I’ve made the same argument, repeatedly, that it often feels like we’re becoming Germany of the Thirties. Between the browbeaten media and the ballsiness of the Administration, my head spins some days.

I can only hope that more folks are waking up to the realities of the neo-conservative movement.

[sigh]

North Korea already has nuclear weapons. At least a handful. For a host of similar reasons, we are in no position to invade North Korea, since the few surrounding nations, including South Korea, are adamantly against it. Moreover, we picked Iraq to deal with first, long before NoKo became bellicose. Indeed, many observers believe that NoKo started acting crazy right around the time it became obvious we were mobilizing for war with Iraq.  We cannot afford to be distracted from that effort.

Furthermore, we know--I mean, we know for an absolute fact, according to the exact same weapons inspectors who are in Iraq today--that Iraq had massive quantities of mass destruction as late as 1998. None are accounted for now; Iraq claims they destroyed them, offering no proof whatever.

The notion that just becuase one does not like George Bush, he is lying to you for “colonialist” purposes does not stand up to logical scrutiny. Did we “colonize” South Korea, Japan, and Germany? Do you have any evidence that we plan on shipping colonists to Iraq?

And if we wanted Iraq’s oil, why wouldn’t we lift the sanctions, and the 10 years of no-fly-zones, in exchange for a monopoly on Iraqi oil? Let Saddam Hussein butcher whoever he wants so long as he sells us cheap oil?

No, guys. This is a dangerous man with documented--documented--ties to terrorist groups. And with documented mass quantities of weapons of mass destruction that he has not accounted for.

As for World War II Germany: tell you what. When they try to put you in jail for criticizing the President, call me.

We’re going to war because we need to go to war. This is a necessary and moral step. Disliking Republicans in general or Bush in specific is not reason enough to believe we’re descending into a fascist state--and it’s not enough to believe that, simply because you don’t agree with a policy, normal, rational, thoughtful, and peace-loving people might not disagree with you.

Peace, brothers. :--)

Dean

I will be the first to admit that my entry is as much because of the nervousness I’m feeling over the whole situation as anything else.

The problem I have with going after Iraq is that I keep hearing we have all this evidence, but I’ve yet to actually see the administration lay any of it on the table for us to see. All they keep saying is “trust us” and, frankly, I have a hard time with that. Give me good reason to trust you and I will, but so far all he’s made are claims without anything to back them up as near as I can tell from the news I’ve seen and read.

As for colonizing South Korea, Japan, and Germany those were wars fought under a different administration. Though when you consider the fact that we have long-established military bases in all three countries some would argue that, yes, we did colonize them.

I’m sure there are lots of rational, thoughtful, and peace-loving people who disagree with me. A lot of folks seem convinced that the war is justified and are ready to make it happen. I’m not necessarily saying they are incorrect in their views or stance on the issue. I’m just not convinced myself and from where I’m standing it all looks a little crooked. I have no idea what Bush’s real reasons for this war are, but so far he’s not proven anything to me on what he claims his reasons are and that bothers me.

I personally like Dean’s dismissive sigh as if he has to explain the ways of the world to us errant children. Nice touch there Dean.

Like Les, many of my misgivings for going to war with Iraq stem from the current administrations secrecy. If they had the ‘proof’ that you speak of why aren’t they shouting it from the mountain tops? What better way to sway an unsure public and rally friendly nations then to provide this proof of Saddams involvement either directly or indirectly with terrorism? I doubt it has anything to do with national security which is one of the reasons for non-disclosure...the other being that it either does not exist or is flawed and unconvincing.

Is Saddam a vile man? Without question. But so was Idi Amin, Fulgencio Batista, P.W. Botha, and Chiang Kai-Shek who were (while they were in power) America’s allies and at the same time blood thirsty dictators who oppressed and tortured their own citizens. We also trained Osama Bin-Laden when he was an instrument to help us fight that old ‘Evil Empire’, Russia. All of them were our friends and we turned a blind eye...as long as they were doing our bidding. Maybe the people that most need to change how they do business are in our government.

I will admit that I do not like Bush, not because he is Republican (although that party does tend to irrate me like a scabby rash) but more so because he did not win the popular vote, probably didn’t even win the electoral vote, and was still installed in the highest office in the land because nine supreme court justices voted him in. I find it hard to support an illegitimate government especially when they are hell bent on taking us to war, without so much as satisfying the burden of proof.

As far as needing to go to war and that it is a moral step, I guess I need to question your motives and your morals. I could get behind our eradication of Al Queda because of the attack on the towers, that seemed just. An eye for an eye. However this ‘war on terrorism’ has never actually been declared as such, it is after all, a function of CONGRESS to declare war. One coke sniffing mediocre college student turned president can not declare a war. There are checks and balances in place in our system of government to keep any single individual or branch from acting unilaterally. I learned that in grade school, way back when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were revered documents outlining the principles this country was founded on. I have a hard time equating this war mongering and blood lust on the part of ‘normal, rational, thoughtful, and peace-loving people’ to anything resembling morality. Unless you mean that old testament morality where an entire city full of your enemies and their wives and their children and their livestock should be put to the sword.

