the band plays on

[mnaz]

It depends on how many civilians the war has really killed and maimed, I suppose, if one feels compelled to play such comparative death numbers games. I've heard estimates as high as 650,000.

Don't let Bush off the hook for his continuing war obsession. I agree (in hindsight) that Dems should not have given Bushko such a blank check to use military force, but remember also that the '02 Iraq Resolution was authorization to use military force as a last resort.

And yes, Saddam once aspired to making and using WMD. He was one of DC's hired goons until that unfortunate Kuwait misstep. "This will not stand!"... remember Bush 41's words? Did Reagan go on television in the early '80s and say "this will not stand!" when Saddam invaded Iran? No. He backed Saddam and helped prolong that horrific Iran-Iraq war. Yes, WMDs were an issue... until a decade of inspections essentially disarmed that threat. And in 2003, the possibility of WMD in Iraq was a concern, but guess what? Weapons inspectors were already in Iraq when Bush launched his bait-and-switch war.

As for Islamic terrorism, wasn't al Qaeda the demonstrated threat in 2003? And what, if anything, did Iraq have to do with either Sept. 11th or al Qaeda?

But even if I concede the legitimacy of removing S.H., what does that have to do with the ongoing endless U.S. military occupation? S.H. is gone already, no? Why not split up the place and get the hell out?

[Totenkopf]

650,000

That's the Lancet report, which is not accurate--in fact it's possibly a pack of lies, or at least f-ed up data. The Lancet people themselves are of course reds, as are most of the radical pacifists, and they admitted that only about 1/3 of that number of deaths was due to the Allies--but in addition to that, the researchers used a controversial sampling technique: they don't actually verify the deaths--instead they get reports from a few areas (say Baghdad and other urban areas), and then merely by analogy extend the death ratio all over the country. That may be fairly accurate when looking at small-pox vacines or something, but it is NOT proof--death certificates were not tallied, nor was it based on reported deaths, which is like 30- 40,000. And yet so many naive liberals are lapping that up.

[mnaz]

and what of the naivete of plastic-flag-wavin' righties who swallow King George's insistence on debilitating perpetual war-- hook, line & sinker? No questions asked?

[Totenkopf]

He's not a King, for one. Whatever you or I think of him and Cheney, they were voted into office. And if this is about capitalism per se, well, OPEC has some of the greatest capitalists in the world . Additionally, the vote fraud accusations were also shown to be BS: in fact Zogby, who is quite a leftist, hisself predicted a Bush win in Ohio, as did most of the pollsters. The official exit polls (CNN etc) showed Bush comfortably ahead, and the DNC decided not to pursue it--of course some of the nuts on DU or Kos did. Conspiracy is our Aeroplane....

Dems so easily forget that majorities support the GOP all over the country. I don't care for dixie conservatives, but compared to like SF marxists they don't seem all that pernicious...But I still think it's amusing how so many leftists are now cool with more or less lying (i.e the Lancet report) to advance their cause.

[mnaz]

"King" is one of my many "terms of endearment" for Dubya... inspired by the aforementioned abuses of executive branch power listed above.

Bush was not supported by any clear majority in 2000, nor is the GOP currently supported by clear majorities all over the country. Check the latest election results. As for '04, the "stay-the-course-&-don't-let-the-terrorists-win" ruse carried the day-- well, that and a major smear campaign against Kerry. Nice folks.

This isn't about "capitalism" per se. It's about objecting to useless perpetual war/occupation that is past the point of serving any real useful and "just" purpose. Again. Gotta call it like I see it. Oh and btw... you seem intent on framing this discussion as a left-right thing. Why is that? Plenty of righties have had their fill of Bushco as well as lefties.

[Totenkopf]

Bush clearly won the popular vote (and electoral) in 2004. Even Kerry refused to press the issue. Yeah it was ugly. I voted for JK, reluctantly. So he is representing the will of the people, and polls do show great support for the war.

2000 Gore protested the Florida vote; a non-partisan group recounted, and found no evidence of tampering. Gore asked for another recount using all sorts of bizarre statistical measurements, and the courts prevented it. I'm not sure what happened. Possibly it was f-ed, but by FL law, Gore was allowed one official recount, which he got, and it did not show anything. I think the Dems fuck votes too---some reports of that around LA and SF.

But there is a basic sort of Humean issue in regards to politics (and ethics really), which libs continually duck: Bush represents the interests of many, however tasteless you may find that. People support those politicians who represent their interests--they are generally not voting for Justice with a capital J. McCain represents my interests better than does some leftist nut such as Obama, or, ack, Hillarity.

[mnaz]

So he is representing the will of the people, and polls do show great support for the war.

You mean Bush? Are you talking about now? If so, that's a completely false statement. There is no popular support for the war and Bush is not representing the will of the people. That's the main point of my rant.

Look, I don't want to get on an election fraud tangent here. If you like, I can go back and edit that one out of my official list of grievances. Fine. But my other statements still stand.

Bush represents the interests of many, however tasteless you may find that. People support those politicians who represent their interests--

Don't be so sure about that

[Totenkopf]

Support for the war fluctuates, and differs according to which source you consult. CBS says like only 30% of American support the war now; but 6 months ago, that was like 50%. CNN has like 50% support for war now, down from 70% a year ago. Etc. Who is right? It's not a matter of consensus really--just as elections don't result in the best person being elected. The bark of the People ain't the bark of Gott. (And be sure there aren't polls in Teheran asking for the people's thoughts on the Islamic fundies in charge). Besides, the cut and run strategy will most likely result in greater chaos and bloodshed: pull the troops out and the country will most likely fall into civil war. Maybe not, but that is highly probable. What has to happen is the secularization of the Middle East. If it takes the US Military to assist in that process, so be it.

