« Tux Millionaire | Main | if ($TIME==free) then {make_cool_stuff} »

Voice and Fist

Yesterday, I marched through Hollywood with my mom, her friend, and about 100,000 other people. We raised our fists and joined our voice to millions of other voices around the world. We sent a clear message to the Bush administration: This is just the beginning. We will stop your war machine. Your policies endanger America, and enrage the world.

I hope you are paying attention, Mr. Bush. The masses are speaking -- the world is speaking -- and we are rebuking you, your plutocracy, and everything you represent. Your time is over, Mr. Bush. The Supreme Court can not silence the voice of the world, as it silenced the voice of the American people. It is time for you to fade into history.

I hope that those who politically oppose Mr. Bush are also paying attention. There is a minority, on the cusp of becoming a majority, who are anxiously awaiting your leadership. Rise to the challenge, and give us representation in our government. Greens? Libertarians? Democrats? Who will represent the people? This is your moment. Do not squander it.

Peace.

UPDATE: Thank you, Senator Byrd.

UPDATE: I understand the visceral reactions that come when reading a post like this. If you'd like to comment or discuss, you are welcome to go to the Soapbox.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Voice and Fist:

» Countdown from brendoman.com
So this is pretty much happening. I pray for the safety of the troops, that there will be as little [Read More]

Comments

Yup. In Seattle we had est. 20K-50K people. It was awesome, but made me think. If we actually impeach Bush *as some of the signs said* would that make things better or worse? There are too many levels of succession before we get to someone less. . . millitant.

Peace and hugs
*blinks* am I first?

Yup. In Seattle we had est. 20K-50K people. It was awesome, but made me think. If we actually impeach Bush *as some of the signs said* would that make things better or worse? There are too many levels of succession before we get to someone less. . . millitant.

Peace and hugs
*blinks* am I first?

I love my country. I will not let a few fanatics take it away from me.

The revolution *will* be televised!

We had up to 2 million people in London and up to 80000 in Glasgow. Do any major political parties actually oppose the war in the US?

Hey Wil, cool, we (people in LA to see Lon and Tooncies) walked around there (saw people with signs, and MUCHO cops) while waiting for a table at Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles. Went to Amoeba for a bit. I would have been at the San Fransisco version if it weren't for Lon coming here for his movie. So right on!

I saw a T-shirt in the SF Don't Panic store that I almost bought yesterday...

Showed a woman's panties with the caption "Good Bush".

Next to that was a pic of Dubbya and the caption "Bad Bush".

I agree with it 100%.

Way to go!

Good job to all those who marched yesterday! And to you too, Wil. Bush and his war mongers need to be sent a message that we are sick of war and death. I wonder if Bush is trying to out-do his father's work in Iraq. If there is another war, the only people who can be blamed for it are the United States Government and the British, led by Bush kiss ass Tony Blair. Will there ever be peace?

There were somewhere between 7-10,000 in my state capital of Raleigh, NC, which is pretty darn good considering how hideously Republican most of this place is...

And Scott, unfortunately the Democrats are either actually in support of going to war or too leery of speaking against it since these days being anti-Bush or anti-war is often labeled as being "unpatriotic".

You peace-loving hippies don't speak for _all_ of the American people. You go ahead and sit around and do nothing, the rest of us will go rid the world of terrorist scum.

Bush/Cheney 2004!

MrP

(This is not meant as trolling, only a differing opinion, but, I assume you will treat it as the former, since I don't agree with you.)

A few people demonstrating up here in Canuk-ville yesterday also:
www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030215.wcnd/BNStory/National">http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030215.wcnd/BNStory/National
and even though I live in Toronto, Melbourne Australia is my hometown:
www.theage.com.au/photogallery/2003/02/15/1044927813059.html">http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/2003/02/15/1044927813059.html

Peter Garrett rocks! I wish he was the PM there instead of Howard.

Thank you for participating and putting this out there. If enough people continue the protests, it can make a dent in Washington (it did during Viet Nam).

What can help more is if you have friends in Middle America. If people from Iowa, Montana, etc. start voicing their concerns, it can create some concern in Washington. Call your friends out there and encourage them to do their bit.

We forget that Bush LOST the POPULAR vote. So a minority of people actually elected him. And whomever was President during 9/11 would be popluar.

People must keep the heat on......it has been said that one of the problems with democracy is the "tyranny of the majority" and it takes those in the minority to stand up and speak loudly.

When people are afraid, they lose perspective and are easily led down any road that sounds like it will keep them safe.....

I, too, am tired of these people taking my contry away from me.....enough is enough...

As a big Stanley Kubrick fan the only good thing I can say about Bush is that he is making Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket timely again.

" Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks."

yeah, rid the world of terrorism by funnelling money into saudi arabia who then in turn funnel money into terrorist hands, GJ republicans! maybe we can better rid the world of terrorism by not giving people a reason to blow us up?

btw, wil, little wesley crusher in Brooklyn says "hey you knee-biting jerk!"

Always respecting differing opinions, I will agree with the previous poster: we don't speak for _all_ Americans.

We speak for a growing number of Americans, who will shortly become _most_ Americans.

And you say "peace-loving" like it's a bad thing. That is truly sad.

My dad was there with you. We have been iced in down in central VA, but we are all with you in spirit.

Thanks Wil:

You make my job easy!

UBL

216.39.138.232 has valid reverse DNS of 216-39-138-232.ip.theriver.com

Pilot - if you are not a troll why are you so damned offensive. Not capable of disagreeing without being abusive?

However, I must rebut your (childish) assertion that the anti-war marchers are all "peace-loving hippies". What marks this protest as different from others in the past is that ordinary, even conservative, people are opposed to an unnecessary and politically motivated war. That's why the numbers of marchers are so great this time - because it's not just the radicals and the hippies but people like me (who voted for Margaret Thatcher) who are voicing their opinion.

"Support the troops - DON'T send them to war"

Absolutely brilliant the way that organizers across the world were able to coordinate on a single day for protests --- the impact of each individual demonstration was multiplied by the people on the streets everywhere.

There were 1,500 out (in the 20 F weather) in Wausau, Wisconsin. Anyone out there know where Wausau WI is? Exactly my point --- opposition to Bush's reckless warmongering is widespread and growing.

The time to stop this war is now -- before it starts.

Much virtual ink devoted to this issue at blog-O-rama

afuckingmen, wil. well said.

Thank you for trying to give war opposition a place in the media. The LA Times and Pasadena Star-News, as well as all the local news stations keep reporting the situation in Iraq as though war is inevitable and everyone wants it to happen. Kind of hard to ignore 100,000 people marching against the war. We need to keep it up, though, so the media CAN'T go back to ignoring us.

I am in support of peace and diplomacy...

I don't think that steaming into Iraq with guns and tanks is teh wisest choice as it will only set the Islamic world against us. We need to open the channels of communication to resolve this issue without shedding the blood of innocents.

Saddam has co-operated with all the requests of the United Nations, yet North Korea is blatantly amassing weapons of mass destruction. While diplomacy and tact is used with North Korea, bully boy tactics and threats are used with Iraq. I know who I feel is a more pressing threat/Issue...and its not Iraq.

They use the justification that they are fighting terrorism...yet there is no link between Al Quaida and Saddam..in fact its quite the opposite.

There is no justification for wading in all guns blazing... there is justification for helping the Iraqi people however...but there are better ways for doing this.

Suz

There were "peace marches in September 1941, and again on December 8, 1941.

They were wrong then you are wrong now.

Interesting that the reason you can march for peace is that the USA has waged War to provide that right.

There is a time for peace and a time to defend our way of life.

To hell with the rest of the world!

GWB was elected by the Electorial College for "such a time as this".

Thanks

TJ

"To hell with the rest of the world" is the most disgusting, sickening, myopic thing I've ever read on this website.

Maybe on the entire internet.

Brilliant! Yesterday, I took my husband and son to watch my mother speak at a rally in Vancouver, Washington - we lost my brother in the first Made for TV saga in the desert, and do not want to lose anyone else in a sequel. Small voices, in union, make a loud roar!

Seeing so many millions in just London and Paris alone is encouraging.

It occurs to me that if some people think this war is such a damned good idea maybe they should get out and march in favour of it.

I doubt they will. Armchair generals tend not to be the most active of people.

Resistance is Futile. Persistance is not.

Trust me on this *is annoying*

To the protest bus!

Are protests enough to stop the war?
People protested during the vietnam "police action" and it did nothing to prevent the senseless killing of innocent women and children.
While this is at the moment a good way to show where we stand, this will not be enough to stop good ol Dubya.
So the question now is, what can we do that will work?
We have to come up with something more effective.
I don't yet know what this is, but I think we should all be thinking about it.


Neph

*side note: It is not an opinion that makes someone a troll but the way they go about stating their opinion(name calling etc.~~ I saw a troll today.*

To hell with the rest of the world is exactly the attitude why America is dispised around the world...

All the good that you do...all the foreign aid that you provide is wiped away in that one simple sentence.

Such views are disgusting... we are all one people, no matter our religion, our politics or our nationality... we must strive to help our fellow man, not to promote more dissention in the world. In this society where a single bomb could start a world war, we must be careful and seek other methods of bringing peace and understanding.

In some cases war is unavoidable...in this case we have a man always known to be a warmonger who is heading the most powerful nation on the planet... do not abuse your power...so much good can come it.

Suz

TJ, comparing Saddam Husayn with Hitler is a little illogical.

Hitler was an actual menace with an army marching across Europe.

Husayn doesn't even have an army capable of marching across Iraq.

"John need to pay his rent... John need to feed his kids... John fed the kids"

That is a myopic decision because in a week he will be homeless.

Myopic? Maybe. But it is still the only thing he could do.

Thanks
TJ

Good job Wil and to everyone else out there at the rallies. It's time for this administration to learn that jingoism is not responsible foreign policy.

"To hell with the rest of the world."

What a sad and ignorant thing to say.

I respect everyone's right to state their opinion, though I must admit I find that statement so repugnant I wanted to delete it and wipe it off my site.

I will leave it, though, in the hopes that its ugliness and stupidity will serve to enlighten.

I don't believe I've met anyone in person who believes Bush doing the right thing. This war is a bad idea. I think the only people Bush is representing are poeple he's brainwashed with his post 9-11 reteric. Still, Wil - your blog made me giggle. Just the thought of Wil Wheaton rallying the masses into peacful action is funny to me. Its also funny to me that the two causes I've put the most energy into are "Stop Bush" & "Save Farscape" - the latter, I know will have very little impact on the world. Still, I sure don't want to get stuck watching current events or reality shows at a time like this.

Amen. Peace to all.

Chriswife :)

Wil

Thanks for participating in the march, and not being afraid to admit it. Beleive it or not some people out there (politicians) are afraid to admit to be against the war. Bush must learn before its to late, nothing good comes from war, and war should never be started from a personal vendetta.

Just because Daddy could not do his job does not mean Jr. has to make the same mistake.

LONG LIVE PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TJ said:
"GWB was elected by the Electorial College for "such a time as this"."

I say:
GWB wasnt elected by anything...He was placed into power by the Supreme Court.

Wil

Thanks for participating in the march, and not being afraid to admit it. Believe it or not some people out there (politicians) are afraid to admit to be against the war. Bush must learn before its to late, nothing good comes from war, and war should never be started from a personal vendetta.

Just because Daddy could not do his job does not mean Jr. has to make the same mistake.

LONG LIVE PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Fuckin' A Right, Wil. I marched in Seattle yesterday, with about 50,000 other people, and it was one of the most diverse protests I have ever seen, and also one of the most mainstream. Local neighborhood associations were out there protesting. Homeowners, people with children, people with jobs and 401k's and investment brokers. There were cranky little old ladies holding signs that said "Impeach Bush". There were war veterans carrying signs saying "This is a stupid war." I respect the right of others to disagree, because this is America, where you have more right to be proudly, vocally, openly wrong than anywhere else in the world, but I didn't march with a crowd of peace-loving hippies yesterday. I marched with a crowd of peace-loving war-fearing regular people.

If you could have prevented the bombing of Pearl Harbor would of you?

If you could have prevented 911 would of you?

That is why Iraq must be stopped. The way to stop Acts of Terror is not to sit down and talk to people that refuse to talk. The only way is to take away the power of evil leaders and give the power to the people.

The reason that America is a nation today, is due the idea of representation. We were unfairly represented to Britain. This is also the case in Iraq, what other choice do the people have then to vote for him? We have a responsibility as Americans, the remaining super power on this planet, to protect the rights of our people and the rights of all of this worlds people. If we have to send and lose some of our soldiers in the name of human rights and democracy then so be it.

To those who say that Iraq has fully cooperated. How has he fully cooperated? By giving us ACCESS to all of their palaces? By telling us how they destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction? Or by training scientists is what to say? Now tell me have they fully cooperated?

You Hollywood moron. Leftists and pacifists aren't even remotely close to being a majority; they might pull 25% if they were really, really lucky.

Fortunately, the people in the real world aren't about to let a bunch of show-business half-wits, ageing Stalinists, and empty-headed college kids let this country surrender to a pack of barbarians who'd just as soon *kill every one of us* as have a second cup of coffee.

Say, how many protest rallies were there in Bagdhad yesterday? Or ever, for that matter? And how long do you idiots think you'd last in a place like that, where there's a real 'plutocracy' and real oppression?

No time at all.

You fools.

66.23.192.134

PEACE PEACE PEACE...!!!

I was very disconcerted when Tony Blair was quoted in the NY Times this morning as saying something along the lines of "sometimes being a leader and doing the morally superior thing makes you unpopular" (I have paraphrased because I don't remember the exact quote).

I still have hope though that Dubya and his cohorts won't get away with going against the people and stomping all over democracy. Glad to hear others were speaking out yesterday too! I went to the Seattle rally for a little bit but didn't go on the actual march. Crowds terrify me. It was amazing to me that I actually made it to the rally.

Fantastic post, Wil.

I could rant on about my views for ages, but there's one simple lesson we - as a species - need to heed, and yet time and again fail to do so: those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Will, idealitic you are but not realistic. ~6 million protestors worldwide out of almost 6 BILLION people is hardly a resounding "No!" You guys talk and talk that "war is never the answer" yet offer no viable solutions yourselves. For 12 years Iraq has flouted UN resolution after resolution yet the UN has done nothing. When exactly does the farce stop. The situation today is very analogous to Hitler and the Rhineland. A little backbone on the part of France and the UK then would have avoided the deaths of millions of people in WWII. Blix clearly states that Iraq has not "accounted" for tonnes of chemical and biological agents. Where do you think those things are?

We will stop your war machine.
***
Melodramatic... and doubtful.

Your policies endanger America, and enrage the world.
***
The Arab/Muslim world has been "enraged" by the US for decades.

The Supreme Court can not silence the voice of the world, as it silenced the voice of the American people.
***
An old, tired and inaccurate argument.

I marched through Hollywood with my mom, her friend, and about 100,000 other people.
***
Meanwhile... Saddam laughed.

Will, stick to the regular blog subjects. Your political views are rather rabid in tone and not well-formed. Also, if I wanted to read politics, I would go to a news site.

In regaurds to NT's post..

By your logic, we should disarm everyone that has the power or capability to do any harm to the United States. This is impossible. Even Americans do harm to others... look at what happend at Oklahoma City.
We cannot wage war against everyone that could harm us, but has not threatened us. That would be the whole world. The terrorists did not even use any conventional weapons they used our own airplanes against us.
I am asking you to consider your words.

I wish I could find the right words to help you see what I am saying, but perhaps those words do not exist. Perspective is a very powerful thing.

Neph

I hear George Bush is an avid reader of wilwheaton.net

Thank you.

I am one of those that when 9/11 happened, was enraged, terrified, scared, lost, and downtrodden, all at once. The proof that yes, this can happen on our own soil, takes away that layer of comfort knowing you lived in the most powerful nation in the world.

I am one of those that watched Saddam do the things he did that proved he was not a just leader. Propaganda on a Stalin-esque level. Holding back food from his civilians and then blaming us. He has not met a single demand of the previous resolutions from the UN. (To whoever said he's fully cooperated with inspectors has not been watching global events.) I would love to see him removed from power.

I am one of those currently caught in the middle: What Bush hopes to achieve is in the right place, but what he would do to do it, pushing away the rest of the world's feelings to do it ourselves, i am not even close to being able to raise a fist for. But at the same time, i could not find it in me to protest. I saw photos of people holding up signs making Bush look like Hitler. I saw signs claiming Saddam to be a "victim". The victim's are Saddam's people, not him. I saw very trendy Hollywood people (dont' worry Wil, you are excluded from this) taking every opportunity to bash Bush while they could, totally putting aside all facts because they didn't fit their arguement.

Two of my friends just got activated for active duty, to be sent up the 24th. (any mojo you can spare for Devon and Chris would be much appreciated.) I pray for them daily.

I am not for war. But i am not for peace. Is there anything in the middle?

Very confused,
Chris

I don't know if I disagree with EVERYthing Bush has stood for, but I still wish I could have been there. Kudos to you for standing up for what you believe in and for doing it more actively than most people ever think of doing.

Add my name to the list of people who think Wil and other Neville Chamberlins of this world are a bunch of loons who would rather just let the world be run by tyrants and madmen as long as they get their 500 channels of HBO and free healthcare.

Who are you really fighting for? The people of Iraq who beg for freedom? This is the regime who GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS. The same weapons he claims to have NEVER POSSESSED! Get a clue people.

"Your policies endanger America, and enrage the world."


I regret missing the protests yesterday.. but if Wausau can find 1,500, I can only imagine what my city of Milwaukee found in every home, inside the cracks, and around the corners.


The World Says No To War.

If I had been near any of the cities that had protests going on, I would have been there. Good for you and everyone who participated!

This is not a troll. Your post is big on sweeping rhetoric and short on the practicals. I know it's exhilarating to be involved in trying to obtain what some might perceive as social justice, but merely opposing Bush does not a policy make; rather, it is a negation of policy.

I did not vote for Bush or Gore (or Nader), but saying that someone who did manage to garner a statistical 50% of the nation's support should fade into history is silly.

What IS fading into history is egalitarianism and socialism. Bush is and was not my choice, but the regressive and failed policies advocated by Greens and Democrats have been tried before. The only thing I *would* agree with in the post is that the libertarian ideals of individual liberty and responsibility will inevitabily spawn the rise of this century's new crop of leaders.

Later, --sciszor

Right on. There is no excuse for this. OF course we are not condoning what Saddam has done, but we need to go about this more responsibly than simply bombing the hell out of them. The UN is much saner about this. That should be obvious.

Bush was not elected by the people. That is a total lie that he was. Al Gore is our legitimate president. Just because the country was attacked about a year and a half ago doesn't mean we have a good president. Bush is doing what Hitler did in trying to distract us from the issues at home.
you get the idea.......

Why should Bush listen to the UN or the peace movement? Unilateral action is a valid option for him. Just like his decision to back out of the international criminal court, his way of trying to protect the troops that would commit the likes of Mi Lai, Rogun Ri, or possibly the rape of a 12 year old in Okinawa (1995). I agree with Wil's stance. I don't think this will stop Bush, but he possibly won't get back into the Whitehouse.

Later,

Dev.

Julia -- please check your facts before spreading "paraphrased" truth. What Blair actually said was:

"I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction."

When you call names . . .

When you make specious and intellectually dishonest comparisons to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler . . .

When you refer to those who want peace as "appeasers" . . .

When you foolishly and ignorantly assume that Iraq = Al Quaeda . . .

You make better arguments against Bush and those who are screaming for war than I ever could.

Good for you, Wil.

