WIL WHEATON dot NET: 1.5

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.*

AMEN !

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 Germa