoot them. Not very helpful, not good for the victims.

"We supported Stalin when he faught the nazis as you'll recall. Bringing up choices (even mistakes, even sins) of the past gives ZERO insight into how we should behave now."

But then that's contradicting the right-wing POV that Saddam was the next Hitler and that's why he was a "threat." And the past certainly gives us insight on our mistakes. If people aren't able to learn from their mistakes, history will keep on repeating itself and atrocities performed on humans like the Holocaust will continue in cycles.

"that is to remove a murderering tyrant"

And that's where The Bush Administration went wrong. By trying to convince the American public of a billion things at once it was like grasping at straws.

They said Saddam funded the terrorist groups and called it a "War on Terror," then they said it was "Operation Iraqi Freedom," then he was a "threat" because of the tons of weapons of mass destruction (that were nowhere to be found).

I didn't believe any of the above and that's why I protested the war (not because I'm a tyrant-lovin' hippie).

The list of murderous regimes that former presidents Reagan and Bush supported and that the current administration has been willing to leave in place is not a short one, so the fact is that the Iraq war hawks do not have any business chiding others about being unwilling to address evil. The main point to me is that America cannot be the world's policeman. There are various means of addressing human rights short of unilaterally invading here, there and everywhere and in the meantime stretching our military to the point where the U.S. is vulnerable, but the administration's go-it-alone posture is just plain foolish. The U.S. needs allies and it doesn't need to be constantly insulting them. The U.S. needs to show the world that international law and norms of behavior matter by being the prime example of a nation who follows them. That's the alternative to the Bush imperialism/militarism. Clinton or Gore would never have thumbed their nose at the U.N. and our allies and neither would have former president Bush. I suspect that the reason that Bush et al. acted the way they did is that the facts simply did not support Iraq being a serious threat to the U.S. The rest of the world could see that but here in the U.S. all Bush has to do is convince a frightened public that toppling Saddam is part of dealing with terrorists, even though there's really no connection between al-qaeda and Saddam, and he gets his domestic wherewithal. And in the meantime, the real al-qaeda gets to bide their time and regroup because Bush et al. have lost focus on the actual no. 1 threat to the U.S.

"The left in this country has an honorable history of leading the fight internationally for human rights, from challenges to Belgium's mass murder in the Congo at the end of the 19th century (led by among others Mark Twain) to denunciations of the fascist regimes in Europe in the 1930s to attacks on colonialism in the 1950s to denunciations of death squads in El Salvador and Apartheid in South Africa, the left has always called for challenges to bad regimes."

Do you mean those whom George Orwell excoriated in the 1930s for being "against war and against fascism"? Or perhaps those multitudes who vocally opposed the thirty-year long slice of living hell that was Stalin's Russia? Or the government-created famines in China's Mao, Mengistu's Ethiopia, and yes, today's North Korea? Funny how that vocal opposition was and is so inaudible that the resulting silence was and is deafening. In fact, the left has a long and dishonorable tradition of turning a blind eye to the worst excesses committed by regimes mouthing Marxist slogans, or more recently, by regimes opposed to the US or to Western ideals more generally. Implicit support for Saddam fits in perfectly, and in this case also served the "corporate interests" in places like France and Russia very well. It is worth noting that many of the same people who lead protests against the war were earlier protesting against sanctions on Iraq: undermining the regime, before or after the first Gulf War, was the last thing on their minds.

Yank-- What "inaudible" opposition to Stalin? Orwell was a leftist and hardly alone in condemning Stalin. Yes, there were left defenders of the regime but you ignore the widespread condemnation of him-- remember, Stalin was opposed by his internal left opposition, folks like Trotsky and social Democrats who echoed those condemnations worldwide.

But if you want to mirror the ANSWER folks with your distorted view of history, please go ahead. You deserve each other.