I was at the march in Glasgow, Scotland. According to the British Press there were between 60,000 and 80,000 people in those marches. The airiel photos are awesome. MP Tommy Sheridan called it a "human sea of solidarity", and it was. People came from Necastle and the Isle of Bute, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Men, women, children. The young and old. Even soldiers.
Many of the placards carried were fantastic as well, really bringing home the depth of feeling involved.
"Blood and Oil don't mix"
"Blair cant justify it, so DEFY it!"
"If war is the answer, are we sure of the question?"

One of the most important this that was said was this,
"According to the World Health ORganization, if the US and UK drop 800+ cruise missiles, in two days, on the people of Iraq, the number of casualties is astimated to be between 100,000 and 500,000."

Having been part of the march, and having seen the photos, I now know what 100,000 people looks like.

This war, at present, cannot be justified. Its about choosing the right battles to fight, not peace at all costs. This is not the right battle.

Stop the war.

There are a lot of attempts to compare either Bush or Hussein to Hitler. I think such comparisons are inaccurate. Perhaps all of us should be careful about this. Not only b/c its inaccurate, but its a tired rhetoric on both sides that doesn't do anything but piss-off the opposing side and make intelligent discussion difficult. I think its also kind of a shame that a part of history, a very nasty part that should have taught us some valuable lessons, has become a cliche in political arguements. So, can we cool it on the "Saddam is another Hitler!" as well as the "The Bush Administration is a modern Nazi Germany!"? Thanx.

"Hey George!
We know you!
Your daddy was
a killer too"

When you make specious and intellectually dishonest comparisons to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler . . .
***
You mean like some of the peace protesters did at their rallys, showing pictures of Bush doctored to look like Hitler? Saddam IS in fact very similar to Hitler both in ideals and in brinksmanship. He is more dangerous than him, however, because he posseses more dangerous weapons than Hitler had with more reliable delivery systems.

When you refer to those who want peace as "appeasers" . . .
***
If you offer no concrete proposals about how exactly simply advocating peace will do any of the following: remove saddam, disarm Saddam, protect Iraqis from their own leader, protect Iraq's neighbors from his whim...

then appeaser is as good a word as any.

When you foolishly and ignorantly assume that Iraq = Al Quaeda . . .
***
I don;t know if Iraq and Al-Quaeda are in bed together. It would be rather naive to think, however, that two weaker enemies might not band together to tackle a tougher enemy. I also remember an Arab proverb- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In other words, Iraq, the enemy of OBL's enemy the US, is his friend.

You make better arguments against Bush and those who are screaming for war than I ever could.
***
I really don't see anyone "screaming" for war. I think many are just frustrated with the ineffectual way the UN has handled it for 12 years...


On another note... I did not vote for GWB or Gore, but I do get tired of this argument:
"Bush was not elected by the people. That is a total lie that he was. Al Gore is our legitimate president."

The US has NEVER let the people elect the President. It has ALWAYS been done by the Electoral College and a few times in history, the person who won teh popular vote did nto become President. Look it up. If you don't like it, work to get rid of the College but quit perpetuating misinformation...

Btw, this (Posted by Dev at February 16, 2003 12:58 PM) is not my post. Some spoofer thinks himself funny...

Yes, the same ex-Klansman Byrd who has delivered billions of dolalrs in pork to his state of West VA. A real paragon of virtue.

And though Byrd has always been against a war with Iraq, other Democrats have not. The Democratic-led (at the time) Senate approved the war resolution 77-23

"The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce United Nations orders that Saddam dispose of his weapons of mass destruction. It encourages Bush to seek U.N. cooperation in such a campaign but does not require it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-10-house-iraq_x.htm

Much mojo for Devon and Chris. I have a brother in the Marines - he hasn't been deployed, thank God, but if we go to war who knows what will happen.

I also would love to see Saddam removed from power, but in this case the solution seems worse than the problem. Bush's plan to bomb Baghdad would take huge numbers of innocent lives. And there's no guarantee that the US would set up a long-lasting, democratic Iraqi government in place of the current one. We certainly didn't do a good job of that in Afghanistan. I'm against the war, and a protestor, for those reasons. No hatred for Bush, however much I disagree with him - but I do disagree.

Here in the UK the sentiment is the same.

Over half of our population strongly disagree with the seemingly inevitable bombing of Iraq. Something like 2 million marched on London yesterday to voice their dissent. And they'll all be pretty much ignored by our Government.

Don't get me wrong, I thought 9.11 was atrocious, I'm no supporter of terrorism or Saddam's regime. But I just can't see how this war is going to solve the problem - to my mind, it will just make it worse. And I've yet to see any evidence that convinces me that Saddam is a clear and present danger.

Not only that, but the actions of Tony Blair strike me as hipocrisy. He's fond of speeches about being firm on terrorism, yet his own Government have refused to extradite known Algerian terrorists to be prosecuted in France, and even went so far as to give those terrorists state housing and benefits, funded by the UK taxpayer - until, that is, those terrorists were found (surprise surprise) making the deadly toxin Ricin, presumably to be used on an attack on British people.

In the name of "Freedom of Speech" a Mosque in London was given police protection last year, when it held a sickening celebration of the events of September 11th. It is now known to have strong links with Al Quaeda. I mean - is our country insane? This is not just an insult to the British people as a whole, it is also an insult to every decent peace loving Muslim in this country.

And this is a Government and Prime Minister who were elected in a landslide victory, on the basis that their leader was so in touch with the rest of us, a true "man of the people" - it must have been April 1st that day.

Anyway, will any of our opinions make a difference? Doubtful. But our VOTES can. I doubt Tony Blair will find the next election quite so comfortable - these remarks come from someone who lives in a working class Labour stronghold, and has voted Labour in every election in his adult life - but will never vote for them again.

Here's hoping someone WILL sit up and take notice, before total insanity ensues.

(Note: The link from my name below isn't to a site of mine, just one I lend support to - but it's worth following if you share these sentiments.)

When the majority of Americans support the war against terrorism, how can opponents of that just war claim to be proponents of democracy? Just who are "the few fanatics"?

I believe everyone has the right to have their voice heard, but to the person who said "Will, stick to the regular blog subjects. Your political views are rather rabid in tone and not well-formed. Also, if I wanted to read politics, I would go to a news site."
This is Wil's site, not a site to just promote his media appearances but also to speak his own mind, he pays for the space and therefore can say anything he pleases, whether you wish to agree with it or not. If you want to rant and be rude, pay for your own web space.
To those who believe in what Wil has to say on this subject (as I do) and want a way to take action, try www.truemajority.com . Perfect for the arm chair activist.
Remember this, if nothing else, doing nothing is an action , are you going to sit back and let your freedoms be taken away by Bush ?

Ok, once again:

SADDAM HUSSIEN ≠ ADOLF HITLER

AND

GEORGE W. BUSH ≠ ADOLF HITLER

Thanks.

"Bush's plan to bomb Baghdad would take huge numbers of innocent lives."
***
Everyone seems to think we are going to carpet bomb Bagdad. That is pure speculation. After all, we didn't do that during the Gulf War.

And there's no guarantee that the US would set up a long-lasting, democratic Iraqi government in place of the current one.
***
There are no guarantees in life.

We certainly didn't do a good job of that in Afghanistan.
***
I think, and I am sure millions of Afghani women do as well, that Kharzai's government is INFINITELY better than the Taliban. We also set up some nice governments in places like Germany and Japan. Maybe you've heard of them? ;-)


Hyde Park 'trashed' by protest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2768681.stm

Something like 2 million marched on London yesterday to voice their dissent.
***
The police say 750,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2765041.stm

This is Wil's site, not a site to just promote his media appearances but also to speak his own mind, he pays for the space and therefore can say anything he pleases, whether you wish to agree with it or not.
***
Then let's not pretend this is an open forum. Let's call it the "Only people who agree with Wil forum." I thought, and Wil can come correct me if I am wrong, that he wants to hear from people from all perspectives. If this is instead simply a "yes wil" forum, then fine, I'll gladly leave. Just FYI dear, Wil is not simply writing these things for the sake of writing. If they were jsut going intot he Great Bit Bucket in the sky, I doubt if he would continue. He writes his views to get reactions. Mine was a comment, and a valid one I still add, that his writing is better when it excludes politics.

If you want to rant and be rude,
***
Wil has been far more rude to Bush and a host of others than I to him.

pay for your own web space.
***
Ah... so money = free speech...

"According to the World Health ORganization, if the US and UK drop 800+ cruise missiles, in two days, on the people of Iraq, the number of casualties is astimated to be between 100,000 and 500,000."
***
Yes, the WHO, an organization chock full of military experts... ;-)

Tony Blair supports George Bush. Most of the British people do not support Mr Blair in this. Most of his own *party* do not support Mr Blair in this. That is why a million paople were marching in London yesterday. That is why Labour party members are threatening to tear up their membership cards and refuse to take part in local election campaigns in May.

Recent polls have shown that Britons believe the USA is the biggest threat to world peace at the moment. A bigger threat than Iraq, or than North Korea.

I personally know no one who believes that Mr Blair is acting correctly in supporting Mr Bush.

Our government has been frantically spinning and lying for the last 6 yeras. People are now so cynical that they do not believe a single word of what the government tells them. I'm not quite as old as you, Wil, but I've never seen such hostility to a government amongst such a wide and varied cross-section of the British public.

These are momentous times.

Lets see, thousands die in an unprovoked attack from Islam. You are fine with that. Saddam and his Islamic friends have enough chemical weapons to kill you, your family and millions more. You are fine with that. Lets just let him go along unchecked. How many innocent people will be killed in the name of Islam? Do you care. Nah. Just as long as it doesn't inconvenience you. But it will, if not by us winning a war against evil then by letting evil (Islam) destroy our freedom and end our lives. Maybe you will be one of the ones who live. You can then move into a cave and cover your wife so she doesn't get raped and murdered for speaking her mind. How about reading *gasp* history? If someone had stood up to Hitler millions less would have died. But there were too many people wanting to appease him too. How many will die this time before people like you actually take a stand FOR America instead of against it?

Those few I've heard voice "mixed feelings" or outright support of the impending Iraq war typically offer an argument like: "They want to kill us so we should take them out first." Remember last week's "plastic and duct tape" fiasco? If you think THEY are coming to get US then you'll support anyone who says they can protect you.

But you know what? The US govt. has NO interest in protecting any of us. If they did, why aren't they focusing on far greater threats to public health and safety such as poverty and pollution? Oh no, much better to stir up "THEY're going to gas us in our homes and poison our water" paranoia.

Here's a fact: the only person I know who was gassed in her home was someone who lived a little too close to the WTO protests in Seattle a few years ago - tear gas courtesy of the Seattle police went right into her living room. And guess whose government raised the levels of allowable arsenic in our drinking water? Not Iraq's - you get two more guesses.

But never mind. As 9/11 proved, THEY - the ARABS, they all are alike you know - want to kill us! Never mind that Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization that despises secular dictators like Saddam Hussein. THEY ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER! So the solution is clear: once we bomb Iraq into rubble and install our very own U.S.-friendly (for now) leader (who will surely be able to rebuild on his own without help from the U.S. -- how *is* Afghanistan doing these days?) THEN we'll be safe again!

Yes, once we have destroyed the lives of countless Iraqis, we can all sleep soundly knowing that we're safe from chemical warfare (global warming - what's that?) and terrorism (McVeigh who?) forever! Surely the Iraqi survivors will be so grateful to the U.S. for ridding them of Saddam, they'll forgive us for destroying their roads, homes and hospitals. Surely extreme militant groups who thrive on recruiting poor and war-ravaged men who have nothing to lose will find no takers in "liberated" Iraq.

But don't throw away that gas mask and duct tape – because you just never know…

Yesterday I went to the massive march in Barcelona (Spain) where 1,5 million people all said no to war and just the thought that millions everywhere were feeling the same way made me think that there may just be a chance for peace. I am terribly ashamed of having a government that is so blindly backing George W. Bush's murderous and bloodthirsty ideas (or should I say oil-thirsty?).
As for that guy that said that there were only six million demonstrators worldwide, well, for your information, only in Spain, there were more than 6 million demonstrators, 1,5 million each in Madrid and Barcelona, with hundreds of thousands in many cities. Out of a total population of around 40 million people it's an amazing number.

dear usa-

saddam hussein's government in iraq is not islamic, you shithead. it's a secular government.secular means it's not religious. not religious means that islamic fundies who like to bomb americans and other westerners dont come from iraq.

maybe _you_ should read history, you dolt.

I love this site, but could not disagree with you more on this. The numbers quoted here are a far cry from the actual numbers, kind of "million man march style".

Many brought tiny children to the rallies, which turned violent, endangering them.

I respect the views and understand the reasons behind the protests, although I feel that the people supporting this stance are wearling rose-colored-glasses.

Saddam will not "be a good boy" just because you let him off the hook once again. He will not play fair or help his own people.

The way I see it, if Bush/Blair etc. let him go this time, when Saddam does finally do the unthinkable, you will see the same people protesting the governments once again wondering why nothing was done.

I am usually pretty damned liberal, but I also have been blessed/cursed with logic.

Fight the infection before it spreads any farther than it already has.

As always, keep up the good work on the site Wil. People don't always agree, but you make it a little more understandable to the "other side".

Dev Browne posted:

"Btw, this (Posted by Dev at February 16, 2003 12:58 PM) is not my post. Some spoofer thinks himself funny..."

Spoofer, funny? explain.
Oh and I've been known as Dev for years, this was not my first post. If there is any confusion it's certainly not intended.

Later,

Dev.

I am not sure that we who are protesting these actions are the majority, though I like to think that we are. But at the same time, I don't see millions of people feeling strongly enough in support of the war that they took to the streets for it. That makes me feel that even if the majority of Americans are not against the war, the majority of those who give a damn are.

I drove two hours with other members of the Salem College Against War on Iraq coalition so that I could march in Raleigh. I shouted and sang and held hands with people who I didn't know. And for such an area as this, where lots of people who don't understand the issue outside of what the news says, and don't try to, the turnout was pretty amazing.

I just live in hope that our efforts will penetrate the thick skulls of the administration, who don't seem to have any of their own loved ones' lives at risk.

Recent polls have shown that Britons believe the USA is the biggest threat to world peace at the moment. A bigger threat than Iraq, or than North Korea.
***
Wow! If true, Britons are incredibly misinformed and misguided... How sad.

Those few I've heard voice "mixed feelings" or outright support of the impending Iraq war typically offer an argument like: "They want to kill us so we should take them out first."
***
Hmmm... sounds preferable to "Let's stick our thumbs up our a**es, chat "peace" and hope Saddam doesn't do anything bad despite overwhelming evidence he has in the past, to his own people no less, and that he probbaly will again in the future."

Remember last week's "plastic and duct tape" fiasco?
***
Despite Wil's comments. Duct tape etc. are effective means to protect against some nerve agents. People like you probably would have bitched about blackout curtains in WWII.

But you know what? The US govt. has NO interest in protecting any of us. If they did, why aren't they focusing on far greater threats to public health and safety such as poverty and pollution?
***
On this I slighly agree. If they were truly for protecting the "homeland," then they would enforce our borders, especially with Mexico, and deport the 7-11 million illegal aliens already here.

Here's a fact: the only person I know who was gassed in her home was someone who lived a little too close to the WTO protests in Seattle a few years ago - tear gas courtesy of the Seattle police went right into her living room.
***
And I wonder why the SPD was using tear gas....

And guess whose government raised the levels of allowable arsenic in our drinking water? Not Iraq's - you get two more guesses.
***
Oh yes, allowing higher concentrations of Arsenic in drinking water is totally comparable to Anthrax, Sarin, VX and Botulism toxin...

But never mind. As 9/11 proved, THEY - the ARABS, they all are alike you know - want to kill us!
***
You know, the race card thing you are trying to play is kind of tiresome.

Never mind that Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization that despises secular dictators like Saddam Hussein. THEY ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER!
***
You really should read more history. Nazism and Communism are two fundamentally opposed ideologies, yet Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the rest was history...

So the solution is clear: once we bomb Iraq into rubble and install our very own U.S.-friendly (for now) leader (who will surely be able to rebuild on his own without help from the U.S. --
***
We rebuilt Europe and Japan. I think we can handle rebuilding a country the size of California, assuming it is as devastated as you imagine.

how *is* Afghanistan doing these days?) THEN we'll be safe again!
***
Much better. Thanks for asking.

Yes, once we have destroyed the lives of countless Iraqis, we can all sleep soundly knowing that we're safe from chemical warfare (global warming - what's that?) and terrorism (McVeigh who?) forever!
***
I'm still waiting on concrete proposals from your side other than shout peace and hope...

Surely the Iraqi survivors will be so grateful to the U.S. for ridding them of Saddam, they'll forgive us for destroying their roads, homes and hospitals.
***
Germany did. Once more, you naturally assume the destruction will be that bad...

Surely extreme militant groups who thrive on recruiting poor and war-ravaged men who have nothing to lose will find no takers in "liberated" Iraq.
***
I don't think they have ever had a problem finding recruits, long before we became interested in Iraq.

But don't throw away that gas mask and duct tape ? because you just never know?
***
The best thing you have written to date...

Some 20 000 marched yesterday in Helsinki, me included.

I am not sure that we who are protesting these actions are the majority, though I like to think that we are. But at the same time, I don't see millions of people feeling strongly enough in support of the war that they took to the streets for it. That makes me feel that even if the majority of Americans are not against the war, the majority of those who give a damn are.
***
I disagree. I think the people who are in favor of going in and getting Saddam jsut find themselves in an awkward position. Saying you believe we should invites people to label you a warmonger. Most of that crowd is not "pro-war" but rather simply feels Saddam needs to go. Hence, little protest in "favor" of war....

Spoofer, funny? explain.
Oh and I've been known as Dev for years, this was not my first post. If there is any confusion it's certainly not intended.
***
Same here. I've never "met" another Dev! :-)

As for that guy that said that there were only six million demonstrators worldwide, well, for your information, only in Spain, there were more than 6 million demonstrators,
***
That would be me. Can you please point to a link validating this?

And as I stated earlier, out of 6 BILLION people, the number of protestors was quite small...

Wil,

I love your site, read it regularly, and am looking forward to the book. Your writing is particularly poignant to me because I am also recently 30, played with Star Wars toys, am a total geek, and made a bad trade of the aforementioned Star Wars toys.

That said, you are totally out of line with regards to Bush and a "war rabid" government.

Understand this, when Iraq caved in '91, it was a condition of their agreements that they disarm. They didn't, but said they did... they were lying, and being caught in that lie 17 times. Saddam Hussein is a madman, has violently killed entirely too many people, and treats his own people like garbage. This doesn't matter. Aside from this, he lost a war, and instead of complying to the agreement, instead has lied and built up his munitions... not traditional munitions, but weapons that could present a disaster worse than 9/11. Please tell me you're not one of those parents that tells their kids not to do something, and follows up by saying "I'm going to count to three..." a dozen times without punishment. There are lots of countries out there that are just like that, we are not one of them, thank God.

As for the terrorists, and the threat levels... if nothing happens, you're going to be upset because people were being "scared" for nothing. If something happens, then you'll be upset that it wasn't prevented, or you'll be dead. Exactly what could happen to make you believe that making people aware of a threat is a good thing? No, I don't think that your rural area of California is a big threat, nor my rural area of Georgia, but what are they going to say? "Don't worry about any of these threats if you aren't in a highly-populated area"? Where would terrorists hit then?

I don't like war, and I don't like living in a police state, but it is a fact of life right now, and I don't feel like I've given up any freedoms aside from seeing more visible police around. I hate to hear about terror threats, and I hate being fearful. I was in New York earlier this week and went about my business, but was startled when I heard a siren, or other strange noise. See, I don't understand how we've been immune with such terrorist acts taking place all over the rest of the globe. Do you have any explanation for this other than: a) we've been lucky, or B) our security precautions have paid off? I'll be glad when I can exhale again, but now is not that time.

Did the "Bush Junta" cause 9/11? Did the "Bush Junta" poison Kuwait? No. But because you miss your pleasant life, you'd rather us not poke them with a stick, lest they get more riled up. We're not poking with a stick, we're being forceful for one reason: to get this over quickly. Sure, there is anti-American sentiment out there, but with what factual justification? Our country gives more to other countries than any other government in the world. Taking the "parent" roll pisses off some of the "kids", but that's the fact of life when you're a parent.

We stand on two opinions: you believe that Bush is an idiot, I believe he is one of the best presidents we've ever had. I've now castigated myself as an idiot to you. I don't think you're an idiot, but I do believe you are more than a little ignorant. Truth is, the vast majority of the country is in support of our actions against Iraq. This doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that there is awareness and support for what is going on.

I don't "get" what Bush is doing wrong. Could you clarify that for me?

BTW, I do still like you and your damn site, despite all of this.

Dev Brown,

Are you at all familiar with the concept of "National Sovreignty" ?

Just curious.

First off, I will say that I support everyone's right to say what they believe. Thank God we live in a country with this kind of freedom that people have been willing to die to create, and die to defend this past 200+ years! I will never be able to express my gratitude for that. I have had a relative fight in every war this country has had, the last being both brothers in Vietnam, one of them becoming severely disabled from his injuries there. All that being said, if a tyrant like Saddam Hussein does indeed have weapons of mass destruction, (and I believe he does) then he needs to be taught that the world isn't going to tolerate that. The man has already proven he had no problem invading innocent countries and killing its citizens. You can say all you want about how the U.S' "gave him permission" to do it. If the government gave you permission to murder your neighbor for letting his dog crap on your lawn, does that make it right to do so? Right and Wrong and NOT subjective. They just aren't. This society is all about "truth is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone is right as long as they think they are right". That's bull, folks. There is Right and there is Wrong. If you could find definitive proof tomorrow that this war is all about oil and has nothing to do with terror or weapons, then I would oppose it to. The problem is that there isn't definitive proof, because there is just as much proof that it *is* about terrorism and weapons. If the man is knowingly funding terrorists, he is a terrorist.

While the WTC ruins were still smoking, almost every one was ready to 'get the bastards who did this'. Guess what, we're still working on it. People were happy to see the Taliban fall from power because of their 'evil ways'. Saddam isn't much better than the Taliban, but suddenly it's all about the oil. Huh. Why the double standard?

Before the US got involved in WWII (mainly because we took the attitude that it wasn't our business what a power-hungry leader of another country was doing across an ocean), people severly opposed going to war then. It took getting attacked by Japan to wake the US up and get them involved. The problem is, how long do we wait? Do we wait until a terrorist who was given funding by countries like Iraq blows up a national landmark and kills thousands of people? According to you, it's not okay to try and rid the world of terrorists and regimes that support them. You may consider this flame-bait, but it isn't. It's just me disagreeing heartily most of you. I am not ignorant just because I am a conservative. I am an educated person. The reason you don't see more people with these opinions is that they just aren't speaking up in forums such as these, because over half of the country thinks he's doing a good job overall. You can't brush us off as morons or idiots, as most liberals tend to do, because we aren't. We just don't agree with you. We aren't 'war mongers' either. We just think that something should be done about Hussein, or any other leader who finds it acceptable to fund terrorist actions. I will say that if I had lost any loved one in the first Gulf War, I would be angry, because we should have finished the job then when we had the chance. But, we didn't, and now we have to pay the price for caving in then. Like I said, this is not flame-bait at all, just a post from someone who just can't handle all of the one-sided comments anymore. You don't speak for me, or even for half of the country. The rest of the world has no problem calling on us when they need bailed out, but do nothing but complain and whine about us any other time. It was refreshing to see a Pro-America rally in Seoul recently. And just for the record, I do think that North Korea needs to be dealt with as well, even though I understand the hesitation when Seoul is within any missile striking difference.

I respect Wil for his accomplishments and his talents, but I really disagree with most of his political views. Thank God I live in a country where we can do that! Thank God we live in a country where we enjoy political debate and speak out about things we are unhappy with. Wil, you do that on your website everyday, and that's your right, so be sure to thank a serviceman who helps to protect your freedom to do that. My brother is very bitter about how he was treated after the Vietnam War. Whatever your feeling about the war itself, I just ask that you support our servicemen. You can do this without supporting their cause. Don't make them feel less than human for doing the job they were called to do, no matter what your opinion on the cause. This doesn't make you a war monger, it just makes you a good fellow citizen. All of that said, as Wil said, I love *my* country too, and I won't let 'a few fanatics' take it away from me, either.

While I don't want to see a war happen, I don't believe it would be a bad thing if it did. I respect other peoples' opinions on the prospects of war. I'd be pretty pissed if somebody told me to shut my mouth and that I was wrong.

But I would ask that if you know anybody in the military at all, if you would at least show them some support. Why do I ask this? Because there is nothing like feeling unappreciated for what you do.

I work at the 86th ASF at Ramstein, the hub of medevac for the possible coming war. I've seen the guys who came back after the many operations like Anaconda happened in Afghanistan. I've seen the wounds, both from battle and from training.

Me, I don't feel particularly unappreciated. I may spend many hours out in freezing cold temperatures on the flightline, but I have a warm room to come home to every night, complete with tv, dvd, internet access, and PS2. I don't have the worry of getting shot at. Those guys that come through here, they live in tents, with wind whipping up dirt storms outside, and drastic temperature drops at night. They spend most of their time on constant alert, and many get shot at daily.

I'm not asking anybody to change their minds about the war. I'm asking that you don't ignore or insult the troops who are out busting their asses every day to make sure that you can stand up and say you don't believe in what they are doing. To tell you the truth, I know people here who don't think a war should happen. But we all do our jobs, because we have to, because those guys are depending on us to take care of them. Whatever you do, dis the war, not the soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors.

I may not agree with the president sometimes, but I support his decisions, and I believe we need to get rid of that asshole in charge of Iraq. I believe we need to stop giving money and support to countries that love us only when it's convenient (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). I believe it's time to finish what was started and get the hell out of Dodge. I don't care if it's a "I wanna finish what my dad left behind thing." It needs done.

I love my country, and I'm proud to serve. And I'm humbled to have met so many guys who probably could have taken better paying jobs elsewhere, but chose the military because they believe we have a great thing going. If any of you guys happen to read this, thanks. And I don't want to see you come through here (as much as I may want to say thanks to your face).

George F. Will: Arms inspections after World War I

By George F. Will - (Published December 15, 2002)

WASHINGTON -- Disarmament by weapons inspectors was not going well. The defeated nation had agreed to disarmament verified by the victors, even though it had not been occupied or its capital captured. Especially destructive weapons were proscribed. But the nation had experience evading compulsory disarmament. It mounted guileful resistance to inspectors, and citizens tempted to be helpful were intimidated. Plant inspections were denounced as commercial espionage, and impeded. The resisting government insisted that potential "dual use" technologies, and materials that could be precursor elements for proscribed weapons, were merely for civilian uses. (An explosion that killed 11 in a chemical factory revealed the continuing production of chemical weapons.) There were endless controversies about what war materials had existed at the time of the armistice. (Six hundred 105-millimeter gun barrels were found behind a factory's secret walls.) The government's liaison officers gave advance warnings to people at sites to be inspected. Arms were secretly shuffled from one depot to another.

This was weapons inspection in Germany after World War I.

The victors vowed to destroy German militarism using 337 inspectors in a country that then was about the size of today's Iraq. The numerical results were: 7,000 factories placed under supervision, 33,384 cannons destroyed, 37,211,551 artillery shells destroyed, 87,240 machine guns destroyed, 920 tons of poison gas cylinders destroyed.

German militarism was not destroyed.

One proposal was for the German army to be allowed to train 200,000 one-year conscripts every year. A conscript army was considered more democratic. Critics of that plan argued that over 10 years it would produce 2 million trained men and conscription would legitimize militarism. So Germany's army was restricted to 100,000 12-year volunteers. The results of this arms control?

Most German soldiers were trained as officers suitable for quickly turning conscripts into a mass army. Germany reached a secret agreement with the Soviet Union whereby in exchange for German officers training Soviet forces, the Germans would be able to train with heavy weapons forbidden to Germany. The Soviet Union experienced the results of this in June 1941. And because heavy weapons were forbidden to Germany, its army improvised new techniques of maneuver and mobility that came to be called Blitzkrieg. France experienced that in May 1940.

Oh, arms control. Napoleon occupied all of Germany and ordered severe restrictions on its military manpower. But his fate was sealed by the arrival of the Prussians on the Waterloo battlefield.

Some German corporations -- Krupp and Junkers, for example -- did military research and manufacturing at subsidiaries abroad. The German government insisted that flamethrowers were for controlling insects, and range finders were for determining cloud heights. The automobile industry became the basis for tank manufacturing. By 1924, the allies estimated it would take Germany just a year to be producing arms at wartime levels.

A 1944 study of the problems of post-World War I disarmament of Germany stressed the impossibility of disarmament-by-inspectors when the government to be disarmed is uncooperative. After 1918 the inspectors' greatest difficulty was procuring reliable data because the German government connived at concealment. This difficulty "could have been surmounted only by a complete and prolonged military occupation."

In 1919, Andre Tardieu, a French diplomat charged with implementing the inspections, had written to Colonel House, President Woodrow Wilson's adviser, anticipating reactions to whatever the inspectors reported. He said the "pacifist element" in many nations would "be quite naturally inclined to deny reports disturbing to their peace of mind." So they would "more or less consciously espouse the cause of the German government, which will deny the said reports." He added:

"Germany will deny. The governments will discuss. Public opinion will be divided, alarmed, nervous, and finally, the League unarmed will have brought to pass in the world not general peace but general uncertainty ..."

Nevertheless, Tardieu was optimistic because "a modern mobilization demands years of preparation and cannot be carried out in secret. Neither of these essentials is henceforth in the hands of Germany." If enforced, the disarmament regime would make Germany incapable of mobilization.

The field marshal who was in command of all German armies at the end of the war agreed: "Months would be necessary to prepare a new war, and do you think the French would look on with their hands in their pockets?"

The field marshal was Hindenburg, who as Germany's semi-senescent president in January 1933 appointed as chancellor a World War I corporal, Adolf Hitler.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of "National Sovreignty" ?
***
Yes. That sure was easy.

Fellow Dev,
(I'm after driving 250Km on a bike, so this'll be my last post tonight, it's 10:30 here {Ireland} and COLD). I have to agree with you on most of your points. The points I made about the international criminal court are something I'm extremely concerned about. One of the major concerns is the Bush administration’s insistence that US troops have immunity from war crimes, what has he got to hide? I certainly hope Irish troops would have to answer to the court.

Later,

Dev.

The points I made about the international criminal court are something I'm extremely concerned about. One of the major concerns is the Bush administration?s insistence that US troops have immunity from war crimes, what has he got to hide? I certainly hope Irish troops would have to answer to the court.
***
Thanks for your other comments. As to this point, the problem is, the UN, and by extension many organs of it, UNESCO, ICJ etc. are politically driven animals and not neutral parties at all. As such, they are highly susceptible to manipulation. I should know, having done three Model UNs and 1 Model OAS. Many nations voice comments imilar to yours, such as your hope irish troops would have to answer but the fact is, 99% of the world does not supply troops to fix problems. For better or worse-- we do. Hence, we are exposed more than other nations to possible injustices. You probably honstly feel at this moment that Irish troops should answer to the court but if said troops were convicted and you felt they should not have been, you might feel Irish law should have handled the case. As for me, I see Iraq and yet another example there is no consensus on what "international law" really means. Until there is, I think a "World Court" is... premature. Take care and goodnight!

Mary:

I will keep all of your colleagues in my thoughts and prayers through this. Bless you all for the work you do!

Yea man! I wish I couldve gone to a march here in Pittsburgh, oh well :\... Its great to see people across the planet taking a stand against bush.

What a madness. As Bowie sings, I'm afraid of the americans. No really. All Americans I know is quite sane so how come the country is mad? The country behaves like an teenager on drugs!

Bush, Quit your job !! Or maby you just need a Monica L. so the sexual tensions goes away? Anyaway Bush, dont destroy USA.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin

Like many others, I am also troubled by the route that the President seems hell-bent on pursuing, regardless of the opinion of many of our allies. I'm concerned about the long term ramifications for the world and our country. Will this lead to further disintegration of our alliances? Will Islamic fundamentalism grow as a result?

But at the same time, I find myself pretty ambivalent toward Iraq. I don't know why, but I'm not really troubled by the idea of getting rid of Saddam. I am bothered by the "go it alone no matter what" routine.

I think that the French and the Germans actually came up with a compelling alternative. Occupy Iraq with UN troops and triple the inspectors. Wouldn't this achieve the same result?

This discussion is really spirited and informative. Wil, thanks for this site.

My dear Dev Brown:
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2003/02/internacional/paz/index.html
Now learn spanish and add up the figures. Take into account that the numbers for Barcelona and Madrid have been revised after the authorities released them and are now much higher than those posted on that webpage (3 million people between the two cities). Then add half a million for Valencia, 0,25 millions for Sevilla, 0,2 for Vitoria, 0,2 for Bilbao, 0,2 for San Sebastian, 80.000 for Oviedo, 70.000 for Cadiz, 50.000 for Santa Cruz de Tenerife, and several more cities with demonstrations numbering in the "several thousands" (50.000 for Malaga, 15.000 for Almeria, and so on). So maybe I was somewhat optimistic about the six million figure, but it was VERY near. Say, like 5 and a half millions.

The peacekeeper plan sounded like a really bad idea to me. Strangely, yet fortunately, Iraq already rejected it...

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/043/business/Oil_rises_as_Iraq_rejects_peacekeeper_plan+.shtml

The country behaves like an teenager on drugs!
***
As opposed to Sweden which does... nothing.

Said bRaD:

"I don't like war, and I don't like living in a police state, but it is a fact of life right now, and I don't feel like I've given up any freedoms aside from seeing more visible police around. "

Well, bully for you! You sound like my mother, for Maude's sake. Have ya been felt up at an airport lately (http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000420.php)? Got any kids in high school that they can use for cannon fodder (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1207-02.htm) (a favorite idea of Hitler's, BTW)?

Once we go to being a police state (many would argue we're already there), we'll most likely never go back. Not without total, utter revolution.

What that means is that the current police state is our new future, not something we can get rid of when Bush's little joyride is over.

Just because you haven't noticed any of your freedoms being eroded doesn't mean it's not happening. And if Patriot 2 and Total Information Awareness (run by utter slimeball and ex-con John Poindexter) go all the way through, you may as well go all the way yourself & put up the telescreen. Believe me, when you finally notice how it affects you, it'll be way too late.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the nature of this "Minority Report" approach to Iraq.

Iraq "might" attack us, people say. What about North Korea, who have WMD as well as the means to distribute? Oh, wait, they don't have a finite natural resource (which our Ruler and his second-in-command have made their fortunes in) that's almost gone that needs controlling by some white, Christian GoodDoers.

From where I sit, that old coot in Pyongyang makes Hussein look like a kitty-petting, relatively powerless (though still dangerous, I realize) crackpot.

Saddam gassed his own people!! Yeah, with gas supplied by the US. It's not like we haven't been gassed by our own government or anything (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=minneapolis+sprayed+army).

Oh, whatever. I'm so damn cynical, I know. But when the non-left's starting to bitch about Bush, you know something's afoot:

"Why Iraq, for instance, and not North Korea -- a member of Bush's "Axis Of Evil" that we know has nuclear capability and is flaunting attempts to monitor it?"

"Yes, America has ruthless enemies, and they're hard to fight because they're hidden and widely dispersed. But none of this vast, looming expansion of federal control is targeted at them -- it's targeted us, millions and millions of ordinary Americans whom [the government] distrusts and believe they need to monitor endlessly."

Both quotes from Claire Wolfe, a decidedly un-"liberal" writer and commentator.

Anyway, sorry this is so long. I just couldn't resist.

Sapphire:

Thanks so much:) It really kicks ass to hear a thanks every once in a while. You rock!

What I read , Dear Daniel on your link is that Barcelona had 1.3 million followed by Madrid which had 880,000. There were additional demonstrations which added up to "hundreds of thousand more in the rest of Spain ." So, let's see, 1.3 million plus 880,000 = 2.18 million. Add say 900,000 for the rest of Spain and that is 3 million. In other words, 2.5 million less than you stated. I will concede, however, that over the past 2 days, the figure I gave at 6 million is now probably out of date as it was for a single day. Nevertheless, the TOTAL NUMBER OF PROTESTORS, COMPARED TO WORLD POPULATION IS TINY. Even in the EU, with a population of 380+ million, not even 5% of the inhabitants protested. In your case, Spain, about 10% did. Woo hoo! Minority rule!

Instead of you idiots protesting for the protection of a murdering psychopath, why don't you morons protest his refusal to follow UN resolutions and turn over his W of MD. Why? Because you are pacifist wussies. Appease, appease appease and more appeasement. Think real son of a bitch of it is, when Saddam DOES use these weapons against the TRUELY innocent, you will still blame Bush for doing NOTHING.
Truely idiotic!
By the way, is Saddam doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons, why has he just threatned to use them if attacked, and distributed Chemical suits to troops in Baghdad?
Chamberlain would be proud, but not as proud as Hitler.

MORONS!

Iraq "might" attack us, people say. What about North Korea, who have WMD as well as the means to distribute?
***
I big problem that happens to share a border with China, possibly has a nuclear weapon or two and has several thousand pieces of artillerly aimed at Seoul. I am all for getting rid of Kim Jong il. It is more problematic to do so. But you have to start somewhere. Why not Iraq?

Oh, wait, they don't have a finite natural resource (which our Ruler and his second-in-command have made their fortunes in) that's almost gone
***
If we just wanted oil, it would be easier to take over Mexico, Venezeuela or even Saudi Arabia...

that needs controlling by some white, Christian GoodDoers.
***
Why make the mindless comments about race?

From where I sit, that old coot in Pyongyang makes Hussein look like a kitty-petting, relatively powerless (though still dangerous, I realize) crackpot.
***
So, will you publicly sign off here and state you advocate going to war with North Korea?

Saddam gassed his own people!! Yeah, with gas supplied by the US. It's not like we haven't been gassed by our own government or anything
***
He rolled his on...

To any of those who protested for "peace" this weekend, how many of you also have protested in the last 12 years against Saddam's repeated lies to the UN, weapons violations, invasion of Kuwait, gassing of Kurds etc.? Just curious.

Peace at any cost is not really peace. It is a dangerous illusion.

Dev Brown,

You sound like a warmonger, why pick on poor little old Kim? 'You racist? 'You anti-Korean?

Does anyone remember September 11th? Do you really though? You know that Osama would love to do something a hundred times worse right? You know he would need the backing of a state to acquire fissionable material right? Like, oh, I don't know, Iraq maybe? The threat isn't Iraq attacking but selling their WMD or 'mis-placing' them. Blix himself has said that there are TONS of chemical weapons MISSING! Saddam says he destroyed them but can't prove it. Not good enough damn it. And Wil, you're crazy to think you're in the majority. Over eighty per cent of Americans support a war with Iraq. If you even want to call what will happen a war. Persian Gulf I the score was 148 to 30, 000 our favor. Let's clean up this mess now so our grandchildren don't have to worry about it.

Lisa B-K et all,

I have one question: why hasn't there been another major attack on American soil since 9/11?

Here are the positions I see:

A) None have been plotted.

B) Planned attacks have been thwarted.

C) Warnings thwart the element of surprise causing those who would attack us to change our plans at the last minute.

D) Terrorists believe that Americans are arrogant airheads who will rise up against their government and quickly forget the aggressions of years past like 9/11 (not to mention that these same Americans won't give a crap if the terrorists bomb other areas around the globe). If they continue to threat and cause the government to put out warnings, then the "Boy who cried 'Wolf'" syndrome will agitate these Americans to such a degree that they will become more believing in the propaganda of the rest of the world hating Americans and become sympathetic to our cause because they are such idiots.

If you believe A, is the answer, then you are naive. If you believe B or C, then what the heck is your gripe? My fear is that their plot is more like D, and people like you are supporting that opinion.

I HAVE been patted down at the airports. I have surrendered two $20 Leatherman Micra pocketknives because I forgot to pack it in my checked luggage. Have you noticed what has happened to airports lately though? They're not nearly as overbearing as they once were. There are no more "lets take everything out of your luggage in front of everyone" searches at the gates anymore. People got tired of it, and security took a step back to reality. The acts you mention are more permanent and nature, and believe it or not, I agree with you on some points regarding our freedoms, but with regards to the way we are CURRENTLY living, I don't have a problem with how things have been handled.

As for the topic of Iraq at hand:

Did Saddam lie 17 times? YES -- that is not disputable.

Is his country weaker than it was in 1991? YES -- that is not disputable.

Will he be more dangerous if left to continue the same crap he's been doing for the last 12 years? YES -- that is not disputable.

If 12 years wasn't enough, how long is?

Wil,

Senator Byrd, is a racist bastard. To use his words to support anything shows your true colors.
Booo!

I don't disagree that Saddam is dangerous. I don't disagree that the world, and Iraq, would be better off if he weren't in power. I do, however, think that Bush's motives aren't as simple as truth, justice, and the American way. His rhetoric seems clear-cut enough, but his administration has a disturbing history of obfuscation. His refusal to even entertain alternative viewpoints, his tendency to label dissent unpatriotic, is downright frightening. Bush is not interested in multifaceted discourse, among U.S. citizens or among our allies. No matter how "right" his supporters think he is, no matter how convincing his speeches seem, that makes him dangerous as well.

"The Only people who agree with Wil Forum"***

You do not know how true that is. I was the author of the "To h*ll with the world comment"

Since that time Wil has FORBIDEN me from wilwheaton.net. (not just the forum) the I'm talking about /index.php

I had to go to my neighbors house to even make this post.

I'm sure my neighbor is now BANNED too---(Sorry "Mike my neighbor")

I guess only Wil is allowed to "Post when emotional".

I understand that Will pays for this space and can do whatever he wants, but then why does he pretend to "respect other opinions"?

If you want a truely Open forum, please help me.

ASK Wil let me back in.

Diversity is the spice of life.

Post your request to Wil now!

ASK Wil let me back in.

"This is what democracy looks like?"


Thanks

TJ

Wil,

I don't know what the guy is talking about, but let TJ alias Tom, back in!
Pretty please with sugar and spice and everything nice!
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE LET HIM BACK IN!

TJ:

I think you should be let back on. I was wondering where you'd disappeared to while everyone was taking pot shots at your ass over your comment. Despite the fact that I've been told I'm very European (consider this: I'm American), I sometimes agree with your view of "screw the world."

Why is it that other countries in the world are allowed to do things to further their own agendas without fear of being verbally whipped by the world community, but when the US goes to further one of our own agendas, we're being selfish and not a part of the world community? Keep in mind, France has contracts with Iraq. Are they really concerned about millions of innocent Iraqis, or what's going to happen to their supply of oil? The blade slices both ways.

The UN is bunch of freaking wussies. "Let's talk this out." In the mean time, So-damn Insane is playing hot potato with things he's not supposed to have (how else are you going to explain a couple of Iraqi soldiers getting so worked up over something they're afraid the UN inspectors might find? Gee, I wonder). The UN isn't going to do a damn thing.

And in the mean time, mr. asshole is over there, spreading lies about the US and any country that will support us, telling them how bad we are. Um, hi, hello, where the hell have I been for the past 21 years of my life? I don't see a damn government appointed official riding around with foreign press, making sure I say the right things. If I wanted to go out and say "I hate my country! Fuck America!" I could. In Iraq, if you said that, they'd chop your damn head off.

Wil, I respect your opinion, it's your site, do what you want with it. But a lot more people have been way more caustic and antagonistic than TJ was. I don't always agree with the screw the world attitude, but when everyone's against you and telling you how horrible you are, it's time to strike out on your own. I'm sick of watching us try to be a part of the world community when it's obvious they only want us when they need us.

I have friends from all over the world. Some agree with what's happening, some don't. But we have our opinions and I respect them for that. Like I said, I have no wish to see friends and family of mine (or anybody else's, for that matter) go to war. But if it's gotta be done, it's gotta be done. The longer you leave a sliver in, the more chances it will fester and leave you with a bigger scar that you would have had if you took it out in the first place. Saddam is a splinter. Let's take him out before he becomes a gaping wound.

And for the record: Anybody here who thinks we would carpet-bomb Baghdad is nuts. There's this thing called urban warfare. I can almost guarantee we'd go in that way before moving on to more drastic measures.

Free speech, baby!

Thanks NYC!

That's one vote for the 1st ammendment!

Please Wil, listen to the crys from your people.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

TJ

That's TWO votes for the 1st!

Thanks Mary.

This is what democracy looks like!

TJ

Voice and Delete Button

Wil,
I like your acting, I like reading about your journey. But we couldn't disagree more re: iraq. With that in mind, I respectfully am pulling you off my blogroll. I wanted to let you know, because I wanted to thank you for your writing. It is nothing personal, really. You have a right to your beliefs. What I wish you would understand is that it is blood on the ground that purchased the freedom to express your anti-war sentiments. Not marches. Not protests. Guns, bullets, and blood. Sad, but true. If everyone could be rationally reasoned with, Wil, there would be no war. I'm sorry we disagree on this.

With all respect, Rae

Wil, thanks for your comments and exercising your rights to free speech and political dissent. While not all of us agree with each other here, from what I've read anyway -- at least we're free to discuss our feelings and fears. Of course there are exceptions, but most of the people posting here seem to be thoughtful and informed -- which does allow them to take positions on whatever side of this conflict they see fit.

You know, I have NO problem with someone supporting this war -- providing they do it in a rational manner. Wil has asked us to be respectful here and state our positions, not resort to name-calling.

Unfortunately, there are namecallers and children who are posting here -- on both sides. But it seems to me that the Pro-War babies are so much more virulent and make it less than pleasant.

If the best you Pro-War folks can do is call antiwar protestors childish names, then you do your cause real harm. Dev 1, Dev 2, and others who figure the rest of the world can go to Hell as long as America gets to do what it wants -- you're wrong, and your pigheaded reactions provide at least one good reason why we should stop this headlong rush to war and examine what's really going on here.

That being said, it's my observation that our government appears to have a real woody for war and they haven't convinced ME that it's necessary yet.

Just remember that war the last resort. It's the failure of diplomacy. If some of the yammering I've seen on this discussion area is demonstrative of the kinds of minds our White House claims are part of the "American People" who support the war, then I'd say our butts are screwed.

Tell me something -- are any of the Pro-War namecallers who are so eager to sling spittle at your fellow Americans who don't agree with you -- are YOU going to be fighting this war?

No, I didn't think so.

It's always SO much easier to sit in front of your screens calling other people's patriotism into question because they don't happen to agree with you.

For those of us who are in the U.S., as far as I know, we still have the right to our opinions and free speech. How we choose to use them is an individual's right. But don't sit there and rant with drool running down your chin just because some of us don't agree that war is the ONLY way to solve this crisis.

War may be the final solution, but right now it isn't the only one.

What is so hard about taking a good, long look at what is going on? Why is it if I call for MY questions to be answered, that I ask MY president and his cronies to make an honest case for war -- why does that make me, or any American who asks the questions we are supposed to ask as citizens -- why does that make us unpatriotic? or hippies? What's wrong with being peaceloving? When did being morally opposed to war become anti-American?

To the others from other countries who read and write here: not all of us here in the U.S. are as rabid as our government. Some of us (many of us, I'd say) are filled with disgust and dismay at our government's headlong rush to failure.

Please don't lump all Americans in with those who care so little for other people's thoughts and opinions that they would gag them with shouts of "unpatriotic" and "peace-loving hippies" and sever those rights with illegal laws.

Many of us against this war have paid our dues to this country. It has been done in ways that those infected with the fever of war will never understand.

*************************

Now, for at least one kudo: the folks who DO have to fight this war deserve our support. They don't have a choice about having to go to war -- they elected to serve their country and now they will be asked to pay the price for diplomacy's failures. So, even if you don't support the war, please support the brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, etc. who will be on the front lines. They didn't start the war, they just have to fight it.

To Mary at Ramstein: good on you guys! I have relatives and friends who served in the military and so it puts a human face on it for me. MY thoughts are with you all.

Finally, back to Wil: sorry to ramble on. Thanks for providing the space. And thanks for doing what you do.

I wish the people who say they are for peace would come up with a reasonable suggestion as to what avenue would get us there. Criticism they've got by the truckload, suggestions? Nuthin.

Senator Byrd's opinion was right on the money.

What about North Korea, don't they have nuclear capable weapons ready now? Instead of worrying about what might be let's worry about what is.

One enemy is one too many, a thousand friends too few.

maybe byrd is a racist bastard, but at least he has his values straight in the iraq peace/war issue. it is, however, unfortunate that he is one of the only ones speaking up for peace- write to your senators!!! we need to make more voices for peace heard on the senate floor, where it counts!
thanks for linking to byrd's speech, wil. also, you used to have a NION link at the top of the site. that's how i first heard about it. could you put that back up? thanks!

I for one am a disabled veteran of 12+ years in the United States Air Force. I served overseas and in the USA. I served through Desert Shield/Storm.

I take my freedom seriously, I take War seriously, I have many friends that are in Kuwait and UEA right now.

I pray for their safety and respect the sacrifice they make to defend our freedom in the USA.

Please keep the Posts coming to WIL.

Let Tom back in!

This is what democracy looks like"

Thanks

TJ

Saddam tortures Olympic athletes.
Think about it. It's the very definition of irony.

--Orson

Here is an example of a person whose views are different from Wil's & many others who come to this site that is respectful & hence thought provoking:

"If you could have prevented the bombing of Pearl Harbor would of you?

If you could have prevented 911 would of you?

That is why Iraq must be stopped. The way to stop Acts of Terror is not to sit down and talk to people that refuse to talk. The only way is to take away the power of evil leaders and give the power to the people.

The reason that America is a nation today, is due the idea of representation. We were unfairly represented to Britain. This is also the case in Iraq, what other choice do the people have then to vote for him? We have a responsibility as Americans, the remaining super power on this planet, to protect the rights of our people and the rights of all of this worlds people. If we have to send and lose some of our soldiers in the name of human rights and democracy then so be it.

To those who say that Iraq has fully cooperated. How has he fully cooperated? By giving us ACCESS to all of their palaces? By telling us how they destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction? Or by training scientists is what to say? Now tell me have they fully cooperated?

Posted by NT at February 16, 2003 12:07 PM "

Now, I may not agree w/ this person's political thinking, but I have respect for this person for expressing thoughts in a non-insulting manner.
If this person were banned from the site for expressing an arguement that opposes Wil's thoughts, that would be wrong.
However, those who say things like "idiots," "wusses," "to hell with the rest of the world," do not provide opposing arguements that are worthy of any consideration. I have no problem w/ them being banned since they have nothing positive to contribute to the conversation. It sux that it happens, but sometimes these people have a way of hi-jacking an important discussion & bringing it down to their level.

Also, I'd like to say that it is annoying and frustrating to hear similar insults & rhetoric from the other side [now switching to "Wil's" side]. Seems like there are immature people who are incapable of intelligent discourse on both sides. Its embarrassing. Let's refrain from words like "shithead" -even if the other guy started it first. There are people whose political thinking seems to be along the same line as Wils -and not too far from my own- yet they express these thoughts rather poorly. I'm disappointed. Hopefully, these people who cross the line [even tho' their political thinking is similar to Wil's] face the same scrutiny & banning as the opposing view points that get banned.

I think a lot of people on both sides need to really think about what they say before they say it. Emotions seem to get the better of some of you. Your prejudices seem to get in the way. I know, its tough, I have certain prejudices of my own which I am trying to rid myself of. When I start to feel they are clouding my ability to think clearly & express myself positively, I just shut up until I'm calmed down. Maybe some of you should do this, also.

Mr. Wheaton,
I am a part of this so called war machine that you and your fellow actors and artists have routinely protested against. I have been a part of the US Navy for the better part of two years. We as a nation have always been fickle about what we think that other nations should be doing for their people. My fellow soldiers and sailors do not share your sentiment. We are all volounteers and are sworn to do this duty and follow orders. We are american citizens and have the same civil liberties as those of you who routinely complain about the policy of our commander in cheif, but there is a difference between you and I. I choose to fight for those same civil liberties that you and your fellow protesters abuse. In this time of impending conflict one must look back...in history to Jane Fonda and what she did to undermine the morale and welfare of american soldiers in the conflict of Vietnam. One cannot forget the stories told to us by the POW's who suffered because of her actions. Actions which caused the death of numerous POW's which she thought as the agressors and not the defender's of freedom that you take so liberally. As someone who may not be in the spotlight anymore but who influence's people on this website and in the public, Mr. Wheaton, those of us who strive everyday to protect you and every other American in this great nation behoove you to support the soldiers and sailors who follow the orders of the President regardless of the motives behind those orders. I have always been a big fan of yours and watched Star Trek for years. Please do not give me and my fellow sailors and soldiers reason to lose faith in the american public as you have lost faith in our President. After all we elected him regardless of his policy and we have to deal with that. Keep faith in God that we will find the right course and pray for those of us who are on the front lines putting our lives in peril so that you may protest.

Dev Brown

Shouldn't you be posting your answers to peoples posts on the forums.

This area seems to be for posting comments on Wil's posts

"BEFORE YOU COMMENT READ THIS
Please keep your comments related to the current post.

Please do not use this comment system as a BBS. We have a BBS here, and all readers are encouraged to register and join the community."

I'd just like to read what people think about the issues Wil raises and not what you think about their posts.

It strikes me as a little unfair as most people wont even know you have commented on their opinions.

Will be happy to read what you think in the Forums though, just not here.

And yes i know this isn't my site to police. I just think it's polite.

I have to leave my neighbors house now...
But for the record...

I did not do the name calling (idiots," "wusses) Those people are still free to post, I know because they have contined to do so.

I expressed a view point that could have been put in a more PC way but I did not.

The people who equate President Bush with Hitler and Stalin are also free to post.

I have paid for my freedom!

I do not believe the Military is for everyone so I would never degrade those who have not served.

The Volunteer Military are low paid, over worked, and disrespected by those they serve and liberate.

If Wil decides not to remove the ban I guess he has the right since he pays for the site. I just find it ironic that he supports free speach except when he does not agree with it.

I obviously cannot sit in my neighbors house everyday, but I will miss reading Wil's site. I have been a regular vistor for over 6 months now and until 3 days ago never made a post.

Wil: If it helps Wesley was my favorite character on TNG!

so farewell, so long and goodbye

TJ

NYC

I'm posting here rather than in the earlier post because I think that both discussions are centred on the same thing and that this one is more up to date.

First of all, thanks for the support on the alias-theft thing. I'm very upset that my alias was used by someone else, and that you in particular were mislead by this scumball. I value our discussions a great deal, and its infuriating when this sort of thing happens. You are welcome (as always) to e-mail me directly if you wish to.

I would, however, like to disagree on one of your earlier points. namely, this one...
"Saddam is the most respected guy in the world to you types."
This is not true. It certainly was not the case during the march. Many of the Members of Parliament who spoke were voliceferous in their condemnation of Saddam. You need to understand that we neither support, appease or coddle this guy - it is the huge and horrendous level of civilain casualties that we are opposed to. 100,000 to 500,000 estimated civilian deaths, in the space of two days, is beyond sick. I cannot see how dropping 800+ cruise missiles on the Iraqi people will help their situation. My mind and soul (and bear in mind that I am far from christian) cringe from the thought of that many deaths in so short a time. The concept itself cheapens life.

Saddam himself is evil beyond evil. I believe that when I die I will be afforded the chance to watch "saddam TV" along with "Hitler TV"- ie "lets see what unending suffering the demons in hell will visit upon these two FUCKING EVIL MONSTERS today?". I believe that I will be able to watch them suffer for eternity for their crimes. Make no mistake. I would support action to topple Saddam if the cause was just, but in war you have to weigh up the losses against the gains. I don't believe that, with the present information and the current situation, that war is justifiable.
the report from Hans Blix listed both successes and failures, but the successes are very telling. New laws passed governing the destruction of weapons, actual action being taken to destroy weapons. They may not outweigh the failures on Saddams part, but I don't think that the failures justify war. Because a war would kill more of the people we want to help than the sickos we want to destroy.
I am fully aware of Saddams crimes, and they cry out beyond this physical realm. But if we carpet bomb Iraq, and end up killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to remove a few evil-doers...won't we become just as bad.

Whats the differance between watching a person dissolve in acid...and watching a village or town vaporise under a Daisy Cutter (to destroy one outpost), and not care?

not much. Its still murder.

If the best you Pro-War folks can do is call antiwar protestors childish names, then you do your cause real harm.
***
Will himself used very loaded terms like the "Bush-Junta" in his posts...

Dev 1, Dev 2, and others who figure the rest of the world can go to Hell as long as America gets to do what it wants -- you're wrong,
***
And now you are misrepresenting my views...

and your pigheaded reactions provide at least one good reason why we should stop this headlong rush to war and examine what's really going on here.
***
So, you criticize me for supposedly being rude, then are extremely rude yourself?

Just remember that war the last resort. It's the failure of diplomacy.
***
Uh ok. So diplomacy sometimes fails. What a surprise...

Tell me something -- are any of the Pro-War namecallers who are so eager to sling spittle at your fellow Americans who don't agree with you -- are YOU going to be fighting this war?
***
I'm still waiting on the answer to my question for you peacenik types regarding protests against Iraq...

It's always SO much easier to sit in front of your screens calling other people's patriotism into question because they don't happen to agree with you.
***
It is even easier to complain about war with Iraq-- yet offer no constructive counter-proposal other than "peace" and "hope everything is ok."

What is so hard about taking a good, long look at what is going on?
***
You mean like say, 12 years?

those who care so little for other people's thoughts and opinions that they would gag them with shouts of "unpatriotic" and "peace-loving hippies" and sever those rights with illegal laws.
***
Seems the only one gagging anyone here is the very liberal Wil...