[mnaz]

.... but 6 months ago, that was like 50%. CNN has like 50% support for war now, down from 70% a year ago.

Not the polls I've heard. Not even close.

Besides, the cut and run strategy will most likely result in greater chaos and bloodshed: pull the troops out and the country will most likely fall into civil war

As if it isn't already there. Did you ever stop to consider that the reason Iraq's factions attack each other might be to prevent the others from cutting unsavory deals with DC? And that US troop presence, in itself, is a catalyst for much of the violence? And who says it has to be an irreversible retreat anyway? Pfft... "Cut and run"... more GOP buzz-babble...

What has to happen is the secularization of the Middle East. If it takes the US Military to assist in that process, so be it.

Strange reasoning here. First, who died and made you the decider of just how "secular" foreign regions and societies "must" become (at the point of an M16)? Second, wasn't Iraq known as one of the more "secular" Middle Eastern nations, pre-war? Why not sic the dogs on the Saudis, or Iran, by your reasoning. Why Iraq, which had no known proven ties to terrorism (unlike say, Saudi Arabia)?
I think you need to back up your vague, abstract ideological pontification here with something a little more concrete.

[Totenkopf]

Google some polls from over the last few months and you will note that support for the war waxes and wanes and differs depending on which source you consult. Support was high --like 70% the first two years. Now it's down. What does that prove? It may only prove that, like, people are inconsistent or fickle. Of course populist leftists want to use data for their own purposes: so on one hand they were all aghast at Walmart patriots, hicks, flagwavers, etc.--but then polls change, and they are like, ah, the voice of the People! Democrats are certainly as capable of machiavellian politics as are rightists; in fact Stalin and the Cheka specialized in it.

AS far as secularization, that is a rather logical position. Some people actually object to theocracy, whether Islamic or Xtian or Jewish. Not about who is in charge: I offered an opinion, which many people share, supported by reason. And I suspect there are plenty of people in Europe who agree with secularization, now that muslim psychotics are rioting everywhere (in fact I know there are---muslim clothing has been banned in some areas). Old-school Marxists were opposed to theocracy, right: that is before the multicultural sentimentalists gained some power. Who's that one postmodernist leftist nut? Zizek. Zizek has himself criticized the muslims and islamic terrorists, while still criticizing capitalism.......

The "safe haven"idea: that's debatable. I've read that the Baathists had no problem letting in Al Qaeda. So as far as my reading goes, there was evidence of the "safe haven." Hitchens--no radical rightist--thought so.

[Doreen Peri]

Argumentiveness. I hate it.

Whatever.

[mnaz]

Some people actually object to theocracy, whether Islamic or Xtian or Jewish.

I'm one of them. So what? I suppose one might make this argument regarding toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, but really, what does it have to do with our endless, failed military occupation in Iraq (which wasn't particularly a threat, or particularly "theocratic" to begin with)? Seems like fairly specious reasoning to me. I say it's time to wrap up that debacle and let Iraqis have their country back, even if it means trying to help broker arrangements for a split-up Iraq. I've had it with the "stay the course" nonsense, and that we must "win". What the hell is "winning" at this point? I've got a few more protest writes in me, I'm sure.

Who's that one postmodernist leftist nut? Zizek. Zizek has himself criticized the muslims and islamic terrorists, while still criticizing capitalism.......

Always with you it's stated or implied that so-called "leftists" generally refuse to criticize terrorism, which I think is nonsense, and a highly slanted way to engage in a discussion. And I'm hardly what you would call a full-blown "leftist" anyway. These disparaging comments of yours hardly add any substance to the discourse, don't you think?

I've read that the Baathists had no problem letting in Al Qaeda. So as far as my reading goes, there was evidence of the "safe haven." Hitchens--no radical rightist--thought so.

I'm not interested in what Hitchens thought. Was he right? I thought he's been proven wrong on this point (and quite a few others). Or was the 9/11 Commission wrong? Where are you reading these things?

Look. What's done is done. Perhaps you're not fully "getting" my protest here. I suppose it was possible to make a more compelling case for toppling S.H. (in '03) than I allowed at the time, but that's ancient history now and really has nothing to do with what I now protest, which is endless, pointless war in unrealistic hopes of some ill-defined "victory", while war contractors continue to make obscene gobs of cash on the war whether or not their work gets done. Enough is enough, people.

[mnaz]

ps: Popular support for the war? Try this:

Latest USA Today poll:

61% disapprove
26% approve (record low)

And what was that strange manipulation a few posts ago, something like... the "libs" are hypocritical and say or imply the polls effectively don't mean much when they go the wrong way because it's all due to "Wal-mart patriots" and "hicks", etc., but when the polls reverse... different story. Bull. The polls simply measure collective mainstream public opinion(s). The polls may leave one "aghast" or with hope, depending on POV, but they always "mean something". It this case: "better late than never".

Sorry for all the carping back and forth. It's obviously a sore subject with me.

[Axanderdeath]

"except this century might settle the issue for good,"

I would not count on it. this century is just as amazingly powerful to us as any other was to the people who were in it... once we know more and grow there will be different plains, dimentions and that sort of thing that will be able--if you are talking about only earth which I am sure your intention is then I have to say I do not agree... I think those big nuks and shit that will blow the world up are a big fucking joke--and this is not bond--there are no mad scientist and the world is not about to end--nice poem though

[Totenkopf]

Latest USA Today poll:

61% disapprove
26% approve (record low)

Gosh. Some of us tend to root for the Underdog. Britney Spears sold 1 million CDs of Hot Bubblegum Snatch or whatever last year, and the collected works of Alexander Scriabin probably sold 1000, if that. So is Britney 1000 times better than Count S? Nyet.

Give War a chance