She lives in a dream world...with, I betcha, lots of cats.

Regarding Canard #2 "People in this country, for the most part, do not want our troops to be in Afghanistan or Iraq"

Polls are easily (and often) manipulated by the polling organization depending on who the poll is for. If Zogby is conducting a poll for a leftist group that wants to show that a majority of Americans favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, then they will phrase the question in such as was as Mitch indicated above AND THEN they would focus their polling efforts in areas where they are guaranteed a greater number of answers favorable to the desired outcome. It happens every day which is why I never trust polls.

I cannot remember who said this, or words to the effect of: Freedom without Liberty is no Freedom at all.

I want to say it was Walter E. Williams (the conservative, not the socialist)... maybe it was Minnesota's Mr. Right.

(Why is it that we hear these whiny, reason-free statements from women who "noodle-up" the spelling of their names?) ;)

Well, your post at long last led me to look up canard. I had known of the "A short winglike control surface projecting from the fuselage of an aircraft mounted forward of the main wing and serving as a horizontal stabilizer", but not why the French word for a domestic duck meant a falsehood.

Anyhow, just wanted to note that the usual phrasing of 1 - "war never solved anything" - would have surprised the guy who salted the ground of Carthage.

As usual, you have chosen to take my words and twist them. The invasions and occupations of the countries you mentioned had dire consequences for the people living in them at the time the offensives took place. What you are citing is the eventual outcomes, sometimes many years down the road, and often achieved by the strength and convictions of the citizens themselves. Even if a regime that was present at the time of an invasion was harmful to the citizens there, and even if years later they were being governed by better leaders, the immediate impact of invasion and occupation is always devastating to those living in the war zone. Those who conspire either financially or militarily with the invading army always fare better than the ordinary citizenry. You know this, but choose rather to make it seem as if you do not.
You said, "Canard 3: "They want justice, peace, equality." - "Those are platitudes, not goals."
Why then, are they part of the Constitution of the United States of America? The preamble states that "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish JUSTICE, insure domestic Tranquility, (PEACE), provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Libery to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Bill of Rights assures that we are represented and served equally by this document and its amendments regardless of sex or race.(Equality) Platitudes? Not to me. I suggest you ask your friends, family members, and neighbors how they feel about this.

Teena-

I think you need to read up on the American and French Revolutions, especially the differences between them. "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity" was not what the United States was founded on.

"Founded on", the elder? Where did you find this in my post? I said these things are part of the Bill of Rights.
Baddablogger, is that your real name or are you 'noodling'?

Teena,
There is no way you could say I was noodling by going by the name Baddablogger. There really is only one way to spell it, and I've done it. If I were to call myself badabl0g3r, then you'd have a point.

By the Soucheray rules of Garage Logic, you've noodled you're name and therefore must be foghorned.

Remember kid, Freedom without Liberty is useless. (I cannot believe I actually have to tell someone that.)

Baddablogger, Teena is not my real name. It is a screen name, just as Baddablogger is your screen name. How funny you would presume to expect me to use my real name. Whenever someone here has decided they don't like my posts and don't want me here, they start attacking my screen name. I find this bizarre.
I guess its supposed to make me feel violated. Interesting tactic. Is this how you treat people in 'real life?'

No one figured it was a screen name...it fit all too well!!

Teena, I hear Sadaam guaranteed justice, equality, and peace. Its only if you had a problem with his definition of that that you "might" have a problem.... You're gonna lose this argument every time. The whole point of Mitch's post was that anytime you have a thug/dicator you are powerless to do anything about it. Long term, and many times short term as well, its better to fight the fight to get democracy and the justice, peace, and equality on the citizens terms. We did that here back in 1776 and one can safely assume that it was worth it at that time and definitly now. Who wants to go back???

Think they do in Japan? Germany? Run down the whole list. Afghanistan or Iraq? 10 years from now you won't find anyone other than a Bathist or Taliban honcho wanting the status quo of 2001.

Teena-

The Bill of Rights is more about "equality under the law" than the notion of equality that emerged in the French Revolution. If you're not specific about your meanings and just throw out vague references to "equality" as cited by Mitch in canard #3, you can expect to be accused of peddling platitudes.

Teena,
If your assumption is to be valid you must also think that baddablogger is still my real name. (I'm only half Italian... I'm not THAT Italian.)

Again, you're avoiding my main comment... you know, freedom and liberty.

By the way, I'm not really sure you're the best candidate to discuss 'real life', kid. ;)

(Note smiley-face... and relax.)

"As usual, you have chosen to take my words and twist them. The invasions and occupations of the countries you mentioned had dire consequences for the people living in them at the time the offensives took place."

Right. Because in the case of Germany, Italy, Japan and Afghanistan, they *had launched aggressive wars against their eventual occupiers*.

Or do you suggest that we should have sued Japan after Pearl Harbor?

" What you are citing is the eventual outcomes, sometimes many years down the road, and often achieved by the strength and convictions of the citizens themselves."

Really?

You think the pure will of the citizenry would have toppled Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Mullah Omar?

You think Eastern Europe would be free if not for Ronald Reagan calling the Poliburo's bluff?

Pffft.

" Even if a regime that was present at the time of an invasion was harmful to the citizens there"

You say "if"? Naziism, for one, was harmful to Jews and other living things.

" and even if years later they were being governed by better leaders, the immediate impact of invasion and occupation is always devastating to those living in the war zone."

And in the case of subjects of Naziism, State Shinto, Fascism and Islamofascism - so what? THEY LAUNCHED WARS AGAINST US. Conquering them was the only option.

"Those who conspire either financially or militarily with the invading army always fare better than the ordinary citizenry. You know this, but choose rather to make it seem as if you do not."

It's completely immaterial - and I also suspect you have no idea what you're talking about. Examples, please?