First of all, to previous commentors, Saddam's collusion with the U.S. Government is not given as an example of why he is good. Rather, it is an example of why the U.S. does not have the moral authority to intervene in a way that will fix this situation in a long-term sense. Like our intervening in Iran in the '50's and since didn't help. Like how are troops are not welcomed as liberators, and gee like how just about every other thing the Bush administration told us would happen has been wrong. It's a government pattern of destabilizing regions like the middle east by using them as chess pieces in disturbing cold war type situations. Then when all the revolutions and bloodshed lead to lots of violent and fundamentalist groups, we act like they are these inferior subhuman cultures of violence. Like when we U.S. operatives teach or "allies" guerrilla tactics, and then end up fighting them later, and act like they're some primitive barbarians when they use those tactics on us.
Let's face it, the good old U.S. of A. as you know it around here is not the same U.S. that people in other countries encounter. It's a different thing entirely. Chile, Indonesia, how many examples do you need? We're not always good.
The fact is, there is not a good precedent for outside intervention restoring peace and stability to a region. One of the only exceptions is Japan. There is a much better precedent for a country establishing its own independence.
And what's all this "you leftists" talk? A lot of my friends are leftists and we don't always share the same opinion. Nor do we crouch in dark basements reading Marx and laughing at the disintegration of our society. Rather, we are deeply disturbed by the division forming in our country, spurred on by President Bush's "with or against us" policies and attitudes, which leads to a lot of this "you leftists" talk I'm hearing from you.
Saddam is not my buddy, and I do find your comments rather intriguing that U.S. intervention was less bloody than revolution. That's a good point, and may carry some weight. But at the very least then U.N. intervention would be EVEN LESS bloody. But wait, all these assassins in Iraq are Saddam's ex-officers, right? Yeah, sure...
True, pointing out evil dictatorships we support may be an easy out, but the sheer amount of crazy dictatorships does make military intervention half of EVERYWHERE impossible. I'm just starting to think of these things the same way as school shootings - theonly way you can make such violence and terrorism truly STOP (because you can't just watch for everything, there's always going to be a gap) is by making people not want to kill you. And if you think there are no reasons they have (however irrational) you're blind. I'm not defending them, but isn't understanding your enemy a better way to defeat them?
I think it's time we get together with the U.N., start telling some of these weird governments we support (including Israel) to start behaving themselves. Most of these things can be reached diplomatically or economically, and for the ones that can't, let's wait and see which ones those are and then discuss other options.

Americans shouldn't have invaded simply because the Iraqi's didn't want to be invaded and they should pull out asap (And not try to setup another pro-US dictatorship) after paying compensation to the Iraqis, simply because the Iraqis do not want to be occupied.

I am an american living in England.I'm not much of a writer so bare with me....
Even though Tony Blair sides with America on the war in Iraq...a majority of the british people
are appalled about his support on the war and this
is because they and billions of people around the world know the truth why America attacked Iraq.
I know most american will contradict what i am about to say but Bush had it in his itinerary
even before he became president to invade Iraq.
Yeah i know most of you will say i don't know what i am talking about blah blah blah....
The whole reason why we went to war is about the oil along with the power and control that the United States tries to inflict around the world.
What is scarey about america is that our news,our papers, anything having to do with documenting the news around the world is that it is controlled by the governments right-winged views.
Therefore, the news in America is one-sided and
completely biased.
Americans just have no idea what our government is all about and it is frightening.
Take note of this statistic....
America has bombed over 40 countries since the 1940's killing people by the thousands every year.
Someone tell me..what is your defintion of terrorism ???
Bush's plan to free the country of Iraq was to
invade Iraq and bomb the shit out of all the civilians just to catch one man ???
The fact that most people around the world didn't support the war had nothing to do with pacifism...
the war was totally unjustified and was all about America's usual motives of power and control.
It is beyond me why american people support
a right-winged goverment ....it goes to show
you deserve the leader you vote for and
believe me, you people have no clue.

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants