Wading in the Velvet Sea

Beautifully stated. Finally someone gets it. You made my day. Thank you.

If you were a women Jane Fonda would be so proud.

Thank you! Personally, I'm sick of being attacked as anti-troops, anti-American by not supporting the war. I wish others had your perspective.

Hi, Ryan, by the way :) Long time no see...

I will not insult you with comparisons to Jane Fonda, because I think the article was actually good. I do support our troops, and our president’s decision to employ them against Iraq. But I do admit that both sides of the fence probably exaggerate their political opponents.

What enthusiasts of both sides should realize is that all the protests and/or rallies all accomplish the same thing: nothing. Whether it be Susan Sarandon refusing to make movies until the war is over (we should be so lucky), or a Yale student lying about why he isn’t on the front lines, these displays are as useless as the French. Does anyone who attends an anti-war rally actually believe that Bush will say, “Gosh, I guess I was wrong. Look at all those people singing.” Or do the organizers of the “support the troops” rallies think that the anti-war crowd will all of a sudden collectively repent of the unpatriotic ways? You would think that protestors would have learned something in during the Vietnam conflict. Once we are at war, we are at war until someone wins or gives up. The anti-war movement against Vietnam led to two things, and two things only: people’s going to jail for no good reason, and the spread of venereal diseases.

That's a damn fine piece, fella. While I do feel that the folks out making such noise against the war are hurting the troops' morale, that's generally not their true intention and in America they're welcome to hold their demonstrations... judging from the images I see, it's not like they have jobs to go to.

What I wish is that the demonstraters had the ability to see themselves from an external perspective. I know they believe they're raising awareness about what they believe to be an unjust war, but doing things like blocking traffic isn't going to win anybody over to their side. Once a person starts acting like a jerk, their point is lost.

Actually, I don't support the troops. What they are doing is immoral and illegal. It was their choice to enlist and it is their choice to drop bombs. Did the Iraqi people have a choice to be 'freed'. It's all good and well that we can sit down and have our 'freedom' fries at some five and dime. I like to see how the general public would feel if the roles were reversed.

As a mother of a Marine, I can appreciate your opinion but isn't your comment about the soldier joining just to support a wife and kids hipocritical in and of itself. You have in that one statement become what you profess not to be.

All soldiers do not join just because they cannot get a steady paycheck. My son was highly recruited by many schools including yours but in the end he chose to defend his country and our freedoms. I asked my son why he would put himself in harms way when he had a way out. He did not have to volunteer. He just showed me a picture of his brother who is eight now and said that it was for him and every other child in America. His opinion was that the education would come later but for now he had business to take care of.

The soldiers who you are referring to as basically being unemployable in any other field may not be from the same social background that you are apparently from but they have the ideals that founded this country. And they will pay for our freedoms with their blood and do so willingly.

People may need to remember the families and friends who are left behind to deal with this situation and consider their first amendment right and how it will effect those other Americans.

I would support the troops if they were defending our country. But they are not. They are attacking a 3rd world country that might or might not have weapons. As far as I can see, they are defending their sovereign right for self-determination with sticks and stones while we drop laser-guided bombs on their heads. I'm all for getting rid of Saddam, but not at the expense of destroying Babylon.

Kathy---I am not implying that the only reasons pepole sign up are for paychecks. Far from it. BUt there is undoubtedly a section of the amred force comprised of those people. Its also comprised of people fully committed to the forces due to their beliefs. And a million gradations in between. But I am far from saying the only reason people join the army is to get paid.

Bravo, my good man, bravo. Eliquintly stated complete with proper vocabulary and puncuation all while balancing flawlessly atop the chainlink fence of war seniment. Marine Mom strikes a valid point as well in the inspiration for signing on with Uncle Sam, yet I highly doubt Iraq's liberation nor their Hazardous and Overseas Pay inflated direct deposit is going through our boys' heads as they lob a flashbang gernade into the bombed-out adobe that used to house five families. They are training on the end of the mussle and thinking for God's sake GET OUT OF THERE ALIVE! We can sing and yell and write and rally all day but we will change nothing. The best we can do, my friend, is cross one finger over another for every man and woman involved, and leave lady fate to her biding.

A very solid piece. I have been thinking along these same lines for a long time now.

The more I see it in the current conflict the more I see it *everywhere* in politics. It has been said, many many years ago, that "The First casualty of War is Truth."

My question to the world is: When did all political interactions and disagreements become minor wars? As I read off of an article about a truthful coach in "the Pitt" today, teams work better with honest leadership. So, how can we be expected to have an appropriate, moderated opinion when every time we see our Leaders (politicians) on TV, they are trying to slander one another, lying, and generally playing ridiculous games entirely based on the extremist "views of their party" and their own desire for personal gain.

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if our Leaders actually behaved like open-minded (hopefully intelligent) people. Do you think they'd have this positively terrible Global political situation if they could stop interrupting one another with insults at every meeting? And this kind of behavior is occuring at Global interactioins as important as the frickin' United Nations summits and meetings before the physical "War with Iraq" began.

Now maybe I'm just too naive, but my mother would have slapped the nose off my face if I had behaved like any of these political clowns when I was at home, as a child. Don't any of these guys think "My Mom's going to see me on TV doing this"??? I bet if they had my mother they would, and they'd know true fear of retribution for their actions.

Instead, we are forced to watch 'Diplomacy' fail left, right, and center. Well DUH. If people actually stop yelling their point for five seconds and try to actually think about reality, maybe we wouldn't have been in this "boat" in the first place.

And finally: Good old Jean Chretien (that's the Canadian Prime Minister for all of those Americans who don't know their greatest allies) also has me wondering... What kind of an example are we setting by making a lovely PR fireball over 'Canada's Non-Participation' in the Iraq Conflict, (Lovely example of idiot politicians yelling insults) and then sending our forces to join existing US Carrier armadas?

According to the Canadian Government: "They're only there in case our American Allies are attacked, they are not a part of the war" and the intelligence and surveillence resources? "They will not participate in combat," as if they aren't telling US forces where they should use *Weapons of Destruction*...

Ummmmm, OK there guys. Like I've never been caught doing something I shouldn't be before. "I wasn't going to *take* that cookie, I just wanted to open the jar... Yeah, that's it..." Again, Mom caught me. What if I just told my friend where the cookie jar was, but he'd gone to get it? Do you think I would have been uninvolved? Guilt by association at the minimum.

So, if my childhood memories prove that my "Democratic Society's" Leaders are a bunch of misbehaving children, how can I possibly put any amount of faith in them?

Shawn Stansfield

Kathy,

Your son chose olive over ivy in order to protect the freedoms of every child in America, including his eight-year-old brother. That choice was certainly an admirable one. Like it or not, one of the freedoms your son is fighting for is the First Amendment. Are you asking that protestors not exercise their First Ammendment rights in order to preserve the feelings of those families and friends "left behind to deal with this situation?" Kathy, feelings be dammned. The key word in your description of your son's enlistment is 'volunteered.' He had the choice to enlist in the Marines just as I have the choice to speak out against war, against cabbage, and against Richard Gere's tap dancing.

Pardon me, what was your point?

here's my # (415)902-4605

Finally! It's worked! LOL.

Excellent comments, Ryan, I've been thinking the same thing. I particularly agree about your comment that these kids enlisting have some sort of "choice." If the economy makes it impossible to make a living if you have no education, and Republican policies make it impossible to get a decent education, then joining up with the one entity that can pay you and maybe provide some training isn't really a "choice."

A question I have for all the supposed "pro-life" anti-choicers out there: How do you resolve your unwillingness to allow a woman to abort a pregnancy with your willingness to send 18 year olds to their deaths in the desert for no good reason? And if you were thinking of making some comment about 18 year olds making a choice to join the combat and a fetus having no such choice, then see my comments above. A "culture of death" indeed.

Steve, re your comment: "Once a person starts acting like a jerk, their point is lost." Why is it that is only true of the anti-war side? The warmongers and the radical right wingers in general act like jerks ALL THE TIME yet no one every calls them on it. Sure, Trent Lott lost his leadership position for being caught being stupid, but nuts like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter get away with hatred and bigotry and general jerkiness every day without anyone saying, "Boy they make the right wing look bad! Wish they'd shut up!"

Can anyone look past the emotion and realize that the world isn't a pretty place. Look around at the United States. We are a nation controlled by corporations in one way or another. Our government is simply a very good corporation, making a great business decision. I feel for the troops who get paid to carry out these decisions, but Iraq is bad for the US. Anyone should be able to see that, and we are in the business of being the most dominant, wealthy country in the world.

Thank God and Goddess for the First Amendment!

I am against this war for the same reasons I am against ALL war - destruction of mother earth. It does not make sense to burn down the forest in the hopes of killing the kudzu! I guess that means that I don't think we should have to declare war in order to oust a (globally) dangerous megalomaniac. Assassination makes more sense to me. And maybe if more of our leaders were fair international game, they would be a little less likely to step on their neighbors toes. Maybe, eventually, only honest people who have nothing to fear would run for office! A dream, true, but a nice one.

From there, my thoughts get mushy.

I support our soldiers. They are doing what they have chosen and been trained to do and I do not consider them to be bloodthirsty warmongers. But I do consider them to be patriarchal thinkers, all bound up in honor and glory and patriotism...and I believe that patriarchy is primarily what is wrong with the human condition.

As for the US, there are many things I hate about my country and many things that I love. One of the things that I love is freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to say what they think and believe wherever and whenever they choose. People who feel that peace protestors are hurting this country are forgetting that what they are truly doing is preserving it's foundation. Democracy is hard!

I echo the sentiments of those that congratulate your delivery of a call for more mutual respect on both sides. However, in an era of us vs. them, with us or against us politics, where the chief politico got an education on the finer points of the Pepsi-Coke wars and not necessarily WW1 (where the British began a lengthy stay in what is now Iraq---quick war this time?Hmmmm...)I have to humbly ask...which side of the proverbial fence do you fall on?

MsWise:

I answered you here.

I am neither pro-war, nor pro-soldier. We are supposed to be the most advanced civilization in history, yet as a race we will never evolve beyond reactionary, predatory animals unless we can embrace peace at all costs. Yes Saddam is a terrible human being - so how does emulating his behaviour make us better? It does not. Simple. Until we as human beings start seeing the population of this planet as fellow humans, allies and brothers/sisters - how can we hope to achieve the ideals of peace? And I'm sorry - religion - be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslem, Buddhist or Scientologist has NO place in government. Any government.

Hedi,

Go hug a tree. What good does Mother Earth do us if we are not here to enjoy it, same said for the first ammendment.

Ryan-I agree, you have also made my day just based on the fact that you are willing to look at this thing from a different vantage.

Lisa- Please check your defintion of illegal. Also, if the roles were reversed and I was a woman living under Saddam's regime, or in half of the other Middle Eastern countries for that matter, I would hope that some benefactor would come to free me, my family and my children, especially if I were incapable of freeing myself. You're right, no one asked these people if they wanted to be freed, but I'm sure that whatever happens in the aftermath of this war, nothing that the US will do can compare to what Saddam has ruthlessly done to his own people.

The fact that you and I are even capable of expressing our opinions is due to the brave hearted souls throughout the history of this country, men and women, who have suffered and died to give us this right. In addition, please keep in mind that our "freedom fries" will probably end up saving a country so far down the spiral it teeters on bringing down the entire region (anyone remember the invasion of Kuwait?) and inspire people with the hope of being able to speak their minds and hearts, without fear of death or something worse.

No, I do not like the idea of war, of innocent people dying, or our own soldiers dying for that matter. I don't think anybody, when deciding to proceed with military action, thought "Well, let's just send em in and who gives a s--t." However, we're in this whether we like it or not and we now have two choices, continue the banter about how we're screwing up morality or win and hope that the ideals we have traditionally honored, like freedom of life, liberty and happiness prevail.

Ava- Ah, the perpetuation of stereotypes. Your parents must be so proud.

Ava,
You go hug a tree! Remember, without the earth, we will not exist to enjoy our freedom!

Hedi

If you can't hug a tree, then the terrorists have already won. Oh wait...

Ava, Really, you must be complimented on your originality. Please remember, that it is because of the First Ammendment that people like you (and me, as it would seem) are able to hide behind our computers on a Thursday afternoon and banter back and fourth. Ava, it must be said, you're posting makes you look like an idiot. At least try to carry on a thoughtful exchange. No, "Go hug a tree" is not thoughtful.

Ava,
Mother Earth and all it's living creature would go on peacefully if we were not here to corrupt/destroy/pollute or as you said "enjoy" it.

It seems obvious to me Ryan , that you are right. None of us really want a war, that to me seems pretty simple. Anyone who thinks that people who are pro-troop or pro-war want a war and bloodshed simply doesn't think rationally. I think that what is missing here is that people don't remember what actually got us here, and that is the fact that Saddam invaded an innocent country full of innocent people 12 years ago. He lost a war, and now has to deal with that loss. He has to disarm, and if no one else wants to step up to the plate, then it is up to us, our responsibility. This probably won't do anything to rid the Arab people of there resentment and hatred of us, but so what! They will resent us and hate us until they get a taste of the freedoms that we enjoy, and that our young men and women are fighting to defend.
Furthermore, Redhead's comment about abortion is typical of a far left elitist who backs issues without really thinking them through. Please explain to me the correlation between abortion and enlisting in the military. There is none, what a stretch. You are a prime example of the unreasonable left wing that is acting like a jerk. The bottom line is that we could discuss this until this war is over, and you will never belive in it because you are unwilling to listen to reason. You are so high on you liberal pedestal you can't tolerate,or be a part of a civilized conversation.