"You said, "Canard 3: "They want justice, peace, equality." - "Those are platitudes, not goals."
Why then, are they part of the Constitution of the United States of America?"

Without the will to create genuine peace, justice and equality (before the law) they are nothing but platitudes. The US - indeed, most of the Anglosphere - has led the world throughout history in making the platitudes into something you can bet your life on (and in which millions of people throughout history HAVE bet their lives, by moving here).

" The Bill of Rights assures that we are represented and served equally by this document and its amendments regardless of sex or race.(Equality) Platitudes? Not to me. I suggest you ask your friends, family members, and neighbors how they feel about this."

I do. Constantly. That's part of what this blog is about.

Now - how many of your poor, deluded little protester friends have the faintest interest in bringing justice, equality and peace WITH THE RULE OF LAW to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'm thinking somewhere between "none" and "Hahahahaha".

"Even if a regime that was present at the time of an invasion was harmful to the citizens there, and even if years later they were being governed by better leaders, the immediate impact of invasion and occupation is always devastating to those living in the war zone."

Even if my current house is a complete dump, and even if years later I own a really nice house free and clear, the immediate impact of the decision to buy the house is a big mortgage that is difficult to pay off.

The phrases you seem not to understand are "necessary precondition", "painful transition", and "worth the cost".

(Phrases you don't even seem to know that you don't know ("unknown unknowns") include "irreducible uncertainty", "strategic reality", "logistical base", "national interest", and "risk-benefit ratio", but that's a different argument for a different day.)

"The Bill of Rights assures that we are represented and served equally by this document and its amendments regardless of sex or race."

Ah, no. Why else might we have needed the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments? The amendments do the expansion of the rights that were traditionally given only to free white males to the rest of the population. The Bill of Rights was more of an idea of Madison to force an assurance of the structure and to enforce the limits of government as they had agreed to.

Part of the problem you're having with communicating with Mitch may be your ideals of what constitutes "equality" (as the Elder hints): the equality of opportunity vs. equality of result. It's the philosophical difference between the traditional Liberal and the socialist.

"Even if a regime that was present at the time of an invasion was harmful to the citizens there, and even if years later they were being governed by better leaders, the immediate impact of invasion and occupation is always devastating to those living in the war zone."

Although this is rather off on a tangent from the real argument, your generalization is wrong. It may be devasting to some or most of the population, but by no means all. Have the women of Afganistan improved their condition as a result of the US "occupation"? How about the Jews, gays, and Gypsies of Nazi Germany? The muslims in Kosovo? I suppose they were "devasted" by being liberated. All change will require upheaval, so a change from a diseased and dysfunctional society will result in upheaval and chaos. War always has winners and losers, just like life!

"Those who conspire either financially or militarily with the invading army always fare better than the ordinary citizenry."

Which certain explains Soichiro Honda's poverty and lack of success. He, after all, never conspired with the US forces.

The US has, in general, instituted situations where equality of opportunity reign, at least in the longer term. In the shorter term security needs dictate that you cannot deal with certain elements of the populace. These freedoms and equalities have allowed even those who didn't particularly support the US to florish.

If "justice, peace, and equality" is the standard upon which bloody Teena structures her argument, then she need only point to North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, and all the other totalitarian dictatorships to underscore her more enlightened worldview of what constitutes justice, peace, and equality in the world today. Clearly, these countries are not occupied by some foreign military force. They are ruthless police states, of course, where no liberty exists, to say nothing of human rights and, in some cases, food, but at least they are not at risk to the devastation of war or oppression by the presence of a foreign military.

Certainly, the Cuban people, to cite just but one example, are comforted in their bondage with the knowledge that Cuban justice is as swift as it is merciless, that peace is assured because there is no hope of armed resistance, and that all Cubans are equally oppressed and impoverished, except for the communist leadership, of course, as is the case for the Palestinians, her solidarity with whom is the apparent origin of this post, and who are today no doubt delighted by the equality they enjoy while Arafat's billions remain safely tucked away in Swiss bank accounts where they can do no harm to the justice, peace, and equality that exists today in Gaza.

This is because world leaders like Arafat, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il, as bloody Teena and her protester pals have all suggested, are merely concerned with the safety and security of posterity that can only be achieved by AVOIDING the occupation and devastation associated with wars of liberation, foreign military occupation, and the indigenous development of democratic ideals. This is why war must be abolished; this is why they protest, because no doubt the Iraqis, for instance, much preferred being thrown from buildings, mauled by wild dogs, buried alive in mass graves, and stoned to death rather than risk being injured by an invading foreign army intent upon their liberation.

It is a mystery to every war protester, as certainly as it must be to bloody Teena, why so many otherwise intelligent people seem incognizant of the refined nuance in such a cogent argument so seamlessly based on justice, peace, and equality. Haven't they seen the polls? It used to be the Iraqi people were blessed with decades of justice, peace, and equality under Saddam and were spared the devastation of war and foreign occupation only until that dumb bastard Bush invaded Iraq so Halliburton could make untold billions in a war for oil. Bush lied, thousands died. And now, instead of a million or so Iraqis mass murdered in the name of justice, peace, and equality by Saddam, there are a thousand or so dead Americans killed in action fighting against that very justice, peace, and equality that once existed in Iraq. And all for Halliburton.

Jeepers! Do I really have to explain EVERYTHING?

Teena came to a gunfight, armed with a spitball. Guys...we have to ceasefire. You've bombed her worse than Nagasaki.

Bravo!!!!

Wow Mitch pitches a strawman war protester and the regulars knock it out of the park. Nice Work. You should all be very proud.

So, you're contribution amounts to "oh, no it's not!"

Really, YOU should be very proud, son. ;)

One thing that irritates me is the tendency of those on the left (and a few on the right) to confuse sovereignty with freedom. The Iraqi's were a more sovereign people before March of 2003, but they are freer today. The Hussein regime was a gangster republic. He took power by a coup de tat and held it for the benefit of the minority of Iraqi's who were his personal friends, relatives, and political allies. The will of the majority to determine there own future -- to labor for their benefit, not that of Saddam and his henchmen -- was held in check by a state apparatus of torture and genocide. The situation is parallel to an organized crime gang taking over a neighborhood and ruling it by violence and terror.
The network of international laws that so many leftists claim we are in violation of was established, after two world wars, with the goal of eliminating state-to-state war and territorial grabs. With the exception of "crimes against humanity" it cannot deal effectively with a state that torments its own people.
As for the recourse of bringing individuals to account for their "crimes against humanity" it won't come as a surprise to readers of Mitch's blog that this is historically done (with a few notable exceptions) when the offending government has been deposed by force of arms -- exactly what we have done in Iraq.

Very well said, Mitch.

"Wow Mitch pitches a strawman war protester and the regulars knock it out of the park. Nice Work. You should all be very proud."

For what it's worth, Teena did a better job than you did.

One small quibble with Terry's excellent comment. You say that international law cannot deal effectively with a state that torments its own people, with the exception of crimes against humanity. Actually, international law (as practiced by the UN, NATO, etc.) is pretty crappy at that too. Both Clinton's invasion to oust Slobo and Bush's invasion to oust Saddam took place outside of the sanction of international law. Slobo's trial is proceeding under international law, and I think is moving into its third year as the world's most ridiculous charade. Saddam will meet justice only because he will not be tried the the Hague, Brussels or any other bastion of international law.
BTW, I can't remember but did Teena include Kosovo in her list of occupied countries and unjust invasions? Clinton supporters usually forget this. Of course once the US freed the people (the Muslim people) of Kosovo from genocide we turned the keys over to the UN, who promptly turned their 'peacekeeping' occupation into a drug and child sex ring. Chalk up another one for international law!

"Not Impressed"

"Wow Mitch pitches a strawman war protester..."

Actually, they're strawmen that most of the "peace" movement believes in.

"Now - how many of your poor, deluded little protester friends have the faintest interest in bringing justice, equality and peace WITH THE RULE OF LAW to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq?"
Each and every one of the ones that I know personally and have spoken with. Our conversations are about how the achievements that you cited so eloquently can be achieved through peace rather than violence.
Here are a few examples of ideas that, in my opinion, should be tried rather than bombs and bullets:
Education, more advanced technology, medicine, repaired and improved infrastructure, human rights, just to name a few.
What does violence bring? Destroyed infrastructure (usually by the invading military to bring the citizens to their knees), separated families, injury, job loss, loss of property, disrupted education, orphaned children, death.
To recall that Saddam Hussein's regime also wrought violence does not adequately address my points. Do we tive to be lik hom? I hope not.
I, too, believed he should go and I personally think he was ready to do that. But since he did not possess the weapons that the Bush administration claimed he did we should have approached this another way. I believe that Condoleeza Rice may have been working toward another solution when Bush stuck his head in the door during her meeting and said "F**k Saddam.
We're taking him out." He was determined to go to war, no matter what. I find it absolutely depressing that the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has such limited imagination.

did really write this? 'Do we tive to be lik hom?' I meant to write 'do we strive to be like him?' I obviously need to improve my proofreading.

"For what it's worth, Teena did a better job than you did"

"Actually, they're strawmen that most of the "peace" movement believes in."

That they are strawmen is my point. Why would I bother to try to refute them? Whether or not the "peace" movement believes in them or not is not something I can speak intelligently about.

Not impressed, I think you missed the subtle nuance of the point. "strawman" refers to an invalid arguement that no one makes. The phrase "Actually, they're strawmen that most of the "peace" movement believes in." is an ironic statement, as it describes invalid arguements that people actually believe.

Teena, please join us in the real world. You name as alternatives to 'violence:'
"Education, more advanced technology, medicine, repaired and improved infrastructure, human rights, just to name a few."
How do you bring education when the Taliban bans girls from going to school, fills boys' heads full of hatred, destroys centuries old Buddhist sculptures on incalcuable value, etc?? How do you bring technology to people whose leadership fears it? How do you improve human rights in countries held by Saddam who would gas his own people and Mullah Omar who hosts stadium executions?? How do you get medicine to people when Saddam diverts money meant to buy it to building more palaces and weapons??
Answer: You don't. Their regimes are built on the exact antithesis of the utopian ideals you state. You take them out. It will not be easy. People will suffer. It will take time. But you take them out.
And just because you can't do it everywhere (N Korea, etc.) doesn't mean that you don't do it anywhere.
The idea that Condi Rice and Colin Powell had a plan for a peaceful departure of Saddam, but Bush said 'Screw it, I'm invading just for grins' is beyond laughable. Please enlighten us: What would that peaceful solution have been? Yes, Saddam was 'contained' in the sense he hadn't invaded a neighboring country in 10 years, but he was continuing his mass killing of his own people, financing suicide bombers in Israel, amassing millions of dollars and maintaining the wherewithal to return to WMD production on short notice. Please give us the peaceful solution that would have resulted in fewer Iraqi deaths than the course we followed, keeping in mind that Saddam killed tens of thousands of people per year (and in many notable and particularly ambitious years hundreds of thousands).
What color is the sky....?
Yes, war is icky. BUT:
Sometimes war is thrust upon us.
A Just War saves lives.
A Just War fought sooner rather than later, and on our terms rather than theirs, saves even more lives -- both American and others.

Teena wrote:
"Here are a few examples of ideas that, in my opinion, should be tried rather than bombs and bullets:
Education, more advanced technology, medicine, repaired and improved infrastructure, human rights, just to name a few. "

Teena, when Iraq had a well educated populace, better doctors, more money, and great infrastructure they declared war on Iran. It was only after the 1st Gulf War, when Iraq was impoverished, that they began to keep their army within their own borders.

"Actually, they're strawmen that most of the "peace" movement believes in." is an ironic statement, as it describes invalid arguements that people actually believe."

I'm not convinced that people actually believe in the arguments as they've been laid out here.

Chriss, I think Rice and Powell should be given chance to tell us what they would have done instead. Powell, especially, seems quite remorseful at having taken a part in the push for war. Terry, could it be possible that Iraqis were aready impoverished before the 1st Gulf War? I remember vividly the scenes on television where the Iraqi soldiers were so hungry, ill-clothed, and ill-equipped they surrendered in droves. Did we do this to them? No, years of warring and Saddam Hussein not providing for the Iraqi people brought them to that level of poverty.
I find it ironic that blogs are, in essence, protest sites. You have each exercised your right to protest. Congratulations!

"Education, more advanced technology, medicine, repaired and improved infrastructure, human rights, just to name a few."

And how do you get those things? Not by asking murderous despots. The Chinese aren't exactly famous for freedoms, yet they have all those things and still they murder various ethnic groups quite freely. Shall we talk of Tibet? These things are nice, but by no means do they free people or reduce bondage.

Reflect when non-violence has worked in the past. Certainly Ghandi and India are shining examples, but that is because they faced a humane opponent. Compare the results of nonviolent action in India and in Tianamen Square, where one faced a humane, democratic government and the other a dictatorship that was/is more humane than many in the world, but still ruthlessly determined to remain in power.

"What does violence bring? Destroyed infrastructure (usually by the invading military to bring the citizens to their knees), separated families, injury, job loss, loss of property, disrupted education, orphaned children, death."

It can also bring destruction of overbearing, repressive, murderous governments, leading to the freedoms you mention. Much as chemotherapy often destroys healthy tissue to remove a malignant tumor and promote a healthy result in the end, war is often nessecary to remove malignant governments (e.g. the Confederacy, WWII Japan and Germany, etc).

"To recall that Saddam Hussein's regime also wrought violence does not adequately address my points. Do we tive to be lik hom?"

Obviously we have been gassing the Sunnis. For someone who's part of the community celebrating their ability to apply nuance to situations, you're failing. While we have had situations of which we're not proud, we at least correct them and punish those responsible. Saddam promoted those responsible for horrific crimes in his name and we jail those who do far less horrific things. To say that we're like Saddam is to ignore the reality of the situation.

"But since he did not possess the weapons that the Bush administration claimed he did we should have approached this another way."

Ah, the 20-20 hindsight argument! You forget that it was nearly universally agreed that he had those weapons before we actually found out that he didn't; even your hero Mr. Clinton agrees on that point. You'll have to do better than haul out this line of reasoning.

Still, remember that this was only one of many arguments for the war, and frankly it was not one of the best in my opinion. Still, it was one of the easiest for the media to report, so it achieved prominence far beyond what it deserved to have.

"I believe that Condoleeza Rice may have been working toward another solution when Bush stuck his head in the door during her meeting and said "F**k Saddam. We're taking him out." He was determined to go to war, no matter what."

What proof do you have for any of this? Ms. Rice has never indicated anything of the like. As to Mr. Bush, he certainly indicated that nothing short of complete compliance with the UN resolutions would be acceptable. But by no means was that a war-no-matter-what situation.

"I find it absolutely depressing that the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has such limited imagination."

I find it absolutely depressing that someone could be this disassociated with reality. In the real world there is the fact that *nothing* enforces "international law" other than the threat of action. It may be economic, which often doesn't work (e.g. Libya, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, etc) or it may be military, which is often messier but much more often successful in resolving the situation (Germany, Japan, Kosovo, S. Korea). And in the real world brutal dictatorships don't worry too much about the human rights of those they oppress and nonviolent internal opposition fails (Burma and Darfur anyone?).

So while you may wish for your solutions to work, you seem to not realize that they seldom do. And that is the problem with most of the "reality based" community: they mistake intentions for results.

This is part of great article appearing on http://www.alternet.org/story/26054/

If the real scandal was the consequences of the sanctions themselves, the other scandal is the one linking transnational capital, energy and commodity traders, shadowy middle men, and one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th Century.

Because the fact is, the program was set up as a honey-pot and the flies swarmed right in. That's the story that those who care about what wrong with OFF should investigate.

We should find out why, despite the howling from many conservatives, the Bush administration has itself been accused of obstructing the investigation. We should ask: "what information don't they want to come out?" Perhaps it has to do with at least $23.8 million dollars in contracts -- and perhaps as much as $70 million worth -- that Halliburton subsidiaries submitted to the Oil-For-Food program in 1998 and 1999 during Vice President Cheney's leadership.

Or maybe it has something to do with former vice presidential candidate and influential anti-tax crusader Jack Kemp, who reportedly sent a letter to Trent Lott "promoting a secret agenda" on behalf of Iraq and pushing "talking points" drawn up by Virginia oil trader Samir Vincent, who, according to the New York Post's Niles Lathem, "pleaded guilty to charges that he received payments from Iraq to weaken U.N sanctions."

And maybe it's about Marc Rich, who appears to be knee-deep in OFF. While conservatives love to bash Clinton -- rightly -- for pardoning Rich in one of his final acts in office, the truth is the trader who originally made his fortune busting the sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa has many highly-placed friends on both sides of the aisle (and both sides of the "pond").

"I remember vividly the scenes on television where the Iraqi soldiers were so hungry, ill-clothed, and ill-equipped they surrendered in droves. Did we do this to them?"

Uh, YEAH, through a long-term air bombardment that cut off supply lines, shell-shocked the enemy, and softened them up like butter in a microwave prior to an actual ground engagement.

Teena, don't be stupid.

Oh, wait. . .

Not: The reason I highlighted the comment in the first place is because it IS stuff I hear from liberal commentators. Lots. The woman from "Boobs for Peace" or whatever it was, on the Medved show two weeks ago, sounded *just like Teena*; "Maybe if we sent them schoolbooks instead of bombs..."

Teena: The Nazi education system may have been better than ours. Their technology was better than ours in many areas (Both Sputnik and the Moon Landering owed their existence to Werner Von Braun). Their medical system may have had ours beat. Infrastructure? German railroads were the marvel of the world, and they invented the Autobahn 20 years before we started the Interstate system. NONE of those things brought liberty; they accelerated the deaths of the Jews, in fact.

So tell me, Teena - in light of those *facts*, what *peaceful* solution was there for Hitler? Preferably one that didn't involve the deaths of ALL of Europe's Jews (rather than the 2/3 that did die)? Please enlighten. (By the way - do you have any idea how many of the anti-war protesters either deny, excuse or ignore the Holocaust?)

A favorite gigglypoo of the peace movement is to invoke Gandhi; his example of "non-violent resistence", say they, is the example we should follow. It is, of course, an example of their ignorance and selective observance of history; Gandhi operated under the rule of a liberal democracy that was becoming ever more determined to unload India anyway; as Dinesh D'Souza's history teacher once told him, "If Gandhi had operated among the Nazis, he'd have become a lampshade". But the example shows, I think, the myopia of too many protesters; they think like people who have never had to deal with dictatorship (or who think George W. Bush is a dictator, for f**k's sake) and hardship and starvation and Secret Police breaking down your door at midnite.

Have you ever read "The Gulag", Teena? "Animal Farm"? "1984?" Books that tell the story of totalitarian life from the inside?

Read them, and then get back to me about "infrastructure, education and medicine".

I mean it. Seriously. Get to the library and read them NOW before commenting again about war, peace and dictators. Until you do, or have otherwise developed some understanding of the real issues, you will remain (with all due respect) crushingly ignorant.

Add Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" to that list, Teena, and check out The Black Book of Communism:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html

Therein lie the results of the arguments you represent here, probably without realizing it.

Teena, In the midst of your argument about Bush pushing for war over the objections of Powell and Rice (and then somehow silencing them ever since), please recall that there never had to be a war in the first place. Powell pushed for working through the UN. Bush said fine, all I want is for Saddam to meet his UN mandates... and for the UN to have the guts to enforce their own mandates. If the UN had presented a united front to Saddam saying, You say you don't have any weapons? then show us where, when and how you disposed of them... then Saddam would have backed down and there would have been no war. It was the craven, self-interested intransigence of France, Germany, Russia et al that gave Saddam the encouragement to defy the UN mandates and forced Bush's hand to go it (essentially) alone.
Bush was left with a dictator who wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, financed terrorist attacks, mass murdered his own people, thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and was the most likely source for WMDs used for the terrorist attacks we all believed would be coming... and a world body unwilling to act.
The UN does its job, there's no invasion.
My take on Powell is that he honestly thought that if he brought the case to the UN they'd do the right thing, act in concert, and force Saddam to back down. How wrong he was.
So again: what's this peaceful solution that you, Condi and Colin cooked up over beers?

Not to mention, this whole rush to war noise... can it be called a rush if we gave Saddam six to eight months to hide, sell, destroy, or otherwise remove the weapons of mass destruction?

Actually, we gave him about twelve years, but I suppose that's an inconvienent number. ;)

I've already answered all these questions.

The examples of Nazi Germany is wrong, because it just is.

I heard protesters tell me that Bush, in between personally setting the explosive charges in the World Trade Center on 9/10/01, told Powell "I'm going to stuff Saddam's head into that pipeline across Afghanistan that I'm going to build for Halliburton".

The whole story is here:

http://www.batshitcrazyleftwingconspiracies.fr

You people's world view is just too narrow. Noam Chomsky told me so.

This peacenik "rush to war" crap is quite amazing. I can't believe they even mention it.

After 12+ years of ignoring the UN and all the resolutions and demands, how much longer do we have to "Give Peace A Chance"? I know Teena and the rest of her 60's revivalists want to light up a bowl...but thankfully...the adults are in charge. At some point, the UN actually has to backup their words.

Of course, we all know why France and Germany, and one of the greatest scumbags of England (Georgie Galloway), fought against the ouster of Saddam. Money...as in Saddam had them bought and paid for.

I might not love Bush with all my heart, but at least he knows how to deal with an evil dictator like Saddam.

I still suspect that Treena noodles her real name... and not just her online handle. (Or as she might say: 0nL1n3 H@ndL3)

And as for her cats, she must have at least three. ;)

This is from a conversation between David Gregory and Trent Lott on the August 21, 2005 airing of Meet the Press -
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to something that you wrote in your book
about Iraq and put it on the screen: "In the summer of 2002...the
president began lobbying for an open-ended resolution empowering him
to wage war on Iraq.... Bush had made clear his intentions to wage war
on Iraq in several of our private meetings."

What are you speaking about precisely, Senator?

SEN. LOTT: Well, beginning in August that year and into the fall--in
fact, beginning not too long after 9/11--as we had leadership meetings
at breakfast with the president, he would go around the world and talk
about what was going on, where the threats were, where the dangers
were, and even in private discussions, it was clear to me that he
thought Iraq was a destabilizing force, was a danger and a growing
danger, and that we were going to have to deal with that problem.

MR. GREGORY: He has described going to war in Iraq as the last resort
that was a war of necessity. Are you suggesting here that, in fact,
before much of the diplomacy had begun, that the president thought or
believed in his mind that war was an inevitability?

SEN. LOTT: How can I say what was in his mind? But I..

MR. GREGORY: Based on your conversations.

SEN. LOTT: I think he was very much concerned about Saddam Hussein
and the--what he was doing to his people and to his neighbors and the
threat of, you know, weapons of mass destruction. And, by the way,
the intelligence that he was getting, I was getting much of the same.
So if there were errors there, we should look to the--you know, where
that intelligence came from. But I--but the short answer to your
question--I think that he felt like we were going to have to deal with
the problem before some of the diplomatic efforts occurred, and I
don't mean that critically. But it was my impression.