I am less concerned about Bush going to war for oil or colonization, and call me a cynic, but I suspect his main motivation is to get his approval numbers up. What better than a long protracted war to help him and the reigning party keep power when the next election rolls around? I’m sure that the oil interests our government and that they will install a different blood thirsty dictator friendly to the interests of the U.S. Government when Saddam is deposed, and that he too will turn on us eventually. But first Bush wants four more years...this time because he won the votes.

I just knew it would happen like this.  After Bush somehow managed to rally a frankly unbelievable 76% approval for a “quick” war in opinion polls, we are now being told that it could be long and ugly.  The footage of Iraqis smacking a picture of Saddam with their shoes as an American soldier tears it down, and the stories of Iraqis jumping for joy as “Coalition” forces pass have turned into pictures of American POWs and accounts of Iraqi civilians jeering at or standing stoically as waves of artillery drive by.
Worse still, as our civil rights are being systematically destroyed by various “Homeland Security” legislation we have been lied to repeatedly.  Anyone who says that there are definite links between Saddam’s regime and the terrorists of AlQaeda is simply regurgitating the false message planted in their mind by the “hawks” in Washington.  The only, albeit tenuous, link between them is obviously now a common enemy.  That Iraqi agents tried to obtain uranium or other fissile materials has been proven (100%) to be a fabrication of the U.S. and British intelligence agencies intent on securing a UN resolution allowing for the takeover of Iraq.
And now, with massive unemployment at home, the Republican congress would rather rename french fries and french toast in their canteens, draft legislation “supporting our troops” than extend unemployment coverage benefits (which expire in late May).  Anti-war websites are becoming the victims of DOS (denial of service) attacks, and shut down by their providers.  1930’s Germany, alright.
So, what’s the point of all this?
Let’s face up to the truth.  Let’s quit lying and being lied to.  Let’s look at the real reason we are fighting this war:  Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and their shadowy cronies have had a plan under the table for more than a decade to topple Saddam and force American interests on the Middle East - they found a sympathetic ear in George W. Bush, who is desperately seeking to legitimize his presidency, even at the expense of single handedly de-legitimizing the UN.
I would like to have seen Saddam toppled, but with UN support, and after the inspectors had adequate time (I’d say 3 more months) to either confirm or deny that Saddam was in possesion of banned weapons.

Bush or Shrub, it menaces the common good.  We here in Canuckistan have already tasted the bitter fruit that comes of challenging conventional Republican wisdom… i.e. boots to our film industry, our lumber industry, our auto industry, our wheat and dairy boards.  Ouch!  We thought we could at least be friends. Others will join us shortly.  Sigh.
(You might like our site, mind you, up here in Canuckistan ... your northern neighbours do wish you well).

On May 11, 2004, John Kerry failed to show up to vote in the senate to extend unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of people out of work because of President Bush’s foolish economic, tax and trade policies.  This bill failed to pass by ONLY ONE VOTE! – John Kerry’s. Moneybags Johnny couldn’t make it because he was much too busy campaigning in Kentucky - a state with terribly high unemployment.

Senator Kerry spends more time politicking and making jokes about how nice his hair is than he does actually taking care of his senatorial duties. The man has missed 75% of the votes and has cost his state millions upon millions of dollars.  Now he wants to do the same for the nation.

Bush is a decisive idiot who is financially ruining this country but Mr. Kerry is a shameless liar who falsely prides himself on his superior intellect. So what are we going to do with these two gentlemen?

Personally, I’m voting for a 3rd party candidate. A third party candidate won’t get elected but a protest vote is very important nonetheless. Voting for a third party candidate could have far more impact than supporting status quo politicians.

Don’t throw your vote away by voting for either the selfish gigolo multimillionaire Kerry or the monkey-brained Mt. Bush.

And as far as terrorism goes, read “Osama’s Revenge.” According to the author, terrorists presently have 20 nuclear suitcase bombs (10 times more powerful than Hiroshima’s) that they plan to set off within a year.  Thank you Republican and Democratic leaders.

Somehow this sounds a lot like a Republican attempt to divert votes away from where they’re likely to do the most damage to re-electing Bush. Sorry, ain’t happening here.

If Osama & Axis-co had 20 suitcase bombs, we’d be radioactive stratospheric dust by now.  But we’re not, so they don’t.

If Osama & Axis-co had 20 suitcase bombs, we’d be radioactive stratospheric dust by now.  But we’re not, so they don’t.

I wouldn’t too sure about that - it’s a matter of their strategy and timing. However, I would guess if if they have twenty, ignoring duds they’d probably set off all twenty at once.

After reading the white papers on the US W-54 (MK-54) Nuclear ‘suitcase’ package I can definitely sleep easier.  If they managed to get a hold of 20 such devices they would need to be deployed in tandem in order to be effective.  Even then the yield rates don’t approach what I would have normally considered to be ‘nuclear-yield’.

The engineering in nuclear technology is amazing in this field (critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium in relation to a beryllium relector) and the military has consistently been looking for ways to make lighter high-yield nuclear rounds with little success.  The lightest ones the military has designed to date fit in steamer trunks and weigh about 68 kgs or 150 lbs.

Sounds like a good episode of ‘Myth-Busters’.

Sounds like a good episode of ‘Myth-Busters’.

The problem is that it’s not about the yield, but the contamination.

(charge)