This is for all of you "anti-war" protestors out there who like to hide behind the 1st amendment every time someone challenges your actions. I'm not against a person who is anti-war just those who pretend to be because at the moment it's "the cool thing to do." Where were all of you when the USS Cole was attacked in a clear "act of war" and where were all of you when Al-Queda stated for all the world that they had "declared war" on the United States after they used civilian jets to destroy the World Trade Towers and attempted to do the same with the Pentagon, you know, that clearly military facility in our nations capitol? Why not protest those acts of war? And hey here's one even better question, why aren't you over in Iraq where the war is actually happening? What better place to protest the war than in the actual arena where it's happening? If you really wanted to make a difference, that's where you'd be. Come on, I dare ya, go on over there and give it a try. What's the matter? Not willing to die for what you believe in? Well there's the difference between all of you and our troops. They actually are willing to die for what they believe in. I don't expect you to understand what motivates them to do what they do, it's that same inexplicable, unpalpable thing that makes a person become a police officer or a fireman or an emergency responder of any kind. They're willing to go the distance for what they believe is the right thing to do, you, or should I say 99.9% of you are just protesting to get your face on tv, or revive the spirit of the 60's cause you missed out the 1st time around, or hey it's the cool thing to do, or maybe you're just bored with your pathetic life and this will give you one exciting thing to look back on someday. The one common thread that I have seen among you anti-war groups is that you're not so much anti-war as you are anti-Bush or anti-Republican and hey if that's your beef than by all means have a "we hate Bush demonstration" I can respect that, but don't hide your politics behind an anti-war message when you really could care less. I'll be the first one to say it, I think it's great if a person truly dedicates themself to a cause 100% and what a cause this one is. There are wars going on everywhere in the world, all the time, no waiting, you'll never experience a lull. But don't expect to gain anyone's respect and admiration when you're holding up a sign "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" when you yourselves are living in the richest country in the world with all of your creature comforts, like those nice cars you like to drive and those warm houses you sit your butts in that use that oil, with your unlimited opportunities and freedoms that people in other countries can't even begin to dream of. Don't pretend to be a humanitarian for a day, week or however long you get a rush out of doing this. That's the greatest injustice of all. Where is all of your concern and compassion for those men, women and children who live with terror everyday, what is that okay with you guys? Explain that one to me if you would. Let's see, it's okay with you that Saddam Hussein rapes, murders and tortures, develops weapons of mass destruction and uses them, invades his neighbors at will, harbors terrorists that pose a threat to not only our national security but world stability, but the United States should be ashamed of trying to stop him???? Are ya kidding me? There is shame to be dealt around here and it's the silence and tolerance that allows criminal behavior like that to continue.

Ouch, Mr. Yale. When you ended the second sentence in the third to last paragraph with the word "choice," that pesky period should have come before the quotation mark: "choice." not "choice".

An A- on an otherwise excellent piece. You should write comedy.

I just wanted to throw something else out for people to chew on. Yes, it's cliche, but it's amazing how history repeats itself. Could this be another Vietnam? Who knows- but I find it bitterly ironic that the most prolific communist leader in that conflict was Ho Chi Minh...who happened to be on the United States OSS (Pre-CIA for those who do not know) payroll throughout World War II.

Now there's Saddam, who undoubtedly solidified his leadership with a lot of direct support (money, conventional weapons, and WMD technology) from the US in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s (Remember, Iran was more detested during the Reagan Administration). Why is it that policies carried out with the best intentions by the leadership in the United States keeps biting them in the ass?

And by the way, I'm so glad that half of Latin America hasn't decared war on the US for the last 50 years of CIA-sponsored assassinations of political leaders (would they argue this was State-sponsored terrorism?) and the setting up of puppet dictatorships. Sure, many were democratically elected by their people, but whoops! Some happened to be socialist, communist, or against American corporate involvement. Don't believe me? Read your history books- it one of the main reasons Ford put in the executive order against assassinations of foreign leaders.

The main point I'm trying to get at here is this: I support our troops and the sacrifice they are making for our country. However, I and the rest of this country should seriously and continuously question the policies of our leadership. Who's to say if they are right or wrong? Maybe our grandchildren, after reading it in school.

Hey Mark, didn't go to Yale. But thanks for playing!

To Jo article posted March 27, very well written!!!! I remember the Vietnam era,I stand behind our troops 100%.I feel we all have concern for this current war,have any of the we want peace no bloodshed people ever had anyone involved in the military? probably not,Remember all the LOVE and BONDING the country had after 9/11? Would the protesting continue if we had another invasion in our country? Have any of the "peace loving wanna be hippies from the 60's" purchased anthing for protection should we have another attack? I have my thoughts you have yours,if need be we would ALL work together if the need should arise. Bless you all.

Jo - you are absolutely 100% correct - these people aren't so much anti-war as they are anti-Bush. The clearest example - as I posted on my own site a couple days ago - is this: where were these people in 1999 when Bill Clinton ordered airstrikes on both Iraq and Serbia? None of these people said word one about that. There were not "die-ins" or multi-thousand people marches over that. Even Tom Daschle - who has been so outspoken against Bush - was supportive when his fellow Democrat ordered said strikes. Its nothing more than political hypocrisy - plain and simple.

To Rob: yes, I think that largely, the anti-war protests are hypocritical, but for anyone who is going to argue pro-war, to mention hypocrisy, is unwise. After all, why is the US not attacking countries that flaunt the human rights, like Zimbabwe? No oil there? Why do they not attack someone who can put up any real resistance, for example, North Korea? Can't handle it? Why are most peace-keeping missions not supported by either US money or US troops? Not useful as a means of showing the world who's boss?

Answer me those and then you can talk about hypicrisy as much as you want.

vee,

1) Zimbabwe is not the center of a large terrorist "belt". They do not harbor terrorist like Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Check a map, it's a nasty "belt".

2) North Korea will be attacked, in due time.

3) Once peace is instilled the majority of money usually comes from the funds gained from a nations liberation.

WOW, those were easy.

...liberals are hypocrites.

Better?

better? no.

'terrorist belt' - what are you talking about anyway? what does it matter if the people are mistreated within the terrorist belt or outside it? who made that term up? what defines a terrorist following your statement? being from iran, iraq or afghanistan?
what about northern ireland, basque country, chechnya, palestine, and practically every saharan nation? Does the US care about those places? hardly. Maybe palestine.

North Korea will be atacked, in due time. Fine. In due time, we shall see.

"Once peace is instilled the majority of money usually comes from the funds gained from a nations liberation."

this is meaningless. show me one place where this has really happened?

not as easy as some might think.

cheers.

"cheers."

That about summed up your credibility.

Thanks for playing.

This fellow brings up a good point that the US doesn’t always intercede when another country’s government is violating the human rights of its citizens. What we must remember is that “freeing the Iraqi people” is not why our armed forces are there. The regime change that will bring freedom is really just a fortunate benefit of our forces doing what must be done. Hussein has to be disarmed. Calling the operation “Iraqi Freedom” is really no more than a PR move on the government’s part. Had Hussein fully complied with UN sanctions, he would still be abusing his people and we would be doing nothing to “free” the people.

The only question about the validity of the war is whether or not we have the authority to launch a preemptive strike against a foe that hasn’t launched a direct attack (yet) on our people. For those who are adamantly against our military action, let me pose a question about the events on September 11. Before I ask, I must freely admit that the alleged ties that the Bush administration has made between September 11 and the Iraqi war are shaky at best. I personally don’t believe any real tie between Bin Laden and Hussein exists. In fact, I’m pretty sure they hate each other. The mentioning of September 11 in all the speeches about the war are efforts to stir people’s emotions from that time, and redirect some anger toward Hussein. It’s not a bad political move, but the reasoning just doesn’t hold water.