Nerdbert, you said "even your hero Mr. Clinton" - As i have stated here many times, he is not my hero. While Mr. Clinton presided during a more prosperous time in American history and he is, indeed, a better orator than the present man in office, he is not nor has he ever been my hero. He is inextricably tangled with the Bush administration and their crimes. He may even have been complicit in the dissolution of Operation Able Danger (I have read that he may be indicted for this) and he, along with members of the Bush family and the CIA, has engaged in drug trafficing.
Eracus, I am a voracious reader and would like to find the book you mentioned. Even though we usually disagree, I look forward to your posts. They are almost always the most intelligent offerings at this site. However, why the "bloody" before my screen name? I have expressed a wish for less bloodshed, not more. I'm surprised you missed that.

For all those who seem obsessed with cats and whether I own them - I have had one cat in my life and he went to live with a friend in 1981 when my husband found it hard to breathe with him on his face while he tried to sleep. Why he never slept on my face, I can only speculate. I'm sure you'll all say it had something to do with by breath.

Chimpy's on the teevee right now. He just delivered a doozy of a lie! He just said we have killed or captured all if not most of those responsible for 9/11. Who among you believe that one?

Old post, old thread, but Teena, Teena, Teena: The best way to avert a war is to prepare for war -- and let everyone know that you are prepared for war.
If the UN had done likewise there wouldn't have been a war.
Do I think Bush knew we would have to invade Iraq? Yes.
Do I think he wanted to? No.
I think that he was more realistic than others (Powell, etc.) who pushed for a UN-based solution. As usual (such as when he predicted Howard Dean's implosion before anyone else) Bush was right.
He's the smartest idiot I have ever seen.

Oh, Chriss. you missed the big one! Al-Qaida is dead. There is no reason for war now. The soldiers can all go home. Oh. Maybe that's just a bit too simple. But you know what? I didn't say it. Bush just did in his speech at the Reagan bulding - along with 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Terror, terror, terror.
Same old what?

Enjoy -
http:
//onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002443.html#002443

"Chimpy"? Oh, how funny, Teena.

I guess, from now on we can call your friends better names too. How about "Rapist Molester" for Billy Clinton and "Racist Crossburning thug" for Bobby Byrd?

Of course, those of us who are adults would not stoop to your level of stupidity. Grow up, Teena.

'"Rapist Molester" for Billy Clinton and "Racist Crossburning thug" for Bobby Byrd?' Do not tie me to people I do not support. You have completely invented these connections on your own. You may quote me when I write something, but do not pull something out of thin air and attribute it to me.

Tr33n@,
You obviously didn't read his post... he didn't put words in your mouth.

While you take the time to re-read his post, you should brush up a new post to condem your own "chimpy" language.

That's ok, baddablogger. We all know that Teena only reads the Liberal Wacko talking points anyway. Reading and comprehending her own insulting references is beyond her intellect.

Let's see if she bites. ;)

Hey, +r33n@... you should see what I quoted from you on my blog!

"...why the "bloody" before my screen name?"
-------------------------------
It is your nomme de guerre, like "Hanoi Jane" or "Tokyo Rose." It is my dissent; my little form of electronic protest, an emblem of contempt for someone who would stand over our dead brothers' boots and denounce the cause for which they gave their lives, namely, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...."

Human freedom is not the sole province of America, Teena. It cannot be, for it is the birthright and the destiny of every human being, not just those born in America. Yet for all your protests and demonstrations in support of "justice, peace, and equality," you would deny the Iraqis, the Afghans and untold millions of others across the globe who live and die each day in human bondage the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms you and I enjoy lest one American soldier die in combat.

You condemn our leadership. Not knowing war yourself, you nonetheless deride the courage of men who have known war, who are yet prepared to wage war, and who have indeed made war precisely in defense of and to advance the very principles you supposedly adhere to. If we, who are free, do not fight for those still in bondage, Teena, then who will? If our brothers and sisters are not free, then how can we be free?

You anti-war protesters in silent vigil over those empty combat boots complain, "it's a crime, it's all based on lies, Bush is the real terrorist." We, on the other side, wonder where we find such men. We know but for their last true measure of devotion, but for their selfless disregard, innocent Iraqis and Afghans would still be dying by the thousands and we, in America, might be bombed at will in our own homes and offices.

We know our history; we know, for instance, that the success of the anti-war movement in the 1960's resulted in the slaughter of millions in Vietnam and Cambodia and the drowning of millions more in the South China Sea. We know it led to the abandonment of Iran, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and eventually to the election to the presidency of the United States one of its first acolytes, who, in the interest of "justice, peace, and equality," thought it wise to reward despotic regimes and tyranny with nuclear secrets and technologies, while looking askance at Islamic terrorism even as it bombed our embassies and ships at port. For all the sentimental idealism of 1960's anti-war protests, it only doomed us to more blood and steel.

The history you and your cause celebrate and represent is very bloody, Teena. So I call you, Bloody Teena.

Teena, I'm not sure the point of your quoting MTP. The panelists agree that Bush thought that Iraq was a problem in the Mideast (true), and that WMD owned by Iraq would be dangerous (true). To say that Bush thought that war was inevitable if Saddam was pushed to abide by his UN resolutions to open his country to inspections to verify his WMD programs isn't saying war at all costs. That's a realistic assesment of the situation that Saddam wouldn't change his behavior short of force of arms. Your statement was, "He was determined to go to war, no matter what." That's far different from saying that he was determined to remove a threat *even if* it meant going to war. War would not have been politically possible if Saddam had been in compliance with his agreements.