Speaking of tired rhetoric... "You guys talk and talk that 'war is never the answer' yet offer no viable solutions yourselves." (First let me point out few of us say that, as war prevented Great Britain from being invaded by Germany.) I'm really tired of this whole "not offering solutions ourselves" nonsense. The assumption in that is that we see Saddam Hussein to be as much of a threat as you do. Yes, he's a petty dictator, but if he didn't invade Kuwait (with American permission, at first) he wouldn't even register in the Western consciousness. But such great work was done in painting him as Satan incarnate during the Gulf War, that leaving him in power has left those images to fester.
Is he bad? Yes. Does he kill his own people? Undoubtedly. Is he the worst Evil Dictator out there? No. Pop quiz: Without going off and researching, how many dictators and/or bloody regimes currently in place today can you name, other than Hussein and Castro? Now, go off and research how many more are out there, then tell me why you haven't shown the slightest damn about the people under their thumb before you exclaim how a war that will kill innocent Iraqi people is great because you want to help innocent Iraqi people.
I'm also wondering about how the logic behind "pre-emptive attacks" works. By using it, doesn't that mean Iraq, who is under the very serious threat of attack from the U.S. and Great Britain, now has a right to attack those nations first? The use of "It's coming right for us!" (Who knew Trey Parker and Matt Stone were visionaries?) as an excuse for war is going to have profound effects on our world and the repercussions are going to be severe. It's not wise to use it, no matter how much oil... Oh, there's oil at stake? Never mind. Not that it's about the oil. It's about innocent Iraqis! No, it's about terrorism! But it's not about the oil. No sir, no how.

EnglishBen, kindly note that my first post was well after this thread got going and those before me were already responding to each other's posts, including Wil himself. Hence, I fidn it rather unfair to be singled out for criticism...

Tabby, your arguement presupposes (incorrectly) that just because there are other dictators and injustices in the world, the US can/should/must repond to all of them. That is a fallacy. The US should repond to the ones it decides to, not out of some rigid code that you want it to ascribe. As for Saddam, you can claim he was "demonized" by the West all you want, but Human Rights Watch, AI and others clearly report on his atrocities- yet lift nary a finger to stop them, just like you. Instead, you actually try to hinder those that might so you can play your intellectual morality games. The WHO estimate are ridiculous made by people who are not military experts. Carpet bombing? Silly! I doubt Bush truly cares about "saving" Iraqis from Saddam, but so what if it results in that happening? If someone stops you from being mugged, do you really care why?

i'm sorry to say this but i agree that we should attack iraq... that is just my veiw and i know many wont agree with me... yes i know that many innocent people are going to die but how many are going to be saved?
well i should be going off to iraq with the british army but they discharged me after i failed a medical (i'm deaf in one ear) and i'd be happy to go...

elias xxx

If we choose not to go to war with Iraq because of the protestations of other countries and people here in the US, I'm fine with that. But if, IF, Iraq ends up going on a major terror offensive against other countries in that region we should just sit back and watch. The world didn't want us to be agressive about Iraq so we shouldn't be. No matter what. And we'll see how they like it then.

Rich

64.12.106.24

Ok so

a) It's Wils Blog. Go figure.

and

b)

The excuse "well everyone else is doing it" died out when i was 8.

I realise there is a high degree of Hypocrisy in me replying to you but i will stop from now on.


It part of the agreement of using this. Use the forums. That's what they are there for.

"If someone stops you from being mugged, do you really care why?"
If it meant throwing the mugger in jail, beating him up, or gunning him down before he commits the crime, then I'd really rather he not be stopped. If it meant having the full force of the law hanging over his head as the consequence of him attacking me, then go for it. Here's the thing... Iraq wasn't responsible for Sept. 11. If they ever do attack the United States, then go after them with my blessing.

power to the people!

Tony Blair's actual quote (since this will be far underneath Scott's post where he quoted it correctly - thank you!)

"I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction."

What I hear in that is him saying that he doesn't care what the people think or want. He - as an individual has a conviction and he is going to stand by it. That is not a democratic way of doing things when one is supposed to be repesentative of the people.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

"These are our enemies."...funny how US Presidents are blamed for the Viet Nam deaths....Does that mean we get to blame Bush for all the wars HE gets us into? Does that also mean HIS name will be on this list too???...
I read the book "Johnny got his gun" and I saw Wil's movie "December". Some actors, you never know if theyre for real or not. Do they care? Is it just a job for them? The 70's went through the John and Yoko protests and no one believed them. I believe Wil. He hasnt given me any reason NOT TO.

Wil-

As much as I truly, truly wish you were right about a change in leadership. However, events over the past several months have given me cause to be pessimistic - W's high approval ratings, the mid-term elections, the accelerating pace of political changes being railroaded down our throats with little or no official dissent..

Makes me want to have my head frozen for a couple of generations or so..

Link to a CBS article about administration plans to carpet-bomb Baghdad: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

Link to an AP article about US failure to bring peace to Afghanistan: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030212/pl_nm/afghanistan_congress_dc_1 Note the line about Afghan women - they're back in burqas, and no safer than they were before the war.

We did set up good governments in Japan and Germany, but that was sixty years ago. I don't trust the current administration to do the same, especially given what's happened in Afghanistan.

I respect all of you who oppose the war, and appreciate your desire for peace, but "Peace in our Time" wasn't a possibility for Neville Chamberlan, and it isn't one for us, in my view.

A note to all of you who oppose the war: Stop hurling insults at Bush, he is not listening. You don't need to convince him, you need to convince middle America. Right now, despite the marches, most Americans still support the war. Here is how I imagine the average person sees it:

* Get rid of another terrorist "safe house" nation.
* Get rid of a source of terrorist funding.
* Get rid of a ruthless dictator who has murdered people in the seven-figure range.
* Prevent a dictator from getting WMD that he would surely use against us, or another nation.
* Cheap gas (Let's be honest, ok?)
* Give Iraq a chance to form a democracy.
* Snub the French
* Less Iraqis would be killed in a war than Saddam would have killed himself in a year.

Some or all of these points might be false, but this is what is believed. This is where the peace movement SHOULD focus its energy.

I've looked at what the anti-war people have to say so far: Bush = Hitler. Amerikka = terrorist state. No blood for Oil.

What we need is a reasoned arguement for why the world (or the US) will be better with Saddam in power, or why we should keep the inspections going when they haven't worked in 12 years.

"Bush is an idiot" isn't going to sway anyone. Even people who support the war know he's dumb.

With Vietnam, the anti-war people did manage to sway public opinion and bring about change. It can be done again. Stop yelling at Bush and Blair, and talk to the rest of us. We ARE listening.

Thanks for reading.

a) It's Wils Blog. Go figure.
***
So, then maybe he shold follow his own rules?

The excuse "well everyone else is doing it" died out when i was 8.
***
You misunderstood me. I wans't making an excuse to you since one is not required. As you pointed out, it si not your thread either. I was pointing out that you are hypocritical in your condemnation, and still are.

I realise there is a high degree of Hypocrisy in me replying to you but i will stop from now on.
***
Stop while you are ahead...

It's great to see that the US has some people who realise that this is NOT a game of cowboys and indians....it's real.

It is the to the shame of Bush and the Republicans that the post 911 sympathy has completely evaporated worldwide. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ala Bin Laden....it is seen around the world as an excuse to divert attention form the failure to get OBL.

The insane idea that Americans should now "seal" their house from terrorism with plastic and duct tape is simply a tactic to genetrate public support for the war.

America YOU ARE BEING DUPED!

Link to a CBS article about administration plans to carpet-bomb Baghdad:
***
It dos nto say the word "carpet" one time in it. *Sigh* Please go look up what the term "carpet bombing" means. Hint, it is a lot more indiscriminate and massive than 800 cruise missiles...

Afghan women - they're back in burqas, and no safer than they were before the war.
***
Oh, so they still cannot work and go to school like it was under the Taliban???

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ala Bin Laden....
***
Well, since you've said that, it sure is good enough for me! ;-) I'll sleep better now... NOT!

Fluffy,
It too like our discussions. I don't know how much gets done, but it is always interesting. And I hope the jackhole that used your screen name would grow a pair and use his damn own! Sorry about my French.
So...

First, an attack would not be necessary if Saddam would turn his weapons over to the UN. Bush and myself would prefer for that to happen. Lets face facts Saddam hasn't cooperated in over 12 years, he isn't going to start now. When the invasion does occur, only military units will be targeted. We are not to blame if Saddam places legitimate targets amongst civilians, do you really think so? We will not daisy-cutter a city, military targets perhaps, but no a city. We may, unfortunately, use a nuke if provoked by using biological or chemical weapons on our troops or our allies. We can't control that. Saddma is to blame for this whole thing. Don't you agree?

Second, Blix must be the dumbest creature in the known universe, these new laws to end the import of W of MD, that means before the new law it was perfectly legal to import these weapons. We are supposed to believe ANY thing Saddam says? Or any law he makes? Saddam lies like a snake in the grass.

Thirdly, NO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY THE UN. NONE! The inspectors found some empty warheads that Saddam said didn't exsist, yes those are to be destroyed. Saddam says he as NO weapons. By the way it was the wonderful French that demanded in the last resolution against Saddam, that the inspectors role to be toned down from what the US wanted; in order to give what the US wanted NO NECESSARY second resulution to go to war with Saddam! He is in material breach, he has delivered no weapons, he hasn't disclosed how any were 'destroyed', he refuses to allow scientists to talk with the inspectors without 'moral support', he demands to know the locations of inspections BEFORE the inspectors are allowed to go there, he refuses U2 flights over Iraq and threatens to shoot them down unless we end the no-fly restrictions in northern and southern Iraq (which protect the Kurds and Shiite minority populations). Saddam has done nothing, he makes false concessions and then places restriction or the demand for compromise on the things the UN has decreed HE MUST DO. Yet he refuses and people march to support HIM. Whether or not that is the intent, IT IS THE RESULT.

Fourth, he continues to kill, torture and starve his own people. He is to this day dissolving people alive in acid, burning them alive, killing children in front of their parents and vis versa; as well as other atrocities too sick to write (rape - beheadings - floogings etc.)

Fifth, those countries that support him, France, Germany, Russia to name a few, will gain monetarily from Saddam remaining in power. The French are doing this for money and oil, the Germans ditto, the Russians mostly for money. It is claimed that Bush is doing this for oil, look at the damned French, they truely are doing this for oil. The French are an enemy of Liberty, in bed with an antisemetic serial murderer.

Sixth, Saddam has said he will use his 'unexistent' weapons. How can someone with such a great deathwish be contained? He will use them on Israel, he will. The world should not let that happen, not again. I don't want to see genocide again, why do the Europeans and Arabs unite in their hatred of the poor Jewish people? Why? I am a Christian, and can feel for the Jewish Nation, they are our brothers, they are peaceful, they only defend themselves, they have not in thousands of years acted pre-emptively.
I know what you will say next, well the US is going to act pre-emptively. No, it is not, it is in self-defense, we fought a war with Iraq, they lost and have NEVER followed the ceasefire agreement they made. Now we MUST resume that war to defend our allies and ourself. Why? Saddam, he could make the talk of war go away in milliseconds, but he won't turn over his W of MD. Why? They are the only things keeping his sorry evil ass alive. They are the club he hangs over the heads of his own people and neighbors, to protect himself.
Why ANYONE would want to protect him I will never understand, even serupticiously.

By the way I took you advice and saw Star Wars Episode 2, and it was really good. Thanks! I did notice that tool Jar-Jar was the enabler of the head evil guy to destoy the Emperial Senate. I hate Jar-Jar. Ugh.

Darth Sidious.....er....Um.I.mean...
NYC

Wil and all performing-arts-types: I know this post is waaaaaay down the list here, but I heard about this today, and I'm going to take part. Have a look, if you like, and join one or start your own reading.
http://www.pecosdesign.com/lys/
or http://www.lysistrataproject.com

What ever happened to the simpler days, when Quaddafi was the middle-eastern problem child...

I agree that something needs to be done about Saddam. I won't argue with anyone on that fact, even those that think Saddam is not a threat, for the simple fact that I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I don't necessarily think that a full scale war is really the way to go about it, but seeing as how Saddam has had 12+ years since the Gulf War to clean up his act, and obviously hasn't, war may ultimately be the only option left at our disposal.

While I agree that something needs to be done, I don't necessarily think that a fully unilateral decision on the part of the US to attack without the support of other nations is the smartest move, however at the same time, I doubt that many other countries would be too willing to go to war with the US simply because the US acted without their support. To some of these countries, being at war with the US would be close to a worst-case scenario for them. Of course, I do not actively follow the militaristic and financial state of every country in the world, so I may be wrong in that manner of thinking.

I believe that North Korea is definately a country that the US, as well as other countries in the world, should keep a close eye on. Unfortunately, it looks to me like the world is more focused on Saddam right now and not watching N. Korea as closely is it possibly should be. That agian could be an error on my part, as I've not been spending endless hours watching CNN but instead have been trying to live my life as normally as possible in spite of world turmoil, making every attempt to go about my business as best I can without completely ignoring current events.

And finally, I think that no matter what happens, this entire thing is more or less one big catch-22. No matter what happens, there will be both good and bad results. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If nothing is done at all, other countries around the world may begin to think of the US as a country run by cowards. If we go all out at Saddam, other countries around the world may begin to think of the US as a country run by a warmongering tyrant with dillusions of world domination.

This is one of those situations where it is extremely difficult to determine the correct course of action. People of the world will always be divided over what the next step should be. There will always be those that think the US should say "to hell with the rest of the world" and do whatever it feels it needs to do. There will always be those that think going to war would be the worst possible thing the US could do. In spite of that, this could very well be a major turning point in world history, a turning point that could ultimately make the world a better place for all humankind, or lead to virtual destruction of civilization as we know it.

"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." The more we dick around while people develop WMD's the more trouble it is going to get us into. When things were conventional and our adversary's had to bring their armies over in boats taking a defensive posture was A-Ok.. Now that armies aren't needed to wipe out lots of people, a defensive stance no longer works quite as well. Does anyone here really think that, if left to his own devices, Saddam will play nice? And don't get me started on North Korea.. That is one dangerous situation with no good solutions. Nuclear blackmail is a frightening thing. Look I don't very much want a war either, but at the same time I don't want to wake up dead because some foreign financed terrorist finally figured out how to get a nuke/wmd into America. The world is a dangerous place and everyone has to play for keeps.

Oh.. What we are seeing from certain countries in Europe is a case of penis envy. When it comes right down to it America has a really big dick.

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Make no mistake, the world has changed. Too bad most of us slept through it. When you are the lone super power and there is no one left to play chess with, you have got to come up with a new game.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Jefferson said it best.

God I hate politics.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

Don't they remember what happened the last time Germany got financially fucked?

How to stop war 101:
LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS.
Any questions????...
Bush is bored. Why else would he start a war with a country that hasnt threatened the US?(The REASON to bring on this recent conflict.) If you have proof of it being otherwise, then you need to be in the Soapbox, not HERE.
And this Dev Brown person needs to pay more attention to the afghan news. Women are being abused by the soldiers. But being a GUY? maybe he doesnt really CARE about that.
After all, that IS a part of war. Someday women and children will be the MAJORITY of the world's population and WE will stop stupid wars, just like this one. Been to any War-Monger marches lately anyone???

without expressing my political views, how am I supposed to wash my clothes with all you people standing on the soapbox?

boy, I hope I don't get a religious lecture now but Jesus Christ!!

Wil,

I was going to write a long letter to you pointing out how wrong you are but frankly...I CAN'T WASTE MY TIME. You're not just unwilling to listen but blind as well. If people like you were around in the forties, we'd have german accents and not a lot of kosher delis around.

Still like ya though. Work on the book more.

Bart

How to stop war 101:
LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS.
***
Oh wow, you must have a PhD...

Any questions????...
***
Plenty? Like how many mgs per day you are on...

If you have proof of it being otherwise, then you need to be in the Soapbox, not HERE.
***
But it is perfectly fine for you to rant here, right? ;-)

And this Dev Brown person needs to pay more attention to the afghan news. Women are being abused by the soldiers.
***
Kindly point me to where I wrote Afghanistan is a wonderful, idyllic palce where women are overjoyed at being alive?

But being a GUY? maybe he doesnt really CARE about that.
***
Wow, you sure jump to conclusions, don't you? Just because I don't agree with your views I must be a guy and an uncaring one at that! On the contrary, I DO care, that is why I was for DOING something in Afghanistan and I am for DOING something in Iraq, not endless handwringing and shows of "sympathy" with the oppressed there which does ABSOLUTELY nothing to help their plights...

Someday women and children will be the MAJORITY of the world's population and WE will stop stupid wars, just like this one.
***
Sigh... Women aleady ARE the majority of the world, at least slightly and due to the fact a species tends to reach an equilibrium point of the sexes, it is going to remain constant where it is. Thanks for showing your sexism, however. Women are just as prone to lead wars as men. Remember Thatcher?

Been to any War-Monger marches lately anyone???
***
Nope. But I have seen a lot of "There must be another way but we really don't have any idea what that might be" marches.

Two words Wil: Pandora's Box.

Susan H,

Lay down your arms? You mean the US? Do you realize that means to surrender? You want us to surrender to Saddam? Whoa!
Saddam hasn't threatened the US? What are you on? It must be a dumbing down agent of some sort. Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush. Saddam organized celebrations for September 11th. Saddam threatens our troops and allies daily, in his newpapers and broadcasts. Do you read?

Afghan women NOW have more freedom than they have had in the past. Under the Taliban, then were beaten daily. They couldn't go to school or vote. Now they can. Again, read a little. Apparently we care more than you about Afghan women, after all you don't even care enough to actually read what has changed for them. That said, of course more needs to be done, there and nearly everywhere else in the world especially the other Arab countries like Iaq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, ect into ad nauseum.
War-monger rallies? What, where what the hell are you talking about. It is nonsense. Peace is a noble thing, something to strive for, but not to the point of demanding it until we become slaves to the like of Saddam and other third world DICK-tators. It can't be peace at any price or the US will cease to exist. This is a dangerous world and not everyone is nice. Learn that and you will grow to be a wise person, not the blind ignorant person you are.

Also, I'm a biologist by trade, so I hate to tell you this but many children are male nearly 50%, others are female again nearly 50%. So is the general population, until we reach older ages, then females do outnumber males. That said, what difference will male/female demographics make in your pro-Saddam agenda. After all it naturally takes a male and female to make a child. That is unless you prefer Turkey basters, of course the sperm needs to come from somewhere, as of today no women have yet produced viable sperm. Maybe you want a world with no men or just a few, enough to produce sperm for reproduction? Whoa again. Hope that helps!

No THINKING person likes Saddam, and it won't get you very0 far endorsing him.

Adios amiga

I live in New Jersey, close to a spot that will be struck to a terrorist attack. I'm afraid! I don't know what is right. I think maybe a war would be wrong. Am I right? Should I be so afraid? I'm having nightmares!

BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!! IF WE DON'T FIGHT IRAQ, THEN THEY WILL ATTACK US, KILLING INNOCENT AMERICANS!! WE NEED TO MAKE A NEW LAKE IN THE WORLD - LAKE IRAQ!!!!!


MUTHER FUCKING ASS HOLE BITCH PEACE LOVERS!! WE NEED TO GET IN GUCKING GEAR!!!!!

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0103/18bgpeace.html

Surprise. America the Protester. You GO girl.

MORON.("nyc"?) You only see what YOU want to see.
The women get ATTACKED. THEREFORE, they refuse to USE the "freedoms" given to them. Like, DUH. WOULD YOU???? Get raped sometime, see how far you get to SCHOOL OR WORK if thats what you get when you GO OUTSIDE. And "lay down your arms" means EVERYBODY lay down your arms. Kurt Cobain used the metaphor GUNS for penises. NO GUNS means NO FUCKING GUNS. GET IT??? Lay down your ARMS.(ALL weapons, ALL COUNTRIES) EVERYBODY...must I spell it out for you too???

I'd like to talk pragmatically about why initiating a war in Iraq without the UN or even NATO backing it up is a bad idea, but I think this isn't the best forum for that kind of discussion, so instead I'd like to respond to one particular post that caught my attention. Here is the excerpt,

"I choose to fight for those same civil liberties that you and your fellow protesters abuse."