Anyway, my question is this: if the United States had known what the terrorists were planning that day, would we have had the authority to stop them by any means necessary? I think that answer is undeniably “yes.” Since the tragedy at Columbine, CO, many students have been arrested when their family or friends discover a plot and report it to police. Why should we arrest them? They haven’t done anything yet.

Dealing with Hussein is no different. He has broken international law by producing weapons of mass destruction. He is a madman to the degree of Adolf Hitler. If anyone thinks he would not use these weapons against the US and others, you might want to spend some time studying what kind of man he is. He would do it, no question.

There is one argument against the war that I can understand. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. Some think that the inspectors should have been given more time and manpower. This position is understandable, as one should want to avoid war as much as possible. I personally believe that wouldn’t have helped, and just delayed the inevitable. It may have allowed us to have more allies, but I doubt it. This position seems reasonable, but the idea of not going to war no matter what does not. Not going to war against Hussein would be inviting more death in the future, for both our country and others.

Actually, vee - I wasn't making a pro-war argument. I'm not pro-war – I don’t think anyone is truly “Pro War.” I am simply pointing out that these people were nowhere to be found when the Democrat president was the one ordering the air strikes. If you’re going to protest a military action, have the common courtesy to do it regardless of whom is giving the orders.

Just for the record – I am neither Republican nor Democrat. They both have ideas that I like and some that I don’t. I’m simply giving my government the benefit of the doubt that they probably know a lot more than ANY of us on the outside do and are acting accordingly. If in the end that’s proven to be wrong, then so be it and I’ll be man enough to admit that I was wrong and will not trust the Bush Administration again.

Until that time comes, I am in full support of them and regardless of what happens – I am ALWAYS in support of our troops. Like it or not, the military is a necessary evil in this world and these men and women are doing something that the majority of us don’t even have half the balls to do. And yes, I’m including myself in that majority. They deserve all of our support regardless of how you feel.

Look, at the end of the day, I'm content to know that Flash Gordon saved everyone of us. EVERY one of us.

FLASH!
Oh-ohhhhhhhhhh!
King of the Impossible!

Yes, it's power chord Friday, folks...

Being of a small minority of political group that I like to call "The American Party", I would like the opportunity to make several comments on what I have read on this site. I was once a soldier in the United State Army, and it was only through that point in my life that I was ever able to come to some sort of conviction in my life.

Being a teenager or young adult affords many of us the luxury of idealism. Something that others I have encountered can ill afford. I now find myself in my middle aged life, wondering why things ever have to reach a point of insanity. Why is it that so many of our politicians and leaders act so childish? It is because we let them do it. We have become so ineffectual as human beings and parents that we proliferate a madness of ambiguity, arrogance and indiffernce. We all claim to know what is wrong, but no one ever actually tries to do something about it.

Why is it that Saddam Hussein, and others like him, have been able to stay in power all these years. It is most certainly not because of their overwhelming charm and charisma. It is simply because they hold the reins of power with brute force terrorism and tyranny. There was a time in our world history in which such leaders were not tolerated. Rather they were ousted by the peace loving men and women who had conviction in their lives.

This is no different than the actions that we see today. We have these same people of conviction that are risking their lives so that other people might be free. We have no interest in their country. Their are no real resources that we can take from them that we have not already taken from others. We have a long history of this and the world seems to be less tolerant of people like us, than for the madmen such as Saddam Hussein, who are allowed to savage their own land in the name of power. Why is that? Why is it that everyone thinks these problems will never affect our country, nor should we ever concern ourselves with the plight of others.

These are exactly the reasons that many people can rationalize the killing of the innocent, while saving the guilty. So many have used world events like this to promote their political viewpoints, like how can we send 18-year old soldiers out to die in some desolate country, yet show disdain for those who wish to have an abortion. Interesting correlation, but here it goes. It is because these soldiers understand freedom and the babies were never given a chance for it. They are merely the forgotten future of a society plunging into anarchy and unrestrained tolerance, that is, in my opinion. This is the same reason why we do not care what happens to other people.

We all talk about the First Amendment rights, but no one seems to remember, or at least stipulate, that we have these rights because our forefathers fought and died for them. Our African-American brothers and sisters are free today because the generations after them fought and died for their freedom. France and Germany are free countries today to make decisions against us for that same reason. So many publicly ridicule us for our "aggressive posture", yet no one seems to note the billions that we pour into these same countries so that they might have a taste of what we now take for granted.

What will it take for people all around the world to realize that we can not tolerate everything. That every action of war is not necessarily one of extending political doctrine to the means of furthering an empire. Maybe it just for the purpose of removing a threat to the world and humanity. Something that should have been agreed upon at the level of the U.N., but was blocked by countries like China, France, Germany and Russia, for reasons that appear to be their own. And what reasons are they exactly?

As I said earlier, I am a member of the American Party. I believe many ideals that are held Democrats, Green Party, Independents, Libertarian and Republicans. I can love Mother Earth, yet still see the overwhelming need to protect those who have been rendered incapable of seeking the same freedoms that we enjoy. I will not toe a party line. I will voice my opinion as so many of you other patriots have so eloquently imparted, even though you may not hold them in your heart. That is your choice. It is the cost of Freedom that gave us this right. And I find myself in awe of nation that can still maintain it, even through It's many flaws. Thank you.

Christopher J. Smith

Does anyone know what's happening in Afghanistan? There doesn't seem to be much news on it. I mean after all we carpet bomb the place. Is our government helping to rebuild it? I heard bush didn't set anything aside in the budget for the aid of the Afghan people?

I've heard and read recently that there is still quite a bit of military activity in Afghanistan. A couple of weeks ago, the US launched the most aggressive offensive in over a year.

I guess it just goes to show that we are a nation with a painfully short attention span. We don't seem to care at all about Afghanistan, because it's old news. If the war is still going on in Iraq in a year, I wonder how much news coverage there will still be. Probably minimal compared to the upcoming presidential race, I'd guess.

Yes, we as a nation have an MTV-attention span.

Remember Gary Conduit? The Oscars? Or Elizabeth Smart? Anyone? Bueller?

I love the way an intelligent (but innocuous) piece on the "pulse of america" can inspire so many to such emotional outbursts.

One question, where was all the sentiment two months, ago? An intelligent rallying against the impending war BEFORE going to war would have been much more palatable. We procrastinated and now we are at war.

Now we have so many of our citizens over there committed to a fight they may or may not have intended to fight when they enlisted. None the less, they are there to fight for us and to carry out the war that HAS started.

How can anyone really refuse to support them?

Big Cat, the sentiment was there, but as I've tried to point out, a moderate voice is one not often heard, especially in the face of extremist rhetoric. Moderate points-of-view are not attention-grabbers. It's hard to be militantly moderate.

But yes, part of you is true, too little too late. But, if injecting moderate viewpoints now can help at all, I'm all for them.

Too true.

Can't we just get back to a time when the raging controversy in the US was the daring that Metallica could release a title-less album.

(Oh wait, weren't we fighting then, too?)