Oh, and I'm glad to see your opinion of Clinton is more reasoned, although I've never heard anyone seriously charge him anything near credible on drug trafficing! And I thought the right wing was the one with the Clinton conspiracy theories! Strangely enough, though, he does remain the hero of many if not most liberals, so if he's not yours, my apologies and congratulations.

Eracus, you stated :
“you would deny the Iraqis, the Afghans and untold millions of others across the globe who live and die each day in human bondage the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms you and I enjoy lest one American soldier die in combat.”
This is a gross distortion of what I propose. What I suggest is that there are other ways to guarantee freedom to oppressed people. Yet you continue to adhere to the notion that violence is the only way. Your intellect would suggest you are capable of much larger expansion of thought.

“You anti-war protesters in silent vigil over those empty combat boots complain, "it's a crime, it's all based on lies, Bush is the real terrorist."
You must base this comment on the sentiment on the shirt of a mother of fallen soldier. Do you not feel one moment of compassion for the mother of a man who has served in the way you feel works best against terrorists? Do you suggest that Americans send their children to fight and die, but remain silent when they come home in a box?
Whether or not Bush committed crimes will be determined, not by me, but by the Congress elected by the American people.

Since you obviously don’t have any idea about the purpose of the boots display, I will fill you in. The exhibit is an opportunity to visit the only tangible representation of the soldiers who have lost their lives due to the war in Iraq. Protest posters and demonstrations are not permitted. The boots are placed in an area that is designated as hallowed ground. Those visiting instinctively treat them with reverence as they move among them, touch them, read the names and look at the pictures. I felt compelled to relate my experiences on shotinthedark because, although it was a bit of a hardship trying to fit it into the life of our busy family on a weekend, it was truly one of the most meaningful experiences I have ever had.

Nerdbert followed with, “War would not have been politically possible if Saddam had been in compliance with his agreements.”
What agreements did Saddam Hussein not follow? He was told to get rid of WMDs. He did this.
Evidence proves that he had none of the weapons he was accused of possessing by the Bush administration. What’s more, he willingly engaged in Oil-for-Food deals with individuals of several nations, including our own. This fact proves that if the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people, which caused their greatest suffering, was not policed by the U.N. because they were trying to hide their scandal, then our government under Bush 41 and Clinton was complicit in their suffering. Following this up by blowing them up was not only the most inhumane act we could have committed, it is terrorism in its basest sense.

I think it is important to note that the Iraq War veteran I heard last weekend said that one of the worst problems they have is poor commanders in the field. When he was in an-Nasaryiah, his commanding officer sucked at calling in close air support. He said that 90% of the casualties in that particular conflict were caused by friendly fire due to poor communication. He also said that he was glad when the Abu Gharaib photos surface because he saw horrible abuses of innocent Iraqis occurring each and every day. He considered the man who exposed the abuses to be a brave soldier. While most service men and women serve honorably, there are those who enjoy the privilege of hurting others gratuitously because the miliary grants then that ability. They are the ones who dishonor our servicemen and women. Not war protestors.

"What I suggest is that there are other ways to guarantee freedom to oppressed people."

And those ways are, Teena? Please, regale us with your wondrous methods for bringing freedom to oppressed people. Difficulty: your ideas can't consist of international aid that is easily co-opted by said oppressive regime. Additionally, you can't cite peaceful protest, because as Mitch pointed out, in oppressive regimes, such acts would land you in a shredder. Come on, Teena, I'm just atwitter about hearing your methods for bringing freedom to oppressed people short of violence and conflict.

"What agreements did Saddam Hussein not follow? He was told to get rid of WMDs. He did this."

He was also told to provide tangible, documented evidence that he got rid of them. He did NOT do this. In fact, there's evidence that he spirited away some of his weapons to surrounding countries, including Syria. But, you just stick with your little 1/3 truisms, Teena. It's not like you haven't pitched grossly erroneous stuff here in the past.

You have asked and I have answered, Bloody Teena. Let us not parse words. You are beyond reason, appeased only by that emotion that redeems yourself and leaves the rest of us dumbfounded. This is a parlor game as old as dirt.

If it were true some other way existed to secure our liberty, then why across the great expanse of recorded human history has no one ever found it? What, pray tell, must we offer wolves that they will spare our sheep?

Of course I feel compassion for the mother who has lost her son, but reason more compels me to assure he did not die in vain just so casual pedestrians can kick around his boots. Yours is not hallowed ground, Bloody Teena, it is a urine stain. It is not reverence, but arrogant conceit. There's nothing noble about it; there is no honor in it. It is distilled disgrace and those who wallow in it have earned the rich contempt of every soldier and his enemy across the sands of time.

If your interest is compassion, if it is reverence you seek, then write upon the hearts of children the integrity of soldiers. Teach them the stories of their lives, of how they fought and died defending the freedom and opportunity that grants each child a future, lest they become some dancing puppet in a whorehouse of deceit. Teach them that there are worse things than war, that there are worse fates than death.

And maybe, just maybe, some day this nation will rise up with the integrity, the credibility, the power and the determination to set men free and keep the peace. But until that day comes, Bloody Teena, be sure they understand that we're going to have to shoot some wolves.

Unless you know some better way, of course, to persuade them not to eat our sheep.

"What I suggest is that there are other ways to guarantee freedom to oppressed people. Yet you continue to adhere to the notion that violence is the only way."

You suggest things that have not proven to work in the past and reject the one that has. List for us the number of times that your type of nonviolent, humane intervention has overthrown a brutal dictator who was ruthless in repressing his people. We are quite willing to list the number of times that your approach has failed, and quite willing to list the number of times that violence has succeeded. This is not to say that nonviolent means should not be tried first: we gave Iraq 12 years of nonviolent pressure mixed with relatively light military pressure, after all. But for someone to arbitrarily state that violence is not the way eliminates the only sure solution.

"What agreements did Saddam Hussein not follow? He was told to get rid of WMDs. He did this."