I respectfully disagree with the notion that one can abuse civil liberties. Dissent is patriotic. I love and respect the men and women who serve in our military, and I don't wish to see them put in harm's way in a preemtive, unilateral military action. I think that moral certainly is extremely important for our soldiers, and I think we lack it.

Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush. Saddam organized celebrations for September 11th. Saddam threatens our troops and allies daily, in his newpapers and broadcasts. Do you read?
***Are you saying a country cant complain when a bunch of ppl are dropping bombs on their country? We dont need a full scale war if theyre already destroying all the places that hold the things that make Iraq a threat to this country OR any other. JAPAN and other countries dont like our military presence in their country, and you think Iraq is just being DICK-tators for THAT? Iraq isnt the only country around, why focus just on them? What did Iraq do *specificly* to get Bush's panties in a bunch??? And why are you guys treating this WIL WHEATON comment(guestbook) section like it's a message board??? You dont like his Soapbox or something? Ill be expecting to see ALL you pro war marchers over THERE. And bring your army boots.

Definition of carpet bombing: http://www.csis.org/features/cord_011102.htm I'll give you that point, since the plan is to use (for the most part) guided missiles rather than dumb bombs. However, a strike against Baghdad will still involve massive civilian casualties: many during the strike, and many more afterward due to the destruction of power, water, and other facilities.

Re: women in Afghanistan: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghnwmn1202/Afghnwmn1202.pdf Schooling doesn't mean much if you have no other rights, or if exercising your right to schooling puts you in physical danger ("Schools for girls have been attacked with rockets or set on fire in at least five provinces...").

Other Afghanistan links: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/10/new-rind.php and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/28/MN50881.DTL&type=printable

I find it hard to believe an administration when it wants to go to war. Johnson lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us further into Vietnam. Bush Sr. hid the devastation from the Gulf War according to this link.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/17/IN178228.DTL
So how do we find out what's going on?

Susan H,

Again, NO nation is going to lay down their arms. It means surrender. Iraq hasn't done it. They won't do it, even if we did unilaterally. All that would happen in that case is for the US to be eaten up by the wolves of the world, the Russians, Chinese, even our allies would take a slice, to 'protect us'. It is a fools paradise, it will NEVER happen. And if it did it would be dog eat dog, it is just huamn nature, even the Great Apes have wars. To even say something so stupid is like pissing in the wind. Would you like your city to be controlled by OBL?
Get some logical thought patterns, read, it really helps on forming reasonable opinions.
Read Fluffy, I disagree with him most of the time, but at least he possesses logic in his arguements. At least most of the time he has a reasoned arguement.

Go in peace. My you, Susan, never get into politics.

At 8am this morning I told my husband that I didn't think that any amount of anti-war protest anywhere, even relentless protest by American business leaders and prominent Republicans, would change the plans President Bush has to invade Iraq. (Through my husband's company we know plenty of conservative Republicans who are against invading Iraq right now because it will be so bad for the US economy and for global trade.)

Then I read big headlines in both Sunday newspapers saying that the worldwide protests yesterday have inspired the Bush and Blair administrations to revise their positions. I have to say that I was absolutely amazed that they actually seem to care what the protesters are saying. (Either that, or an influential group of international business leaders finally got through to them.)

I can't wait to hear the news tomorrow!

Schooling doesn't mean much if you have no other rights, or if exercising your right to schooling puts you in physical danger
***
As I stated before: Is Afghanistan a perfect place for women now? No. Is is a BETTER place than it was under the Taliban? Without a doubt- YES.

Again - Amen. And thank you for being one of those people who exercises his democracy.

Strange game.

The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Susan,
You take the cake. I've never seen anyone so far afield as you. Seriously, stay off the stuff it is messing with you.
It is ok to try to assassinate a foreign leader, and expect no consiquences? That is truely sick.
Take a pill. All I can do is laugh at you, I didn't think anyone since Dukakis had as little common sense.

Adios amiga.

Guys,

If you'd like to continue this conversation, please take it to the soapbox:

http://www.wilwheaton.net/phpBB2/

you know it is impolite to impersonate wil. Stop.

And YOU never be a WOMAN, unless you are. Then nevermind. You can always get AN APE to protect you. :p (I take it youre not in politics either)...if you cant even think of a way to achieve peace, then your crime and all other "facts of life" (like the war on drugs) will never end either...WTF do we need Govt(laws) for then??? Why have people like Martin Luther King or any other dreamer around? Because theyll get shot down(literally) by ppl who dont even KNOW what peace would be like, they dont even CARE to try to achieve it. I hope you have a bomb shelter. Karma's a BITCH.

Senator Byrd said it far better than I could.

Yesterday I walked in my very first demonstration, and I'm proud of it, for all the reasons Senator Byrd gave. I'm particularly worried about the destructive effect the US is having on the UN.

Incidentally, read Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War": Colin Powell argued forcefully within the adiminstration against going after Iraq, but lost to Rumsfeld. Too bad Powell isn't your President.

Sadly, I think the course of events will be dictated by the lunar phases more than the force of reason: I think the war will start around New Moon in a couple of weeks, which seems to have been the timetable for awhile. I hope I'm wrong. I'll shed no tears for th end of Sadaam's reign, but I'll shed some for the world that will result from this ill-considered action.

You have NOTHING to back up a reason for WAR. YOU make NO sense. Unless its your business to sell ARMS. See "Schindler's list" sometime.
http://www.wilwheaton.net/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=30
REGISTER HERE THEN, "MOUTH".
Asta.

Mmm Susan talk like Tarzan.
That is right Susan me not woman, me man. Me no need ape protect me.
I can see why you would be anti-government, anti-law, pro-drug. The drug you take have affected your mind. Go into rehab, you really need it, I can tell your a doper just by your writing on the internet, you really need some help. Go tonight, please! Or I hear that there are human shields going to Iraq, I'll buy you a ticket. Got a deal?
I always thought karma was a bastard not a bitch, maybe that was darma? Oh well.

Sorry, folks, but you haven't been marching for peace. You've been marching to keep a ruthless dictator in power. I don't want to see a war, but I really don't see another way of accomplishing anything here. Sanctions haven't worked. Inspections haven't worked. War is the last resort. We will probably have to use it.

Peace Through Strength.

I'm not going to say it again. Take it to the message board, or your IPs will be prohibited from commenting.

This is not a BBS.

All of you folks who are protesting this impending war are well-intentioned, I'm sure. However, well-intentioned isn't going to stop Saddam Hussein from continuing to develop nuclear weapons. I do not believe there is anyone among us who is "for" war. As Captain Kirk himself once pointed out in "A Taste of Armageddon" the horrors of war make it a thing to be avoided. However, sometimes that is not possible. Saddam does not want to "make nice" with us. Please tell me any of you here truly believe that he is innocent and he is not trying to develop WMD's. Please tell me you believe he is being completely honest, forthright and truthful concerning the development of WMD's. How YOU feel about peace doesn't matter one bit to him. We know the man is deliberately going to place his own people in harms way. You want to talk about a war killing "innocent" Iraqi's? Who is going to make that possible? He is. I don't want war any more than the next guy. However, I have several friends who are now being called upon to place their lives on the line FOR US! Never forget that people. You may disagree with war, you may disagree with President Bush. But once it starts, you'd better support our boys, because they are fighting for you and me. What some of you fail to understand, it's either kill or be killed with someone like Saddam Hussein. There is no such thing as negotiating with these people. See how much your peace protest matters when he lobs a nuclear war-head over here, or has someone bring in a "dirty bomb". He'd just as soon kill us than look at us, and you all know it. You say that there is no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11? Well, check out this link, if you have the courage:
http://www.jaynadavis.com/
You folks are well-intentioned, but you need a reality check. Evil exists in this world, and unfortunately, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to eliminate it with the use of force.

To Wil: You're a great guy, loved you in Next Gen, wished your scene from ST: Nem. wouldn't have ended up on the cutting-room floor, but I can't go with you on this one. You, and all who agree with you are wrong. I realize this war could cause the death of many of our service men and women. Believe me, I pray to God everynight that my friends will be back in one piece. Here's the thing: Saddam Hussein will not stop trying to develop WMD's. A line must be drawn somewhere, and who else in the world is going to do it?

Susan, Schindler was an arms dealer, and he saved many many Jewish people. What are you saying that you're anti-semetic too? Wowsy woosy.

Sean, mega dittos. I like the Reagan quote! God bless!

You are not wil quit being a dillhole, dillhole.

67.75.181.111

What if you had a crystal ball and could gaze into the future? What if 3 years from now, a nuclear bomb detonated in NY, destroying the entire city? An improbable, extreme apocalyptic scenario? Hardly. This *is* what the conflict is about. How complicated do you think it would be to smuggle a nuclear device the size of a briefcase into your almighty nation?

Would that future justify a pre-emptive attack against Iraq? Yes, it should. We don't live in a perfect world, peace at all costs is a very dangerous thing. 9-11 was the wake up call on this.

The chances of Irq handling a nuclear device to a terrorist organization like Al Quaeda are quite real. Osama Bin Laden's fortune is estimated to be in the hundred of millions. Al Quaeda operates in 98 countries around the world. It is *massive* and well funded. They can easily afford a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn't they get one? The Iraqi and Al Quaeda connection has been demonstrated lately. Unless you believe this is all lies and propaganda fabricated by the highest levels of intelligence work in your country.

North Korea is a different situation altogether. They're not governed by a madman bent on eradicating the world of "Zionist" and "Jew Lovers".

Anyways. He needs to be taken out. There are really few other options, unfortunately. Make it so! :(

You go, Wil. Don't let the Neanderthals grind you down.

Military action is sometimes necessary, but it's not a first resort. Good kids hit hard, but they don't hit first.

Kick ass, Wil! If I lived on the west coast, I would have been there too.

Good job you can do that without getting your head shot off.

Wil,

Your against EVRYTHING W. stands for? So your againt helping people with AIDS in Africa? Against extending unemployment benefits? Against a bigger, more powerful department of education? Against the promotion of fuel cells? Interesting, I thought you would be for these things. Huh, who knew. And for the record, your in the minority, vocal yes, but still the minority. I really don't get the utter disdane you have for W. Oh well, I'm just gonna have to dissagree with you on this one. You still rule though!! Have a great day!

Jer

Some things I will never understand. People are for war and against it. Some people like our President and some people don't. Some people like how he was elected and others feel it was corrupt.

I don't see why so many people have issues with people protesting against war? What is so wrong about not wanting it? There are those who firmly believe blood begets more blood and they don't want to have any part of it and don't want their countryment to risk their lives for something they deem as unnecessary. I don't understand what is so horrible about people standing up for what they believe in?

The government is standing up for their beliefs and preparing to go to war. This is a democracy, right? Don't all voices have the right to be heard? It is not up to any of us to decide what should and should not be said. We can say what we want, that is what freedom of speech means. Well whatever we want as long as we are not trying to cause harm.

Anyway, maybe someone can explain to me, email or something and tell me what is so horrible about Wil disliking the president and our current government's decisions? Isn't that the essence of a democracy?

To agree and disagree and to have the right to do so and to believe that changes can be made?

Peace at all costs? No. If we let fear guide our judgement, we will lose, even in peace. what reasons are there for peace, other than defying George W. Bush? You think it would be "his" war? Only in the sense that he was the one with enough forsight to attempt and succeed in a very powerful decision.
I have iraqi friends who whole hearted agree that Sadam should be removed and cannot understand the anti-war movement in this case. They have been threatened, some have lost family members due to their leaders whims. So should we mind our own business and just let them live in their land while we live in ours? Possibly, but what if they are bent on killing our way of life? what if their only true creedo is the destruction of the infidel, which is America and it's supporters? Should we lay down and grovel and say please don't kill us, we'll leave you alone, please don't bomb anything or send any biological weapons or run planes into our buildings.
Should we bow down to the islamo-facsists who's true goal is the destruction of Christianity?
I think not.
Inspectors are not supposed to be searching for weapons. The weapons were supposed to be presented to them. There is no need for another UN resolution, not a second by the way, it would be an 18th resolution not complied to. The UN continues to refuse to back up its own words mostly out of fear and greatly because of financial reasons. The UN has made itself irrelevent and will go the way of the League of Nations, as it should.

I'm no war monger. I am a man in hopes of peace. But if someones true goal is to destroy me and makes no attempt to hide that that is their goal, I will not stand for it, be it Sadam or Bin Laden. We cannot submit to fear, even of death. Patrick Henry said it best, "Give me liberty or give me death" Our liberty depends on righting the wrongs aimed against us, not putting our heads in the sand because we are afraid to muss our hair.

Support the cause. Support the troops. Be positive. Love and goodness will prevail.

Wil,
I think you are a very eloquent man and that you believe sincerely that war is wrong. But can you agree that Hussein's regime must end? That the Iraqi people deserve to live in the same sort of freedom that you enjoy? After all, an Iraqi citizen who would dare to speak out against Hussein as you have against Bush would face almost certain death.

War isn't nice and it isn't pretty. People will die. But sometimes force is needed to right the wrongs of history. If you and the minority who took to the streets this weekend have an alternative, we in the majority would like to hear it.

Peace Through Strength

Wil any chance of allowing us to resize the comments screen. It would be far easier to read it.

Slorge Gridlock, my perception of this whole war situation is the same as yours. The war is against Saddam and his regime, not the people of Iraq. If you ever get the chance watch these programs for an ubiased view. href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2705627.stm"

"Give peace a chance".

OK, that takes about as much thought to say as "Pepsi - the choice of a new generation."

Terrorism exists, and Iraq certainly appears to support terrorism against the U.S.. And Bin Laden seems to have declared war.

What would you do to protect the U.S.?

Chip

a few fanatics?

I'm sorry, while I think you are a great guy Wil, and have done some great acting, and done great TV/movies, I still disagree with you on this Iraq situation. I do hope that there is no war...I agree with you on that. But the protesting I have seen was not good protesting, actual protesters booing cops and destroying property. Why set fire to storefronts? What does that prove? To me it hurts the economy, and hurts those who have done no wrong. I hope you do read this Wil, and perhaps you will respond to it, but it's not necessary I guess. I know you are a busy person. Keep up the great work on the site and your upcoming book. Good luck!

I thought I would also add that I do feel that war is the last resort, however as time passes I feel we need to take care of the situation sooner than later. I don't want to wake up one morning to find that a nuclear bomb was dropped on NY or L.A. There is still a chance we won't go to war, and I hope it comes true, but a lot of this protesting I have seen has been horrible. Disrespecting cops for breaking up protesters when they are just doing their job. Amazing how police officers were all getting cheering just following 9/11/01.

I was marching in Amsterdam, glad I did. I'm tired of the threats made by the American government, that we will all be victimized by terrorists. They promise to give us evidence, over and over again, then deliver... some outdated information, some vague photos of trucks, some distortions of the truth ("Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998" - they were ordered out after a provoked crisis), some flat-out lies (remember the IAEA's 1998 report that Hussein was months away from making an atomic bomb? Bush remembered it. It never existed, though) and of course lots of "if"s, always followed by "it's not if, but when". Cue some terror alerts, followed in a few days by the announcement that some of the intel leading to the alerts was unreliable.

I find that insulting.

And it gives me the idea, that they're evading the real reasons they have for war with Iraq. They're searching for an excuse, and they're not too good at that.

Inspections are working. The pressure on Iraq to cooperate is high. This must be kept up. But tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are too many casualties for the removal of one dictator, whose power is effectively contained.

War is an option when all else fails.

Not before.

yet another thing to consider...

please read; Danile, chapter 11

it's about the "king of the north" doing battle
with the "king of the south"

now the king of the south has always been referenced with it commerc and wealth, while the king of the north has been assoiciated with its
military strength...

but... the king of the south could switch it's
self, becoming the king of the north, relying
on it's military strengths, or greater assort-
ment of newer weapons...

regardless, whatever happens, happens because
it is allowed to happen.. all this is part of the "end times" difficult to deal with...
and men not knowing the way out...

just trust in Jehovah God and through his
son, Jesus Christ, now Michael the Archangel...

it will all work out... and remember Isiah tells
us; "Vengence is mine!, says the Lord God Jehovah!, I shall repay."

Bush & Saddam will get what's due as Christ
deals his judgement.

"To me it hurts the economy, and hurts those who have done no wrong."

This was written here by a person that suports war in Iraq. Are you serious?...thats EXACTLY what will happen if Iraq is invaded so the US populace can drive SUV's.

Why is it that I have the right and the freedom to protest the war in Iraq, but many of your posts I've read here accuse me of being a moron or a pacifist or un-American if I exercise that right? I don't need to use a slew of derogatory adjectives to demean the comments of people who hold differing ideas from mine. For many reasons I don't believe a war is the only solution. I would like to see the united States give diplomacy and the United Nations more time to find a peaceful solution to Suddam Hussein's violations to UN resolutions. I would like to see Saddam put on trial in the international courts for crimes against his own people, and human rights violations. I love my country, I love that I can speak out against a war in Iraq, that what freedom of speech is about. So unless some of you want to re-write the First Ammendment, don't accuse me of being anything more or less than an American.

I'm glad you took part in protests, Wil. I get the feeling you would've been really ticked off at yourself if you'd not gone.

As for war... it's bullcrap. Everyone complains about the UN not working. Well, maybe we should try to help it work, fer feck's sake.

I dunno. It's just a thought. Seems to me that the world is a little too big, and a little too small, to play America-the-Big-Lone-Cop anymore.

IF Saddam ever actually used chemical weapons on his own people, well then, guess what:

They're the chemical weapons *we* gave him, back when he was Uncle Sams's golden boy during the Iran/Iraq conflict.

There's no doubt that Saddam is a monster, but we're the ones who made him. Something must be done about him, but I think this military action is ill advised.

There are many people who say something should have been done about Saddam for years, so why are we now in such a rush to go to war? This administration has been in power for two years, and yet, nothing was mentioned about Saddam until recently. The cynic in me says it was just about the time that it became evident we'd never find Osama bin Laden...

6,000,000 people took place in marches around the world in various countries where the total populations added up to roughly 1,000,000,000.

This means that 6/1000 or less than 1% of the people are definitely opposed to war. The rest either don't care or support it.

Remember Vietnam? A majority of American civilians were against it, but the government didn't give a damn what they wanted. They left when they were defeated.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bush doesn't give a damn what such a small number of people want or don't want.

Very proud to hear that you joined the Peace demonstration. We had one in Toronto as well, and the accounts are that anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 poeople (depending on who's counting) came out to support peace. Montreal gathering was even more numerous - and there were so many more all over the world. The message is clear - it's unfortunate that it will fall on deaf ears.

Peace and LOVE..THAT IS ALL.

Wil,

if you are going to promote political subjects like this, don't be surprised if you get flamed. Especially if you use such imflammatory methods as "voice and fist" and "your time is over".

Just remember the only reason (ONLY reason) that the democrats are anti-war right now is because no matter what happens, they end up looking good. If they support the President, they could lose.

Btw, if it really was blood for oil, then why didn't we keep kuwaite?

Good job marching, Wil. However, here's a question for you from an Iraqi exile that begs answering:

I want to ask those who support the anti - "war" movement (apart from pacifists - that is a totally different situation) their motives and reasoning behind such support. You may feel that America is trying to blind you from seeing the truth about their real reasons for an invasion. I must argue that in fact, you are still blind to the bigger truths in Iraq. I must ask you to consider the following questions:

Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years, are you willing to allow him to kill another million Iraqis?

Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam's reign. Are you willing to ignore the real and present danger that caused so many people to leave their homes and families?

Saddam rules Iraq using fear - he regularly imprisons, executes and tortures the mass population for no reason whatsoever - this may be hard to believe and you may not even appreciate the extent of such barbaric acts, but believe me you will be hard pressed to find a family in Iraq who have not had a son/father/brother killed, imprisoned, tortured and/or "disappeared" due to Saddam's regime. What has been stopping you from taking to the streets to protest against such blatant crimes against humanity in the past?

Saddam gassed thousands of political prisoners in one of his campaigns to "cleanse" prisons - why are you not protesting against this barbaric act?

An example of the dictator's policy you are trying to save - Saddam has made a law to give excuse to any man to rape a female relative and then murder her in the name of adultery. Do you still want to march to keep him in power? . . . .

Of course it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That's not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises; they have been forced to take what they're given. That such a force does not exist - cannot exist - in today's world is a failing of the very people who do not want America to invade Iraq, yet are willing to let thousands of Iraqis to die in order to gain the higher moral ground. Do not continue to punish the Iraqi people because you are "unhappy" with the amount of power the world is at fault for allowing America to wield. Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority - one loses that right when one allows a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.


In case you were wondering, it's a rhetorical question.

There was a small demonstration in Cincinnati too. About 300 people gathered on fountain Square in the downtown area. I was actually surprised to see that, since Cincinnati tries so hard to be the most conservative and tight-assed city in Ohio. Of course that's just (Some of/most of)the city officials and not a majority of the residents...

Anyone living in Washington D.C. should send Wil some pictures of that wonderful few feet of snow you have ;}

I only hope we use nukes so that the war will be fast (I am sure we can still extract the oil). Also, I really hope it is televised. You scared little people. You'll be lucky if we don't line up you asses against a block wall and fire. Spineless little people. Long live George W. Bush, The President of The United States!

It takes very little moral backbone to advocate for bunnies, flowers, sunshine and peace at all costs. It takes more backbone to advocate those decisions that are painful and difficult. If anyone has time, pull up the commentaries/opinion pages from the newspapers in the 1930's in both the US and Britian. Nice to see that Neville Chamberlain is still alive in spirt these days. Do I want war? No. Do I advocate war? No. But, to quote Asimov, I never let my conscience satnd in the way of doing what is right.

Why are you not asking Saddam to disarm and disclose where all the chemical and biological weapons are?

Where are the protests to have him be as forthright as you are asking our government to be?

I don't know the answers, but all the people protesting seem to be ignoring this as well.

Regards,

Stuart

Here, and a lot of places, I read comments similar to "the arabs all want to kill us!" and "the arabs would just as soon kill us as have a second cup of coffee" above.

I have a friend (American) who lives in Iran. The most common question she gets (other than "Why aren't you married?")is "Why do Americans hate us?" The people wandering about the streets don't want to fight with us, but they are afraid that we will invade them at any moment. If there is an anger growing there, it is an anger bred from living in fear of us.

True, some of this IS cultivated by the government and media, but a lot of it comes from actions like those Bush has taken. Declaring Iran part of the "axis of evil" hurt Iranian citizens VERY deeply.

PS- I really cannot believe you are throwing your lot in with Sen. Byrd. If there is a better example of a racist, back room dealing, pork barrel project, political opportunist scavenger then Byrd, I cannot think of one. Byrd is a political dinosaur in the shade of Helms and Wallace, in fact, Byrd is what is know as a "boll weavel" in political terms. You might want to try someone else that people might respect, like Danniel Innonwey (sp)

"Btw, if it really was blood for oil, then why didn't we keep kuwaite?"

Ahh ....it's Kuwait.

As for the comment....Keep Kuwait(e)?!!!!! No....it's someone elses country....you know...other people, like not American? Yes other people have countries as well.

Ask yourself why would the US give a damn about a human-rights abusing non-democracy if it wasnt't for their abundant oil? Get real, this war is only about one thing. Giving you cheap fuel so you can commute to work in a massive SUV.

All those deaths will be your responsibility....you demand cheap oil, you pay for it with death.

iraq does present a very real danger...but i don't believe the case has been made yet to go to war...despite the attempt to whip up fear in the u.s. with the ridiculous multi-color alert system...but i do believe that the world community should keep the pressure on saddam hussein...and that includes being prepared to fight...but it doesn't mean we have to force the timing of war without the support of those who would be most effected by any iraqi agression.

Arron Gunn has said a mouthful. I hope all you monkeys are listening. You are mostly short sighted people with no concept of the grander scale. If you want America to leave the rest of the world alone you must be advocating more death and destruction like Sept 11. Leaving the vipers pit alone only allows the vipers to grow until they can't be contained by the pit, and slither forth to spawn new pits in other areas. We are trying to wipe out the pit and save your sorry asses from a gassing. Just shut your cavernous skull caves while our armed forces put themselves in harms way to keep your ungrateful souls in Berkenstocks lined up at the nearest starbucks. Not wanting to see people killed is one thing. To allow others to be tourchered and killed because you don't want us to do something about it is just plain sad. I really thought WWDN people were better than that.

Check the following out:
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000818.html#000818

Wil, you really need to examine the issues a little closer. I am not pro-war, but to sit and do nothing is as bad as what Saddam is doing. And all the feel-good peace marches in the world will not bring any of those gassed kids back to life.

Let me preface this by saying that I love WWDN and I love Wil. I read this site religiously and love it more and more each time I do.

Let me also say that I am in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Germany. I'm proud of what I do and, right now, wouldn't consider doing anything else.

I read and listen to the anti-war protesters and I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't like war. I don't think anyone does. I've been deployed, I have friends who are deployed at this very moment, and I've helped carry many of the bodies of those troops you see on television returning home in flag-draped caskets. They are the sons, brothers, friends, and fathers of people that will feel their loss forever. When viewed from this perspective, I think it is safe to say that we are all anti-war.

On the other hand, I do not wish to be reflexively anti-war. I would bet my next paycheck that there are a number of people in those teeming masses (latest polls indicate just UNDER 1/3 of the American population are opposed to war) that couldn't even tell you why they are there. They simply get caught up in the anti-war (probably more correct to say anti-establishment) rhetoric and euphoria, repeat the catch phrases overheard from the protesters next to them, and march around with little idea as to why they are really there. They are just looking for an opportunity to scream at the government or those representing government (i.e. police, politicians, etc.) not to mention engage in public rioting. That, I feel, is equally wrong and idiotic.

The questions that come to my mind when I see all of these protesters are:

1. If not war, what is your suggestion? Many are those who shout out in defiance to our government, and that is their right. But, since you all seem to know what NOT TO DO, then I must also surmise that you know what the hell TO DO. What, pray tell, should we do?

2. If you offer a suggestion and it does not work, what do we do then? We've been talking to and inspecting Saddam for over a decade. I'd say that course of action has been exhausted. What other suggestions do you offer?

3. Do you disbelieve everything your government tells you? I understand mistrust of politicians, but even the worst liars tell the truth sometimes. Since the information has recently been declassified, I can tell you that I've seen the satellite photos of the Al Quada training camps in Iraq. I've sat in intelligence briefings and listened to Generals being briefed on how Iraq is helping fund known terrorists. And I did these things, not months, but YEARS ago. Now, do you still think your government is itching for a war?.

4. The Iraqi people have been mistreated and murdered for years. Where were you then? The injustices of the Taliban government on women and the poor have been around for years. Where were you then? In recent years refugees have poured out of countries like Rawanda, Somolia, and several Western African countries in an effort to escape the tyrrany of thier government. Where were your voices then? If you're going to shout for peace on the earth, then shout for peace on the WHOLE EARTH. If you truly feel this way, you'll shout against conflict whereever it arises, not just when the potential for conflict comes to your door.

As for me, although I'm torn, I'll do what I swore to do; to support, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I, and all others in the profession of arms, do this so people can march and protest and call me a baby killer in true neo-hippie fashion, I do this so children in Iraq can one day grow up in a free society, I do this for my family, I do this for you.

Our country, in her intercourse with other nations may she be always in the right. But our country, right or wrong.

Brock

I support disarmament. I do not support all-out war. I do not think that all-out war is going to happen unless Saddam Hussein does what he was supposed to have been doing all along - DISARM and COME CLEAN.

Why is the onus on us? The onus should be on HIM.

I'm tired of this crap. The world should hold him accountable to the contract he signed.

This however, is a difference of opinion and is polarizing office spaces and web communities everywhere :-)

What I object to in your comments though Wil, is your thanking Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd is a racist who should have been gone from our government a long long time ago right along with Trent Lott. Remember when he used the "n" word and not a single Democrat said a word about it? I call that hypocrisy. And I refuse to credit that man with anything because all he's doing is toeing the party line.

Please please PLEASE tell me you are not a Byrd fan. Please please tell me you know this man's history and what he has stood for in his past, that he is the consummate politician in every way - slippery forked tongue and all?

Still waiting on an answer from the anti-war folks... How many protests in the last 12-13 years have you been involved in criticizing:

1. The gassing of Kurds by Saddam, or
2. Iraq's lies to the UN, or
3. The luxury items Saddam has imported under the UN Food For Oil program rather than feeding his own people, or
4. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, or
5. Iraq's violations of several UN resolutions, or
6. The recent statement by Tariq Aziz that they will not destroy missiles the UN teams recently found violated the 93 Mile limit, or
7. Iraq's failure to account for tonnes of Anthrax, Botulism, Vx and other chemical and biological agents as cited by Blix or,
8. The massive human rights violations as detailed by Human Rights Watch and AI committed by Saddam.

So, have you protested any of these items, or have you been saving your protesting mojo for the recent media-friendly one?

I'm glad you were able to speak your mind freely, Wil.

Now, if only the people of Iraq could do the same thing.

I just thought it was kinda ironic.

I actually believe that we have a responsibility to stand up against terrorism and tyranny.

BUT (and this is a major BUT), that role should be played in *full cooperation and in conjunction* with the UN and World Consensus. I'm ashamed of the way Rumsfeld and other in the Administration have treated due process (both on the worldwide diplomatic front, and on the human rights front -we're arresting people and refusing them basic rights such as a lawyer). We are sacrificing foundational concepts of our country.

Right now we're acting like a "my way or the highway" bully, and I don't blame our allies for giving us the finger.

A question: what, really, is the need to go to war in the next month, vs waiting months or even a few years of intense scrutiny to ensure that Iraq has complied? Answer: a. The economic impact of projecting our troops out there that long (I, for one, will pay extra taxes to keep them out there as long as it takes, but let's not send them to war) b. Bush doesn't want to appear to lose face by insisting action is needed imminently, and then backing off. He is, after all, campaigning for re-election. So my friends, if we go to war, it's for either the almighty dollar, or for Bush's benefit. Neither is acceptable.

To think, all this because of a few thousand miscounted chads. Sigh. A plague upon the Florida ballot system! *Go Electronic* for cripes sake!

America has declared war on the entire world. It must win this war or be cast onto the scrap-heap of history.

Naturally, some restructuring must take place. Since America is not really ready for when the oil runs out in 10-30 years (at current cosumption, given various estimates by leading energy experts) we first have to secure what remaining oil fields there are.

Next: Coco-Cola, Levis and Nikes to replace _all_ colonial garb. It isn't just secularism: it's the law. Too keep the world safe for tartrazine, it is likely that Dijon, France will have to be invaded, as well. Dirty little frenshmen hogging all the mustard.

Remember our motto: "Don't tread on my, or think about treading on me, or disagree with me when I say you are about to tread on me, or near me. Don't even think about it. Is that a Koran?"

Citizens will be informed when they must report to local re-education camps. Until then, here's some football and naked women!

Oh dear or dear or dear. So your support the right of Saddam Hussain to keep terrible weapons in defiance of the UN. Well good for you. I hope you're happy

Not to sound like an idiot, but why is everyone so opposed to the military action that will happen (not might)? I refuse to call it a war unless congress declares and act of war. (Gulf War? No. No Act.) Please feel free to e-mail me @ [email protected] I will answer and respect intelligent answers and delete all the other crap. I'm serioud here, I would really like to know. And before you send any "It's because of the oil" please don't because it's not.

Wil I use to respect your opinion. But this latest article shows your ignorance to the real world. You have fallen victim the "feel good" minority. And from what I've read in your past articles your opinion always echoes whatever the Hollywood liberals have to say.
Why don't you take a look at the countries supporting our War on Iraq you will find they are more than 90% of the countries in the world. Germany and France are minor players compared to all of the, now free thanks to Ronald Reagan, former Soviet States. Most if not all of those former Soviet States are with us on the War Against Iraq. Not to mention Germany has already changed their position on the war.
Finally Wil take some time to read the news and watch Fox for some realistic views of the world.

All the best to you and my fellow Americans who are misguided about our War on Iraq.

brian: FOX has realistic views on the world??? "fair and balanced news," right? i don't know if you've noticed, but they are RARELY have democrats on any of their programs, unlike CNN, which is truly balanced with programs such as "crossfire" which present opinions from both sides. i'm sorry, but you have been misled. for realistic views, you should be willing to hear both sides of every argument, without resorting to cheap shots.(i.e. constant reference to old news of bill clinton, etc.)

Bob.
"All those deaths will be your responsibility....you demand cheap oil, you pay for it with death."

I *don't* demand cheap oil. The war won't be about oil at all, although you seem to have trouble understanding that. The issue is whether Hussein is going to be allowed mass destruction weapons or not. We already know he's busy building them. He's just angling for time to implement them.

Frankly, we don't get a whole lot of our oil from Iraq regardless.

Kuwait (with or without an e) was effectively ours if we had simply wanted to take it. We didn't. Saddam WILL take it if he can. If we were primarily concerned about cheap oil, we could have stayed there when last we invaded. We didn't. We gave it back to the people who lived there.

Ellen: Clinton News Network is balanced? Sounds like something a democrat would say.

I doubt if anyone who is truly unbiased would be recognized that way. Most, if not all, would probably believe that someone is biased if they don't agree. After all, *I* am unbiased, therefore if you don't agree, you *are* biased.

Bush won the election, fair and square. If Gore had won through the electoral college, you would be fine with it. You have to learn to remain objective and support the political system you exist in without just twisting it to suit your own ends.

Grow up, childen.

Hey Wil and friends,
What do you think we should do about Saddam, nothing? How about we follow the french suggestion, they admit the weapons inspections are not working, so what do they recommend? More inspections! Brilliant! Maybe we should just close our eyes and do nothing, then in five years when he has nukes, and is threatning the rest of the world, maybe you and the french will come up with some good ideas how to deal with him. Remember, appeasement didnt work in the 40s and it wont work now. Im with you president bush, go get him!

It takes more guts to fight for peace than to stick an American flag decal on your car, collapse on your couch and watch the horror of war unfold on CNN. If you think you want this war, please ask yourself: would you give up your son, daughter, nephews, or nieces for this cause?
This outrage Bush is propagating is not worth one drop of American blood.

****Not to sound like an idiot, but why is everyone so opposed to the military action that will happen (not might)? I refuse to call it a war unless congress declares and act of war. (Gulf War? No. No Act.) ****

Right, cause people don't die in military actions. This war isn't necessary yet. Then again, why listen to me? I'm obviously just a child that's never experienced the real world. The US should NOT do this without UN approval.

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, former Commandant of the USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

http://www.xanga.com/home.asp?user=dissidentfrogman

I think the video graphic at the top of the site pretty much sums it up.

Hmmm... perhaps the headlines should read like this..

6 Billion People Worldwide do NOT March for Peace... talk about accuracy in media.

You peace-niks have your heads in your rear ends. Woe to our children if people like you ever run the country. Oh, wait. You DID for 8 years with your boy, slick Willie. He is the reason things have gotten the way they are. You folks need a history lesson... or a lobotomy.. whichever is easiest...

P.S. - Wil ... loved you in Star Trek.. reading your lunacy on this site has now proven to me that all you can do is act... stick to what you know and keep your anti-American opinions to your self.

Thank You Senator Byrd????

You mean this Senator Byrd,"I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time."??

You mean the former Klansman Byrd???

This is where you loose any sort of sway that you had. Blindly embracing someone because of political affiliation and blindly dismissing everyone else because of their party is akin to political racism.

Shutting our eyes to the problems of millions just to keep us in our comfort zone is the same as killing them ourselves. Is my ease of mind worth a thousand lives of strangers? Is it worth even one of their lives?

How many homeless and hungry did you step over on those self-aggrandizing marches. Look around you. You scream "Peace" at the cost of millions.

A voice of my own.
pixelBoy0

Gee, JC. Since when is exercising one's freedom of speech anti-American? The founding fathers of this nation risked (and gave) their lives to give us all the right to disagree with our government. Our government belongs to us, and if we do not agree with out country's actions, then it is our duty to speak up. It is people like you who will eventually allow the government to silence dissent in the name of "Patriotism".

You are misguided, and I pity you.

borg: are you calling cnn "Clinton News Network?"
I don't know if you've realized this, but clinton is no longer president. therefore, cnn, unlike fox, doesn't constantly refer to clinton in every issue concerning democrats. also, if fox were unbiased, there would be nothing to agree/disagree with. i'm not saying i am unbiased, i'm saying that fox is biased. therefore, anyone with opinions agrees or disagrees with the dominating views (conservative) presented on the program, which is why the bush zombies will only watch fox, because they fear having their views challenged.

Estimates place the number of worldwide anti-war protestors this weekend at around 2-2.5 million.

Ironically, this is roughly the number of people who have died under the current Iraqi regime ( http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm ).

Where are the voices of support for the Kurdish and Shiite people?

I guess marching *for* democracy isn't as fun as marching against George Bush. Shame that the Iraqi people don't have such freedom.

All of you people are duped little flowers. Still is funny how 65% of Americans support this MUCH needed act against a VERY dangerous man. Compared to rest of you that are just on board the peace wagon because it is the cool thing to do right now. Not to mention the ill informed “celebrities” that think they have the right to … never mind no one will pay attention to this and it will get flamed. But you know what at least I feel secure in my position and I am shipping off in 2 weeks the Middle East. Enjoy the freedom to whine while I fight for it.

*sits back and waits patiently, curious to see if Wil ends up locking this thread as he has said TWICE to move these conversations to the soapbox and no one apparently paid attention...*

It's amazing that all these pro-Iraq supporters did not have the ambition to protest against the tens of thousands murdered by the Iraq gov., or the thousands murdered in NYC by those sheltered by the Iraq gov. Maybe the next attack will hit closer to home for you, then we can all look back on your marching and tell our children that you made a difference... a sad, sad difference.

Saw on Fark where the 'Peace' protestors in NYC dragged a cop off his horse and beat him. Nice. Wil, you're so out in left field I can't even see you. Check out what Hussein does to his own people btw:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackstraw1.html

I love how you ban people for comments you don't like too Wil. Nice touch. Why allow comments at all?

Senator Robert Byrd was a KKK member. I would not want him on my side in anything.

"I love my country. I will not let a few fanatics take it away from me." ~wil

Who are the fanatics? The hated Republicans, or the truly evil terrorist masterminds who mislead impressionable kids into blowing themselves up in the name of Allah?

I love my country. I will not let a few fanatics take it away from me.

Wow, there sure are a lot of angry people on both sides of the argument.

War of any kind sucks. People die, and it's a terrible price to pay. Especially when it is a war that is being fought for reasons that may not be totally clear to us right now.

A lot of people want to be angry at Bush. They claim they never voted for him, he's not their president, and that he's a war mongering oil fiend.

The # thing I think I've learned in my life is that the truth almost always falls somewhere in the middle of what the two sides claim.