Ryan-
An excellent peace, its nice that someone is making the attempt to focus on common ideals rather than differences. I do believe Saddam should be removed as a leader, but it is unfortunate that the current administration (with the exception of the President) saw fit to ignore Saddam's previous humanitarian violations in the 80's when it supplied him with his chemical weapons arsenal. They even went so far as to block the U.N. from criticizing Iraq's use of those weapons on Iran. I believe that such a compromise our nations'ideals for the benefit of a specific political agenda only serves to destroy our integrity.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for our troops serving in Iraq. While I agree that there are dubious reasons behind this conflict (ie Why didn't our administration provide proof of WMD's?); our soldiers do not have the ability to make policy decisions, they merely have to carry them out. This is what makes their job so difficult and I applaud them for taking on a task that many of us would not have the courage to perform. I believe that view points like Lisa's serve no purpose except to hurt and discourage those soldiers who are most likely in one of the scariest situations they have ever seen. However, I am entitled to my beliefs just as Lisa is entitled to hers and to take that right away from her is to destroy one of the pillars of our nation.
Similarly, the current round of French-bashing is one of the most childish and ignorant things I have witnessed from our government and our nation. While we do not have to agree with France's position it is their democratic right to have their own opinion. Democracy doesn't just mean going along with the administration's view point. Freedom Fries? How free are we if we cannot have and express our own opinions.
Finally, it was Al Queda that bombed the USS Cole and pepetrated the tragedies of September 11th. US intelligence has not been able to find any connection between those events and Iraq. President Bush claim a link because of reports that Al Queda operatives were in Iraq. He forgets that Al Queda operatives were in the US before the Sept 11th attacks.

Jon, I wasn't making a comparison between abortion and enlisting in the military. I'm asking a question. The Christian right accuses feminists and pro-choice "liberals" of perpetuating a "culture of death." That's what they call it. I'm just saying, what are THEY perpetuating? Standing behind God and saying America has been blessed by God to go into this war -- is that not a "culture of death"? It's not being on an elitist liberal high horse to point out hypocrisy. Or is it? Many seem to think so.

And in my comments I never said I was against the war, I said I agreed with Ryan's comments on many levels. As far as taking out oppressive regimes that inflict pain on their people, especially the women people, hell, let's go! However, Iraq and Saddam wouldn't be at the top of my list.

I think redhead has some good comments. I’d like to address them from my point of view.

I have very fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I take the Bible literally, and believe it to be the Word of God. That being said, I do not consider myself politically aligned with the likes of Jerry Falwell and others that seek to integrate government and religion, or church and state if you prefer those terms.

I (and I think many others) are anti-abortion not because of religious convictions, but because of I believe that our nation should uphold the human rights guaranteed by our constitution. Aborting a baby is taking away its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether we like it or not, those babies are citizens, and our constitution protects their rights. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in the pro-choice movement are those who say we should make it illegal for religious reasons. When you think about it, that’s kind of an absurd position. That’s legislation of religion, just like what Saddam is trying to do. There are many things I believe are sinful, and abortion happens to be one of them. I believe it is wrong to engage in pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, or be a drunk. However, I don’t think we should make these illegal. People have a right to live as they please, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others. Why do these people say we should outlaw abortion for religious reasons, but not everything else that they consider sinful?

I realize this posting isn’t about abortion or religion, so I’ll try to get back to the point. I am for this war, because I think it is the right thing to do for our country and the world, not because I have some twisted idea that our military is acting as God’s hand in punishing the infidel. When people begin thinking of military action as carrying out God’s will, they start treading on dangerous ground. For instance, what if we lose? I know that seems far-fetched, but probably not any more far-fetched than the concept of the 13 colonies defeating the British army 200 years back. It is a possibility. If you preach that this war is God’s will and our military is acting on his behalf, are you willing to throw away your faith if we lose? I would think not. Similarly, the sandstorm in Iraq a couple of days ago was declared “God’s way of holding the US back” by Iraq. Not that there is good weather and the bombing resumes, does this mean that the same God who protected the people two days ago now hates them and wants the bombs to fall again. I’m rambling a bit, but the point is the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

I apologize for the poor organization of the thoughts, but I hope it gets the point across. To sum up, redhead, you are correct in that sometimes the reasoning behind the anti-abortion logic and pro-war logic seems hypocritical. Just realize that these people (much like the New York protestors on the anti-war side) don’t accurately reflect the beliefs and motives of the majority of the people the claim to represent. As usual, the loudest of a group is mistaken as a representative of the majority.

nathan,

I am interested in knowing what your thoughts are about patriarchy.

hedi

Chris, I respect your point of view. I don't necessarily agree with it. I would support the troops if they were defending our country, but we are the aggressors this time....and the argument that they are just following orders and willing to die for their beliefs doesn't wash with me b/c you can make the same argument for the terrorist who hijacked the planes. Sure it would be great to remove Saddam, but not at the cost of innocent lives. Is our government really going to rebuild Iraq or just get that contract for Haliburton after all Dick was the CEO. It also seems the government has been behaving childish...I mean 'freedom fries'...come on. You figure the people running our country would be culturally intelligent enough to know that french fries were invented by the Belgians(french is a culinary term for cutting it thin). They are call 'patats' and with mussels, they are fantastic.....and if we really care about the 'New World Order'...shouldn't we do something about the Republic of Congo...over 2 million people have been killed in the last 3 years....that's genocide but I don't see our government stepping in and naming the campaign 'Congo freedom'.

Nathan, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish that people like you were the ones running Fox News and on the airways, not the Jerry Falwells of the world who want to legislate their morals on the rest of us. I often find that one on one I have much agreement with those who are religious and anti-abortion. If only the whole world could agree to disagree peacefully.

I found your comments about "what if we lose" especially interesting since I've wondered the same thing myself. You are right to ask if the believers would through away their faith in that case.

Hedi,

I sent you an email regarding your question. If you prefer I post instead, just let me know.

NW

I can't wait until the atom bomb goes off and wipes NYC and Washington DC off the map. I'm ready, I have been ready since 1993 when Someone tried to kill me as I cashed my paycheck in the world trade center. What a ride that was. Glad I wasn't around for the 2nd ride. I knew they would be back and I got out of dodge! I still think its on its way here. What a show its going to be. I was hoping this war would help stop it, but after watching the news the last few days, I'm even more convinced its on its way. Prepare People, we are back in the 50s. build your shelters. Arm yourselfs.

French- Cheese eating surrender monkeys!!

Redhead and Lisa, if you were raped in Iraq you would have to marry your rapest. Forget about the abortion

Max,

If you blew president bush, you would have oil all over your face.

Yes, both of those last two statements are helping. Thank you. I'm gonna let the healing wash over me.

Aids is the only hope for the animals of africa!!!

Man I love aids, the herd needs a good thinning out.
The Earth is sick it has a bad case of humans!!!!!!! I hate my race. Pure evil, we are.

There is no god, he would have acted already!
Stop with the 2000 year old story book crap. Its all bull.

I can't wait to fill my super suv for 10 cents a gallon. Thank you Mr. Bush

Wow, things certainly deterioriated after Max stepped in. Just everyone keep in mind where it started to go bad and what line that person was taking.

No, thank you Max. I will see you at the slurp ramp.