According to the state department the list is here: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm.

The short version: he was told to allow free inspections of his facilities, stop repressing his people, destroy all prohibited weapons (not just WMD), pay Kuwaiti reparations, report all dual use items, etc. It's quite the list of things he didn't do.

Interestingly enough, I also managed to disprove my own statement, so I'll eat a little crow: a poll released on 11/18/2002 indicated 2/3 of Americans favored removing Saddam even if he cooperated with the UN; the number was more than 80% if he didn't cooperate. So I guess I was wrong and war was politically possible even if Saddam had cooperated. However, you still have not shown anything that has shown that Bush absolutely was commited to war -- indeed, the statements have shown that he was commited to removing a threat *even if* it required war. All the statements at the time gave Saddam warning of the impending use of force and gave conditions which merely required Saddam to live up to agreements to avoid war. Saddam chose war.

"Evidence proves that he had none of the weapons he was accused of possessing by the Bush administration."

Again, the hindsight argument. You aren't winning with this one since EVERY REPUTABLE source agreed he had or was trying to produce WMD before the war. What you are doing is buying the argument that WMD were the only reason for war, which is it certainly was not. That the media hyped the WMD issue is understandable, but regretable.

"What’s more, he willingly engaged in Oil-for-Food deals with individuals of several nations, including our own. This fact proves that if the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people, which caused their greatest suffering, was not policed by the U.N. because they were trying to hide their scandal, then our government under Bush 41 and Clinton was complicit in their suffering."

OfF was a great scandal, but please explain to me how the US was to police the effort? The US has no police powers over the UN in case you've not been watching our interactions with it, nor any way to effectively audit it. Furthermore, the UN has been very, very opaque to US investigators, stonewalled many requests, and has actively resisted their efforts to probe the program since its inception. So saying B'41 and Clinton were complicit is a big stretch that simply isn't supported by the evidence (my gawd, I'm defending Clinton from two attacks -- I'll never live this down! Mitch, please forgive me!). The best you can say is that maybe they didn't try hard enough to get the evidence, but given how tenacious the UN has been in resisting the inquiry even after Saddam was gone you can't make a credible argument that you could have pressured them to release information before his removal. Without evidence prosecuting someone is just a little difficult in a court of law in this country, at least if you're not in Austin.

Wow. This thread just keeps on going, dinnit?

"Chimpy's on the teevee right now. He just delivered a doozy of a lie! He just said we have killed or captured all if not most of those responsible for 9/11. Who among you believe that one?"

Well, if you look at the list of known Al Quada leaders as of 9/11, they're pretty much dead or in the bag. What's not to believe?

"What I suggest is that there are other ways to guarantee freedom to oppressed people. Yet you continue to adhere to the notion that violence is the only way."

Name for me any single instance of "non-violence" deposing a brutal, genocidal dictator, one with a record of murdering his own people in six-figure lots (you DO know Hussein did that, right?). Just one will do. Gandhi and India don't count - Britain was a liberal democracy that was increasingly committed to divesting its empire, and by the bye didn't make a point of gassing Indian villages.

I've pointed out in previous posts how pacifism and "peacemaking" have *explicitly failed* to deter such dictators (Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria) and how appeasing dictators and thugs in the UN style led to more trouble (the Balkans, Rwanda, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia in 1938, Cambodia, South Vietnam). But I might have missed something, so please tell me - what dictator has been deposed by non-violent means? What oppressed people have been liberated by them?

Just one example. That's all I ask. Please supply it *AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR NEXT POST*, if you please. I ask this because I ask the same question of EVERY proponont of "non-violence"; none have ever answered it. I'm sick and tired of waiting. I won't anymore.

Your answer?

And....again...what part of over 12 years of UN resolution proves there was this RUSH to war with Saddam? Huh? We gave Peace a Chance....we gave diplomacy a chance....12 years worth.

While you are answering Mitch's query...feel free to tell me, at what point the use of force is needed to enforce the UN's edicts? Huh Teena?

Thank God the Teena-types are not in control and the adults are in charge...

I was in ND for three days and was surpised to see that this thread was still going...and, wow...has there been some good stuff said! I just read the following on Powerline (I hope it's OK to copy from there, Mitch). I thought it was vbery apropos. Also, I am so VERY interested to hear Teena explain her method for dealing with evil...we're all on the edge of our seats, but I'm thinking we might as well sit back cuz it won't be forthcoming...

From Powerline:

"Peace Is Not the Answer"

"That's the title of William Shawcross's excellent op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times. Shawcross writes:

IT SEEMS UNLIKELY that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened on Thursday — at least not with an open mind or sympathy — to George Bush's cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.
You did not see in those demonstrations, after all, many banners reading, "Support Iraq's New Constitution," "No to Jihad" or "Stop Suicide Bombers." The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and their followers. Rage against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and ordinary national fascists is not fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry.

It's hard to think of a more graphic illustration of the horror the U.S.-led coalition is fighting in Iraq than the mass murder on Sept. 26, in which terrorists disguised as policemen (a New York Times headline called these butchers "fighters") burst into a primary school in Iskandaria, south of Baghdad, seized five teachers (all Shiites) and shot them dead. Children stood weeping through this atrocity.

I don't pretend to understand how liberals think, but I guess that's different, somehow. No need to demonstrate against mass sadism. Shawcross concludes:

It is the promise of freedom that the fascists who murdered the Iraqi teachers last month want to destroy. It is astonishing and discouraging that those who think they were taking the high ground in marching though Washington do not understand this.
As I've said before, I can understand cowardice, and I can also understand political opportunism. But we are living in a strange world when cynical opportunism can masquerade as moral superiority, and get away with it."

Sound like Teena (and others....we all know 'em) anyone?!

Car Loans Auto Financing Online Auto Loans
http://www.leadingautocredit.com