I do not think that there is anyone who can honestly say that Saddam and his regime isn't oppressive. One look at their form of government and we can tell that. For further proof I suggest you pick up the book Bravo Two Zero. Its an account of the treatment that some SAS troops received at the hands of their hosts in Iraq once captured.

The last war with Iraq had a couple of purposes. 1) It helped our relations with countries that are our primary sources of Oil. Not good enough to shed blood over you say? Well lets put it in another light...

Oil is used daily for everything from production of plastics to roadways. We use it for heat, cooking, lubrication, manufacturing, transportation...

Is it smart for us to be reliant on a fairly unstable portion of the world? No, it isn't... However the alternatives are not yet commercially viable. Money makes the world turn folks.

Anyway, I digress... Let's go over the chain-reaction of what happens if the U.S. loses oil...

Manufactured goods? Think again, no oil for the machinery. Comfort? Nope, people dependent on fuel oil for heat are screwed. Transportation? Nope, that grinds to a halt which means we cannot transport food, medicine, mail... As our oil supply dwindles, prices increase, and the country as we know it starts to grind to a halt. This includes medical services, police and fire services...

Add in the people who work in refineries who are now out of a job. The franchise owners of gas stations. The station employees...

There's no really good way to solve the issue of Oil until we make a conscious effort to stop using 25% of the world's oil consumption each year...

Now, let's flash back 60 years to WWII... Where the US took a separatist view of things until the Japanese attacked us for cutting off THEIR oil supply. Millions of people suffered and died at the hands of evil armies, etc... Don't get me wrong, even the US Army is responsible for the same sort of attrocities, but that's what war is. Attrocities. However, the one thing that the US has done after each war is rebuild the 'liberated' lands. That is because we recognize that politically and economially stable regions in the world are worth more to us than smoking ruins.

Do we make money off of it in the long run? Yes. But that's a side-product of doing what's right. Now we're faced with a choice of doing something now to prevent a possible issue, which of course we'd gain yet another oil-producing ally, or do we sit on our thumbs and watch our current oil producing 'allies' cower due to their proximity to a tyrranical country that invaded Kuwait.

Oh, and as for us not doing any good. Here's a little known fact about Desert Storm...

When Saddam started launching scuds at Israel. Israel's response was to park a couple of mobile nuke launchers in plain sight aimed towards Iraq. Had the U.S. not intervened with patriot missile batteries, the world might be a big smoking parking-lot about now with potholes from hell.

US Foreign policy definitely needs some help. However, if we give into the 'its not our problem' mentality, then we're right back where we were before WWII.

What to think? I'm not sure. I think the spirit of a peace rally is great, but a lot of the people I've met who were involved were to overzealous to be level-headed about the issue. Yet I do not want the US heading off to war. It's bad for the lives of our soldiers, its bad for the Iraqi people who are already suffering beneath the iron fist of a tyrant, and its bad for the economy of the world which revolves largely around the U.S. economy.

I'm tired of this crap about how war is evil. We know its evil. We've seen its face close-up with the Oklahoma City bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the Sept 11th events...

Someone once told me that people are generally good. Honestly, I think that people are generally evil and are only good when it suits their purpose for the most part.

Have read some comments about a *police state* that the US has become. Bawahaha! Hey babes, go back to before the Iron Curtain fell - (thanks to conservative minded US/Euro *white* christian do-gooders )-experience-REALLY, for Christ's sake, experience a POLICE STATE and then realise HOW good we have it in Amerika!

Many that want peace ARE conservative, maybe christian, white - yet work behind the scenes, out of the crowd, with no exaltation or self-congratulatory blogging -"pat me on the back", all talk but no REAL action. All i hear from the *marchers* is HATE speech towards Bush and his - really all that is SUCH a good example of where you are all *truly* coming from.

YOU be the first to wean yourselves from your yuppie big rigs - and all else may follow. Put YOUR actions toward bettering this country and *our* dialogue with each other. All you are doing is tearing this country apart.
Elzie

Btw, Smedley Butler was NOT Kommandant of the Marines...
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Butler_SD.htm

NYC

woof! Hell of a lot of posts since the last time I was on. Crikey. Lots of people withs lots to say, and a few people who would rather make random accusations and hurl insults.
A lot like Saturday night at the pub...

I think we achieve more than you realize with our discussions. The very fact that 99% of the time we can hold a logical, intelligent conversation without resorting to insults (rather than our very first exchange of views...), is progress in of itself. We may not always agree, and it seems unlikely that either of us will full come over to the others point of view, but that we can both see each others point of view, and can come to some comprimises now and then...well I think thats a valuable thing.
And thanks for recommending my posts to others. It means a lot.

I find many of your points, from the post at "February 16, 2003 07:14 PM", make a lot of sense, as far as they go. I've been thinking about this a lot, and what it seems to come down to is how information is presented and how it is then interpreted. For example, Hans Blix most recent report (summarised here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2761261.stm), mentioned that Iraq had been mostly co-operative in the inspections process, thay may not have liked it, but the co-operated. He said that Unmovic had begun to destroy 50 litres of mustard blister agent. One-third has already been destroyed. That Iraq had accepted an offer from South Africa to help it disarm, based on South Africa's experience of getting of rid its own nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s. He said that Inspectors' access to sites had so far been without problems, including presidential sites and private residences. Mr Blix said in no case had Unmovic seen convincing evidence that Iraq knew of inspections in advance. There were issues of missing anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles.
And so on.
The jist I got was that although Iraq was unhappy with having the inspections, Iraq was co-operating in many areas and that progress was being made. I took the discovery of the 2 Al-saoud missiles to be a sign that Iraq was holding back in some areas but that the inspections were finding the weapons anyway, which was a good sign - that the inspections were working. I won't botherlisting the whole thing, the link is there for you to follow. The impression I got was that the case for Iraq possessing WMD and prohibited weapons was unresolved, and that Blix felt that the inspections should continue, and may lead to complete disarmament of certain trends in Iraq towards such were to continue.
However...
The SUN, a British Tabloid newspaper, views the SAME report to be a damning indictment of Saddam and that Blix was calling for immediate military action. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I would not have believed that it was the same report!

It all seems to come down to what we are told, and how much effort we put into looking into the situation for ourselves. We were told that the US was considering using Nukes in a pre-emptive strike...and if you read about the Gulf War, we bombed power plants and water purification centres, the effect on the population, with no way to clean their water supply and no electicity, was devestating. In removing the military infrastructure, we visited a terrible toll on the civilian population. We have been provided with no evidence that the same will not happen again. So waht to believe? That the smart bombs that have proven to be pretty dumb in the last Gulf War, and in Kosovo and Afghanistan, will this time be spot on and only destroy the guilty, or that collateral damage will occur that will continue to claim lives long after the war is over?

Over here in Britian, the Government has shot its own propaganda machine in the foot. If their case against Saddam was so undeniable, then why did they feel the need to present us with a so-called up-to-date "intelligence report" that turned out to be a 12 year old Postgraduate study that they had copied...typos and all? It has undermined any trust we have in what they say.

Blix says that some weapons have been destroyed, yet Bush claims that none have. Who to believe? The guy who has been there and seen it, or the guy who hasn't?
You say that this war would be self-defence, but the Bush administration call it a pre-emptive strike. Saddam says he has no WMD, the weapons inspectors have found no nukes, no weaponised ebola (ugh), only a few minor league chemical weapons (which are in the proces s of being destroyed by UNMOVIC), yet Bush and Blair insist that the weapons exist, but have as yet not provided unrefutable evidence to prove it, instead they provide the sort of lies that Blair tried to foust on us (see above). That alone is, for me, a reason to let the inspections continue. If he has the damn things...lets find them, lets show the world the solid, hard touchable evidence and then tear him down. But if we go in guns blazing and find nothing...we may be handing scum like Osama all the propaganda they need.

Do you have any evidence that France and Germany are the ones that are in this for oil, or money? I'd be very interested to see it. It seems like the evidence that Bush is all for war for oil. Nebulous and inproven...but a nagging feeling.

I agree totally that Saddam is evil, and that his cruelty towards his own people is a crime against existence, but I don't see that the war, and the style of war, that is currently being proposed will do anything other than increase the suffering involved. 100,000 to 500,000 in two days is a horrendous number. And that would just be the beginning.
My concience tells me that Saddam should be stopped, somehow, but it also tells me that the war is not the way to do it, that the loss of life that would ensue would make victory considerably hollow, and the worst case scenario is a vicious backlash in the Middle East, which would cripple, if not destroy, Israel and flow towards the West in a tidal wave of hatred.

Oh, glad to see you enjoyed Episode 2. ITs a much better film than episode 1, and I'm positive that the thing with Jar-Jar was a response to the terrible fan reaction to him.
How about The Lord of the Rings movies...have you seen them?

Sorry bout the long post. I just wanted to be as coherent as possible.

Wil,

Understand this, if you would:

1. You speak for absolutely no majority. The Hollywood liberals you so blindly follow are not, nor have ever been a majority in this country. And your minority on the cusp of becoming a majority? Look around you Wil. Where are the millions turning out to protest in every American city? So far, I've only seen somewhat major protests in New York and San Francisco. SF is a bastion of radical leftism, so that doesn't mean too much in the scheme of trying to make a minority seem like a majority. I'm also willing to bet that as far as the protests went, most of the people protesting the war are the people who have been protesting it since 9/11. In other words, no majority. Just plain old minority, and a minority OF a minority at that. Your numbers are what...maybe half a million at most? There are about 290 million people in this country. I can most assuredly speak for them when I say they do NOT believe you. Most polls in this country show support for the President, and support for military action to disarm Saddam. If the American people stood up as one and said "NO!" to this war, it would have been dropped off as a subject a long time ago.

2. A plutocracy? Whose rantings and ravings have you been listening to in order to get that stretch of the truth from? Chomsky? Zinn? Or that fat liar Michael Moore? I noticed you, in an earlier post, used the phrase "Bush Junta." If I recall, the man who popularized that was Gore Vidal, who published a 7000 word screed in the Observer that tried to prove that it was the Bush administration that orchestrated 9/11. That screed was thoroughly debunked by Ron Rosenbaum, a staunch liberal, and absolutely NO ally of George Bush. He liked Gore Vidal's screed to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion...you know, that historical forgery that all Arabs seem to believe is the truth about the Jews? The notion of a "Bush Junta" is only something the most paranoid mind could possibly buy into. Or have you gone off the deep end, and thus it somehow seems to make sense to you?

3. The world has been wrong on many things throughout the ages, and on Iraq, they are squarely wrong. I can easily remember what was said in the 1930s by the anti-war movement about Hitler. What they said back then resembles exactly what left-wing radicals like yourself say about Saddam now. Indeed, I thought it was most befitting about how wrong the world was when I saw a picture of some people in an anti-war protest in London holding up a sign that said "Peace in Our Time." Indeed, those of the anti-war movement in the U.S., U.K., and around the world are most certainly the inheritors of the legacy of Neville Chamberlain. His policy of appeasement would certainly fit into your logic about disarming Saddam.

4. I know you can't wrap your minds around this, but on the subject of Iraq, Bush speaks for the MAJORITY of Americans. Not only that, but a SOLID MAJORITY of Americans. You are in the few. He is in the many. DEAL WITH IT. It has been over a year since he came out with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and started to make plans to deal with Iraq. It is telling that today, he still retains that majority. The American people realize, unlike you, that Saddam is a very dangerous man that cannot be allowed to be in power anymore. And, if he won't leave, we will MAKE him leave.

5. I understand that many of the anti-war protestors are decent people, gentle people with good intentions. Though I think your political opinions are quite naive and uninformed Wil, I do not doubt that you are a good person. Though there is a disgusting vein of anti-Americanism/pro-Stalinism in the anti-war movement that you seem to be comfortable with, I still don't doubt your good intentions here. But you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Lenin had a term for people like you: "useful idiots." I find it most apropro in this situation. Read this article if you want to understand exactly what I mean:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-580445,00.html

Your actions, though anti-war, must objectively seen as being pro-Saddam. Indeed, since after all, what else will be the result of no war than but to reinforce the rule of Saddam Hussein, and thus continue the brutal repression of the people of Iraq. THIS is what you stand for, and the majority of Americans clearly do not stand with you.

6. Maybe, for a change, instead of trying to spew every kind of invective insult you can against George Bush, you could instead try shouting at the top of your lungs, "FREE IRAQ!" I have yet to see anyone in the anti-war movement do this. It is as if you do not care that Iraq should be free. Indeed, that is the only assumption that can be made, since not once have I ever heard it uttered. Well, let me tell you this Wil: at the PRO-WAR rally I attended, with around 200 people in attendance, we spend a great deal of time screaming "FREE IRAQ!" and "DOWN WITH SADDAM!" I only wished radical leftists like you could share this view. But, alas, you do not, and in the end, that is why you are of a very small minority, and shall remain so in the United States.

"Do you have any evidence that France and Germany are the ones that are in this for oil, or money? I'd be very interested to see it. It seems like the evidence that Bush is all for war for oil. Nebulous and inproven...but a nagging feeling."
***
So much for French altruism...

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/jan/030125.inskeep.html

Wil,

I almost forgot:

How could you POSSIBLY thank Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan? Do you know what his rank in the KKK was? He was a Kleagle. Do you know what Kleagles DID? Why don't you go find out, and then look again at that note of thanks you left for that unabashed RACIST Robert Byrd. Maybe then you'll realize the company of people you are with in this anti-war movement.

P.S. Pat Buchanan, not to mention every white surpremacist I can think of, are just as anti-war as you are. Telling, isn't it?

Wil: I am not sure if someone has posted this already, but I'm going to anyway.
I just want to say that I am very happy that you exercised your Constitutional right to protest, but think about these facts. (And if you want documentation to back them up, email me and I'll provide them.) These are words spoken by Tony Blair this weekend.

Still a big fan. Stay involved, although I don't agree with you. Now, the words of Tony Blair:

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this.

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

I would just like to know why Wil threatened at least twice to yank the comments but not once responded to any of our questions.

I'd like a response to the Byrd question, at the very least, Wil. I'm not flaming you, honestly. I think several of us believe it was a poorly chosen association on your part.

Who WILL represent the people, Wil? Robert Byrd? I hope not!

Fist and foremost, let me point out that I am trying to remain as bipartisan (sic?) as possible in regards to this issue. Both sides raise very valid points, and anyone who disagrees with the other's right to discuss their opinion is either blind, or a fool. No offense, but if you live in any free country then you must accept that everyone is entitled to their own ideals and speech. And to think your side is 100% right while theirs is 100% wrong is, in every sense, as unpatriotic to yourself and your fellow man as terrorism.

Saddam is without a doubt a monster. He commits unspeakable atrocities on 'his people'. There is no question in my mind that he must be stopped. But is this the way to do it? It is true that the UN is failing to do its job (pressuring Saddam to disarm). The US is the only leader to step forward and take a stand.

But they've made a mess of it. They have filled the airwaves with propaganda (I'm sorry, but its true). They issue conflicting reports about one piece of evidence or another. They have insulted the entire global community. Many people in this forum have brought up that 2.5 million protestors is not neccessarily reflective of 6 billion. Well, here's another number: 300 million vs. that same 6 billion. Not much different. The US doesn't even know who're its allies, as much as it tries to convince the world they are everywhere; the Middle East, the majority of Europe, its neighbors at home and even a strong majority are all opposed to war. Are you honestly telling me that every one of these millions of people are 'stupid, working with the terrorists, lets-help-Saddam fools'? The biggest fool I see is the one saying that.

But understand this: those on the side of war are not fools, either. They have recognized a need: terrorism is around the globe. Iraq has has the potiential to supply those terrorist with the most powerful weapons in the world, and Saddam is a butcher whose desire to cut up his own people is matched by his desire to cut up other countries. Even if he himself may not be part of Al-Queda, those under him could easily slip them some dangerous support. Bush, as goofy as he seems in his speeches, has stepped up to plate to remove this madman.

Of course, he may have ulterior motives. In a time where the US economy is highly uncertain, and where the country braces itself against future terrorist attacks, control of the Iraqi oil fields would be a very strong investment indeed. And the perceived threat from Saddam, to other nations, is slim: he has an barely trained, laughable excuse of an army compared to any modern counterpart, his military economy and wealth is a fraction of the western world's. And with weapon inspections by the UN underway, he will gradually lose the use of his WMD, if he has any at all. And is Saddam in any way connected to Al-Queda? His government is highly anti-religious, and Al-Queda is a militant Islamic extremist group. The US's own analysts doubt there is any connection between the two groups, and they believe that the war may be the final trigger into pressuring Saddam to use any WMD he has.

Which is exactly why he must be stopped. As much as war can scar the earth and those who dwell upon it, it may well be neccessary. Saddam will not willingly give up any armaments he has. War or not, he will eventually seek to use them, and the UN can do little to stop that. He is only growing stronger, as is the terrorist organizations posed to strike against the US and its allies.

There are still a few important facts missing: as pointed out, over 50% of Iraqi citizens are below 15 years of age. And US bombs are not exactly the most accurate of weapons; 'friendly-fire' and 'collaterial damage' are words now used commonplace by military officals. Cilivian casualties are expected to be huge is a war takes place. Even as things stand, Iraqi is a miserable place to live, and not just because of Saddam. Every 7 seconds, an Iraqi child dies from economic sanctions imposed by the US and UN. If the war takes place, even Americans of Middle-Eastern descent are likely to be targeted by their neighbors as the world is caught up in the furor of war. And here is an interesting question: If your own government were to suddenly turn corrupt, steal your rights and freedoms, and turn on the populace, would you want the addition of foreign bombs raining down on your cities? Even if in the name of freedom? Iraqi peoples themselves are against this war; not only those still trapped in Bagdhad, but also those in your own countries who have reached safety. The people of Iraq want our support, our assistance and help in other means; they don't want our bombs dropped on their heads, our troops terrorizing them further. In all reality, any military intervention by the world will bring an equal amount of death as it does liberty.

Just my 2 cents.

Where there is a URL there is a way...

From Wil, after he deleted the link for this topic:

"UPDATE: I understand the visceral reactions that come when reading a post like this. If you'd like to comment or discuss, you are welcome to go to the Soapbox."
***
It would be nice if you could at least transfer everyone's comments to a thread at the Soapbox...

Wil,

I doubt you'll make it this far. Heck, I couldn't make it this far in the comments. It's tough some times to read the comments of people who disagree quite strongly with you. Especially when it seems like they're using quotes from 1984 to push a pro-war agenda (wage war to foster peace).

I agree. I'm not from the US, and when a show called Sunday Report aired in Canada aired the poll of who is a greater threat to world peace, Bush, or Saddam, I felt the answer was elementary.

Bush. Saddam hasn't threatened to invade anyone, Bush has. Point finale.

I hope you aren't allowing the negative comments to get to you. I know how often you can be adversely affected by them. Know this:

a writers goal is to create feeling in his readers, to engender such a well of emotion that the reader must express himself. The greatest insult they could sling your way would be to say nothing, even your detractors were so moved by your words they felt compelled to respond.

You moved them.

Bush. Saddam hasn't threatened to invade anyone, Bush has. Point finale.
***
Well, this is kind of simplistic reasoning on your part, isn't it? Saddam HAS invaded other countries, like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Those weren't wars to help or free any of those nations. They were pure and blatant attempts to enlarge Iraq. You try to make those actions seem morally equivalent with attempts to remove that initiator of those aggressions- Saddam. That is intellectually honest at best. If you simply want "world peace," then we should have left Milosovic alone in Serbia. For that matter, even Apartheid in South Africa. Free Tibet? Nope, we want world peace...

That is intellectually honest at best
***
Should read DIShonest...