Some people have to much time on there hands. And I seem to be one of them. So here is the answer: LOVE. It's that simple. LOVE. Not some biblical overlord LOVE. Or some mind numbing drug induced love. Just Love. I think U2 said it best in the title of there song called Pride (IN THE NAME OF LOVE WHAT MORE THAN THE NAME OF LOVE). Now I know your saying to yourself "why am I reading this sappy hippy", but I will have you know that I'm a 28 year old son of a Vietnam Vet with a brother in the military. I have no love loss for Big Brother, but neither am I entirely in the commie camp. But I have strayed from my point. LOVE. LOVE for everything and everyone. I hate this cheezy quote and it is over used but it gets directly to the point. "What would Jesus do" but I like to phrase it like this. Does my decision increase LOVE or lessesn LOVE. Ok end of lecture I don't have time to explain all the part of my love theory but you get the point. If you don't then you need more help than I can offer but I will try. I encourage devotion or worship, of me if it come to that, but I will settle for a reply and a little good conversation.
Peace
I'm outhere
Pacman

Redhead, point taken. I guess i mis-interpreted the "tone" of your comment. I apologize for putting wordsin your mouth, and I agree that there is hypocrisy from the religeous right. However, I also feel that the "Christian right" are a very small percentage of the people that support this war and our trops. Furthermore, ther is a ton of hypocrisy coming from the left. And to add to what several people have already said, it sucks that our government has reduced itself to this BS hypocritical rhetoric. Maybe this is what we should be talking about, and trying to change. After all, these are OUR elected leaders. Maybe we should stop listening to their rhetoric an dget some people with honesty and integrity in our public offices. That goes for both sides. I'm sick of reading between the BS lines.
As for your support of helping oppressed peope, I agree. Except,I WOULD start with Iraq. We have to choose our battles carefully, and the bottom line is that we do have an interest in that country, regardless of what people say. I hope at the end of this mess, everyone is better for it, and I believe we will be. As will the Iraqi people.

Oh, Pacman, yes, we all seem to have too much time on our hands, but how lucky we are to be able to spend it safely arguing from behind our computer screens. For that I thank all the brave men and women who have defended my freedom over the generations and today, but I don't thank John Ashcroft or President Bush who try to take it away.

My concern with your "love theory" is that even "love" is not universally defined by all mankind as something that defeats violence. At the risk of sounding once again like the elitist liberal feminist I've been accused of being here, I submit the example of men who beat and kill their wives/girlfriends because they "love" them. And the women who submit to it because they "love" their abusers. Sigh. Even love, it seems, is not the answer.

Sorry about all of the typos...I was in a rush.

Thanks, Jon. Good points on looking for better people to put in government rather than arguing about who/what to believe. I, too, am sick of sorting through the crap on both sides. Also, I posted my above comment before I saw your response, so I aplogize for accusing you of accusing me of being an elitist.

Yep, people laughted at me when I told them why I was moving away in 1993. They are not laughing any more after Sept 11th. Some how the WMD seems to not mean atom bomb anymore. You think It could be the gov. doesn't want NYC to become a ghost town?

I just want to know one thing, stemming from the core reason why Ryan wrote his piece above:

At this point in time, right now, at this moment (and don't think about what might change by tomorrow) ... how do you (meaning everyone out there) personally feel this conflict is going to play out?

responding to Mark, as I said above, unfortunately a lot like Vietnam. While some people may applaud US/UK forces "liberating" the people in Iraq, what does that mean exactly? There was Diem in South Vietnam, a Roman Catholic leader in a predominently Buddhist country who abused his power but was supported by the US (until they had him killed) because he was "giving democracy to a people who had never experienced it before" (sound familiar?)

The question is, is the US really winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Last I heard, the refugee camps are ghost towns, with Iraqi exiles actually coming BACK to Iraq to help fight against the US. In many interviews with Iraqi people in the Middle East, there are many who, while they detest Saddam, do not think the US and UK should be interfering.

So where does that lead the situation? Or even more- how would we see it if the roles were reversed? Yes I'm stretching the credibility here because I'm NOT about to compare Bush with Saddam, but let's say, hypothetical, that Bush is terrorizing the American people, sending out slander campaigns against any prolific leaders out to question him, jailing or executing all those who oppose the Republican Party (The ruling party) and such, so people are in fear of giving their opinions out of fear of not being loyal or patriotic to their country, because secret police are everywhere. He also continues to thumb his nose at the world and the UN by continuing to produce weapons of mass destruction, breaking treaties such as the ABM and SALT, and in speeches invokes the predominant religion of the country (Christianity) saying that God is with us and good will prevail and all our allies should rise up against the evil empires of the world and bring justice. Then it so happens that one of these "evil" countries, whose religion happens to be Muslim, invades our country, destroys our military, takes over our economy, put a leader they can trust to be nice to them in power, and call our country "liberated." How do you think the American people would react?

Before the attacks come I just want to repeat again that I DO NOT compare Bush with Saddam and his practices. This was a completely hypothetical, fantasy, reality (with maybe a couple truthful criticisms regarding the breaking of treaties thrown in). The point I am getting at is there is a clash of cultures to be factored in and a sense of national pride regardless of who is in power and to what degree. I think its a valid concern that I predict is going to play heavily into this conflict.

I just want to correct a comment above. It should be "Islam," not "Muslim." Islam the religion, Muslim the adherent.

You have read what I think. We win the war. We put in our puppet gov. We continue on the fight on terrorism. Who is next, can't tell yet? We in America go back into the life goes on deal. Driving or SUVs and buying our McMansions. Then one day just like Sept 11, NYC and DC go up in mushroom clouds.1, 5, 10 years, not sure either but its coming. What country supplied them we will never know. Just like sept 11. This time the USA goes deep into riots. Riots break out all over. The end of life in the USA as we knew it, is over.
Death and destruction take over, the good and evil of or country fight it out. Food battles by those who can't provide for themselfs. We have alot of them. Just think what it would be like without cops around. They will be trying to protect thier own families.
I know this is coming to Americas future, Just look how this war is going. We can't realy go to war. The pc world is making us hold one hand behind our backs to fight. We are just going to have to take it again. Look at how mutch proof we have agaist Saddam and they go nuts to stop us from ending his chance of handing osma the bombs.
It took 20 people to pull it off last time. You only need two for my nightmare. How many countries would like to hand them to Osama now? Did you think planes would fly into buildings??????? I've lived this people I was in the WTC build in 1993 for the first attack.I rode the floor as it rolled. Ran down the stairs in smoke. I realised that they didn't complete the job and they would be back. So i moved 100 miles away. That changed my life forever. I relized we have a target on our backs!!!!!!!

Ps I didn't see any protests after sept 11 in the Arab world only dancing in the streets, even in our streets!!!!

I must say I am pretty impressed with the thoughtful, rationale discussion on this blog. When you have the right wing blowhards from Fox News and the knee jerk, hypocritical uber liberals in Hollywood on the other side lots of people are being shouted down.
Up front, I will say I think the U.S. is right in going into Iraq, but not because of any supposed terrorist support -- there may be a link, there may not be. However, from what I have read Hussein is a very, very, very bad man. Maybe I have too much Christian righteousness, but from what he has done to his own people is simply horrific. I am sure there are plenty of cases when the U.S. has taken shameful stances, supporting some pretty despicable people (Latin America would be a good spot to start). However, the wanton brutality of Hussein and his top tier has created terrible crimes, and for this, more than anything else he should be removed.
Following this concept, the years of appeasement that has allowed Hussein to continue to brutalize his people, I feel, should be stopped. Sometimes it's a bitch, but being the world's policeman means that we have to exert our strength. Hopefully the country does the right thing.

If everyone on the internet at this time would find something constructive to do instead of trying to impose all their views on other people the world would be a better place. I am for one sick and tired of all the talk, talk, talk, and a lot of you don't even know what your' talking about.

Sandman -
If you are smart enough not to believe the right wing bullshit on FOX, how could you accept that Bush is going to war to save the Iraqis from Hussain? I guess you have never heard of Mugabe's cruelty in Zimbabwe or even the ongoing self-inflected famine in North Korea.... stop smoking your "America the savior" pipe and realize that it's all about OIL and personal paychecks and nothing else. Stop believing Bush on his "saving Iraq" bullshit - he's full of OIL.

For all those against the anti-war demonstrations, the demonstrations are necessary to make America aware that there are many Americans who are against this war, which the government controlled media totaly overlooks.

Ryan, The initial question of this thread was "What is a Support the Troops Rally for?". Since no one has specifically answered that, I will give it my best. Following the end of the Viet Nam war returning military veterans were treated deplorably. As a group they were ridiculed and ostracized, and as a result they became demoralized. Many Viet Nam vets were able to put the insults behind them and went on to lead normal productive lives, but so many were unable to accomplish that. Americans today who are cognizant of this fact, some of whom were the very ones who participated in the hate-slinging against the VN war vets in the '60s and '70s, do not want to ever see a repeat of it.

When the troops returned from the 1991 Gulf war they were greeted by cheering crowds and given many free-bees by businesses and individuals.
In part this was a way for the old hate-slingers of the VN era to offer amends to servicemen in general. And many VN war vets went on record to say that they felt vindicated. I believe that the same Americans are rallying support for the troops today for that same reason--to avoid another VN war vet fiasco.

I know some will say that some Viet Nam war vets ended up demoralized because they were haunted by unshakable memories of the atrocities they experienced during the course of the Viet Nam war. We know this because it has been well documented in song and film and books. But the returning vets of WW 11, and the Korean war must have been troubled by atrocious memories, too, yet they were able to get on with their lives. I believe that the attitude of the American's welcoming back the troops after WW 11, and the Korean war and of the American's slinging mud and spit at the troops returning from the VN war made the difference.

My husband, a former US Marine, was deployed for to the Gulf for 7 months (from 8/90 to 7/91), first training in the Saudi desert in preparation for a possible ground war, then participating in the brief war, then assisting in putting out the fires in Kuwait. My father served in Viet Nam.

ooops..to correct my last paragraph....7 months, from 8/90 to 3/90

ooops...one more time....from 8/90 to 3/91...must be time for a coffee break for me.

Gracie, I agree with your points about the Viet Nam troops being demoralized by the ire directed at them personally in addition to the policies that put them where they were. I honestly believe that the majority of the people who are against the Iraq war and on the fence about it do not want that to happen again. I truly believe that is a lesson we have learned. I hope I am proven right.

And to Sue who thinks we shouldn't be wasting time with talk talk talk, how do you think we could have learned those important lessons without talk talk talk. I don't think you can say the people on this post who have family members in the military don't know what they're talking about, and the rest of us who just read and pay attention, we know something. Who do you think should be allowed to do the talking? Who do you think knows what they are talking about? Should we just allow the generals and politicians to do the talking since they're the only ones who know what they are talking about? What you would suggest we do constructively instead of talk talk talk? Go to a peace rally? I personally think the talking accomplishes more. Join the armed forces? Well, I don't think they need a high maintenance coward like me so I think it's better that I just stay out of the way and continue to talk talk talk.

bravo redhead!
Hedi

Gracie,

I don't think I ever specifically asked that question. The basic reaction I had was not "What is a Support the Troop Rally?" but "How come no one has had one yet?"

I still don't believe the Yale one truly qualifies, based on th article in question. It could however be that the reporting was bad and the ideal of a Support the Troop Rally was upheld.

What is also interesting, as a side note, was that on a local news program last night, two men were pitching their rallies to be held in Boston today, and while both are anti-war rallies, both were adamant in their statements that a large part of the rally was to be "pro-troops". So obviously this idea is getting into the cultural lexicon more and more, and that is fantastic.

What do you guys think, about Mexico and Canada not supporting our government in the war against Iraq?

We have no business being in Iraq. Iraq has never done anything to Canada, the USA or Mexico. Can you explain to the Iraqis what they have done to Americans? Iraqi civilians ask the Americans this on a daily basis. Saddam is not defendable. But then again, he rode an American tank until the Americans didn't need him anymore. So, what's new?

Iraqis should liberate themselves. Iraqis hate Saddam but absolutely without a doubt do not want this war started by the USA. According to a boat load of ever increasing literature, the only reason Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle et al started this war against Iraq is for personal profit. They stand to make billions while ordinary people will die fighting in Iraq or at the hands of some "terrorist" who witnessed his family and neighbours being wiped out by Americans. So Lisa, when the Bush et al dominoes fall, you will know why nobody on earth wants this war but the Bush profit machine. Start by reading up on what's going on in the wallet of the top mental midget himself down to the last rat in his pocket.

One more thing, I must say, I support the welfare of the ground troops. I listen very closely to the military who are on the ground in Iraq. My heart goes out to the brave and decent men and women who are serving their country honourably. It's criminal they will lose their health and/or their lives for this unfair war - Vietnam part deux.

I'm very sorry but I am one of 75% of Canadians who could not in good conscience vote for this war.

Ryan, thank you for this discussion.

Max is right, folks; we are in the maelstrom. And right on about 'Support the Troops' despite the bad/nefarious judgement of this administration. Yet the troops can (still) choose: remember that Bush is not our boss--he is only our employee: so vote (early and often, as they say in Chicago).

Molly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a reason the POTUS is referred to as the "Commander in Chief." Sure, he's a civilian, but when he says "jump," the U.S. military has no choice but to. When you say that the troops can "choose," are you implying then that, if they did not agree with this war, they can choose to lay down their weapons and refuse to board the plane or ship? Unfortunately that is incorrect. If they actually did that, they would be punished by their superiors. If they did that en masse, they would be rebelling against the president and most people would define that as a coup.

While you are correct in saying that Bush is our employee (who said nepotism can't get you anywhere?) he is still our "boss" for about two more years. I'm counting down the days till that error can be fixed, and for our troops to return home safely.

Dear Marie--My intention was to exhort everyone --including military personnel-- to vote for peaceful change. To respond: If you are in the military (and I am/was a 'military brat'), then, of course, you must obey the direct orders of your superiors, including the Commander in chief, the Prez. But as civilians, we 'employ' him -- that's the point of American democracy.
He is in no sense our 'boss'-- and to the extent that he does or does not execute the will of the people, he will rise again, or fall, like hs dad.

Molly- I understand your original point and your clarification. I just think it's such a peculiar institution; yes people vote him in, making him our "employee" (To the extent that he was one of only 3 viable selections the American people had to choose from- sure, there were about 15 more but face it, 98% or so of government is run by the well-funded and corporate-sponsored Dems and GOP... and just who makes those meager selections that we the people are left to vote for?)

I just think that "employee" is too basic a label to give to a person who can make executive orders on whether or not to assassinate world leaders (Ford), break treaties such as the ABM and SALT (Dubya), not to mention create secret deals with world leaders (Iran-Contra with Reagan and Bush Sr.) Where do we as people have a direct say in that? We don't run "American-Idol" style polls once he's in office- they consider our opinion, but ultimately go with their own. Yes, we as a people trust our President to make sound decisions on our behalf. But when he makes decisions, to use our current situation as an example, his word is law. And the military goes, because the Prez IS their boss.

I think it's a matter of wordplay- how about I just replace "Boss" with "Leader," or "Head-Manager-In-Charge-of-Hiring/Firing-hundreds-of-employees-in-positions-related-to-the-departments-of-Justice,-Finance,-Defense,-Agriculture,-Education,-Health,-Housing,-Interior,-Homeland-Security,-with-duties-and-responsibilities-pertaining-to-working-with-world-leaders-on-handling-international-problems-and-deciding-whether-to-follow-what-other-countries-or-the-United-Nations-suggests-on-these-problems-and-being-the-one-person-who-ultimately-gets-to-pardon-federal-criminals-and-decide-whether-the-country-goes-to-war-and-can-order-the-military-to-follow-his-decision-without-question-among-other-things....

Ok, so we still "hire" him, and the most they can stay in power (VP's not withstanding) is eight years. However, being 24 with no family connections to politicians, big money or major corporations, I think I, as well as many average Americans, have missed the window of opportunity for this kind of job application, if there ever truly was one. But I'm with you in that to get some sort of change in this country, we need to vote. I just wish that those who we are allowed choose between in the voting booth were not already chosen for us by a political party or corporation. Where's the will of the people there? But let's keep pressing towards the mark.

Dear Marie--I am with you--every single word! I am heartsick over what is happening and have no answers--except:Vote! And I agree--it feels powerless, weak and lame...yet somehow, in a veiled and unknown way, it works (eventually). Maybe this painful, lawless episode must exhaust itself before the populace (the populists? Greens? the Democrats have emasculated themselves in this matter) can work in the open for the public good. It's a struggle not to be cynical (I have 2 children, so I must find reasons for considered optimism).

Awesome dialog, people - thanks, Ryan!

It's interesting to me that nobody has yet brought up the "Project for the New American Century" (www.newamericancentury.org). For good or ill, our troops are in Iraq right now largely because of this group. The authors include some vary familiar people: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and, interestingly, Jeb Bush. What you might call an "open secret"...

And on the subject of "love", here is a good quote for the day:

"Power, properly understood, is the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political or economic changes. In this sense power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the demands of love and justice.

"One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites. Love is identified as a resignation of power and power with a denial of love. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive and love without power is sentimental and anemic.

"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."

From the last speech given at the Southern Leadership Conference, 1967, by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thanks Peter. Too often the power of love is seen as a weakness by modern society. As is the power of thought. Everyone creates energy with their thoughts as well as their actions - and that energy radiates out into the world. So, sending positive energy to heal our fellow humans and our earth are REAL acts. No one is powerless.

Glad you appreciate it, Peter. Obviously you're not the only one. The level of sustained dialogue on this is both heartening and staggering; never thought my "uniformed" opinion would stimulate such discourse.

Guess I should write another one, eh?

Peter! You have hit the nail on the head with your reference to "Project for the New American Century." On 17/March/2003, CBC TV (the Canadian TV network) - The National, with Peter Mansbridge, Neil MacDonald reporting said: "...In that document they wrote that they wanted the U.S. as a global constabulary - their word - unburdened by the UN or world opinion preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance. But, they wrote a year before September 11th, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like in Pearl Harbour..." Now this begs the earth shattering question as to just whose hands (I mean ALL the hands)were involved in 9-11?

Watch closely what comes out of the NY Times, Washington Post and the New Yorker in the coming days on this subject. Allegedly, the degree of corruption in this administration is staggering to say the very least. Furthermore, never in US history has such corruption permeated the top levels of the administration as it has today. This Bush admin is teetering. But the end result is in. History is about to be made - again. And we all thought Nixon was a dirty rotten scoundrel. Comparatively, the actions of he and Bush Sr were a small potatoes (with an e).

Again, speaking on behalf of Canadians who respect the American people, and cling to the Democratic right of free speech, discourse such as this will prevent Max's shrill scenerio from materializing. But as long as the likes of Bush et al are in a position to influence US foreign policy, we should all be very concerned.

And while we're on this subject, has anyone read: "The president's real goal in Iraq" by Jay Bookman - Atlantic Journal and Constitution, 29 September 2002.(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BOO210A.html) This will give you nightmares.

Keep up the good discourse! And be sure to vote away from the war mongers.

Concerned Canadian: There's actually 32 canadian soldiers fighting in Iraq b/c of the soldier exchange program with the brits and 2 canadian battleships provide defense for the US warships. Our government tells us we are not supporting the war but we in fact are providing more support than all but 4 coalition members. So I don't understand why the US is getting all upset...I think it's all about the back bacon or the PM's assistant calling Bush a 'moron'. I thought that was humorous but all so true....I mean he was going up against Saddam and he still lost the political battle in the UN. A tyrant vs a dummy and the dummy still lost.

Steam roller, with those 32, Canada is fulfilling some pre-war obligations. Remember, Canada has 30 million people and only 32 soldiers are over there. Hardly a number to mention. The 2 boats are no more than old ships and even their helicopter crashed and is not with them anymore. The Canadian gov't was too embarrassed to tell us about it. So please, let us not exaggerate the Canadian contribution.

Canadian people, along with the world including the so-called US allies, are unquestionably against this war specifically because you cannot bomb democracy into people and force your interests on them. There are massive protests against this war on virtually every continent and I dare say, in every single country. It is very interesting to see this new phenomena where Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Britain all have democratically elected gov'ts, yet these gov'ts support this war and go against the vast majority of their population - anywhere from 60% to 90% of these populations are against this war. So much for democracy. Thank God the Canadian gov't is still listening to the people.

To gain support for this war Bush et al had to threaten, bribe and spy. The gov'ts that accepted the Bush bribes courtesy of American tax payers and declared they were with America on this, did so without the consent of their people!

The pictures coming out of Iraq do not lie despite what the Bushists would have you believe. People are dying and/or being mutilated by artillery. And we haven't even begun to talk about the depleted uranium fall-out from all those American shock and awe bombs. Can you imagine? The hundreds of thousands of American/British soldiers for God's sake! What will happen to them after this war is over? You will see.

And as a result of depleted uranium fall-out in the Gulf war and a decade of sanctions on Iraq, it is estimated that 1.7 million Iraqis died while Saddam and his family got fatter and richer. Now can Americans see why Canada and the rest of the world voted against these American actions?

My parents just returned from Italy and Croatia. They were astounded by the anti-American sentiment, or rather violence directed at Americans! Half my family are Americans and my parents were traveling with my American uncle and his wife. This group of 4 are in their 70s and were scared to death. My American relatives, as flippin patriotic as they are, were forced to adorn themselves with Canadian flags for pete's sake. If you thought that people world wide hated you before, you aint seen nothin yet. My God help us all.

There's an old saying that "Nero fiddled while Rome burned," in reference to a Roman emperor who too crazy/ignorant to see the