If you don't think so, what can Bush do, attack anyway?
Is war here likely or not?
He could but it would be politically risky of course. It's the threat of force that got Sadamn to go along with it anyway. He's not stupid just insane so he knew if he said no that he was screwed. Now he gets to be the victim because unless they get lucky it will be darn near impossible to find the needle in the haystack. Since he knew they were coming. So acting unilatterally thus far is actually a hinderance. Bush is hogtied politically now as the editorial correctly points out.
If they are there a year and nothing is found Sadamn get's more sympathy at the oppresion of inspections. They and Bush's opponents will say see we told you we were nice. If he does nothing then Sadamn played his hand perfectly, the inspectors leave and he stays in power and can go back to killing folks. If we attack for any reason other than something major then the pundits can say well we knew the U.S was just looking for an excuse. Which is what they'd have said either way. That's why when the U.N waffled we should have taken a different course. acting multilatterally can be good sometimes but not all the time.
Again Sadamn wouldn't even have inspectors if the threat wasn't there so in a small way it worked. On the other hand the options are limited as well. We already have Kofi apologizing to Sadam essentially and chastizing his own inspectors. Thanks Kofi.
I don't think war is as emminent as some would have us believe. Unless Iraq starts hindering inspections I think it's a ways off. Part of me thinks that nothing will come of it.
So far, I can go with Rob and say there's a distinct possibility they won't find anything.
I think that has a lot to do with reaility.
Says the Strib:
"But what if they don't? How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support? Those hard questions deserve some consideration beginning now"
As it campaigns against terrorism and prepares for a possible war with Iraq, the United States is losing the battle for world public opinion, according to a new international poll.
However one must also note the low esteem people hold about their own nations - especially those denigrating the US.
The true yardstick will be how much of American ideas and values - in the commercial, technological and cultural arenas - are rejected and not adopted by other nations.
They all despise us - but they ape everything we do!
I'll reiterate the Strib, jethro, but this is the last time:
"But what if they don't? How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support? Those hard questions deserve some consideration beginning now"
How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support?
He will respond by revealing what we know and showing Saddam to be the lying sack of s*** that he is. It isn't difficult to understand. You should even be able to get it, Rick.
If little boy bush and his poodle yelp and blare do know where the WMDs, germs, sarin etc. are being hidden in Iraq, why are they silent??
The inspectors are rightfully questioning the motivation of the US. The ultimate aim is to locate these, annihilate them - and then take out so dumb insane.
Some of Duane Barry's theories on little boy , the 911 attack may be true after all.
hey jethro - even if I do concede your blatantly partisan point about the inspectors - answer this. Americans and British say they have intelligence about the location of so dumb's WMDs. Why not declare them and reveal the GPS coordinates? Once exposed, the rest of the world will have to shut up. We can send Turkish, Pukisitani and Africans to wipe out the WMDs and our rangers to take out so dumb. We will save a whole lot of money and American lives - with the 3rd world taking the hits. That should be motivation for someone like you.
- even if I do concede your blatantly partisan point about the inspectors - answer this. I doubt if it is partisan. I think all sides that have a grasp of what is really going on agree. The idea of sending in inspectors was agreed on by all parties for consumption by the gullible.
Americans and British say they have intelligence about the location of so dumb's WMDs. Why not declare them and reveal the GPS coordinates? Once exposed, the rest of the world will have to shut up. I believe they will do so if Saddam lies on December 8. It really is his last chance.
Americans and British say they have intelligence about the location of so dumb's WMDs. Why not declare them and reveal the GPS coordinates?
First of all, we do not have the GPS coordinates (please how dumb are you?). What we do have is proof of their programs, capabilities and what they are trying to develop. Why we do not tell what we know know is to wait and see what they admit to on Dec 8th. When they make that declaration then we will provide evidence that contradicts that and leave no doubt to the world that he must be removed.
The US agreed to inspections and approved the inspectors. If the location of Iraqi WMDs is known, what is the logic of holding it back from the inspectors who are our agents doing our dirty job. What more convincing scenario is needed than the inspectors unearthing the weapons sites in full view of the global media. What does waiting till the 8th buy the US strategically?
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told ABC News that his country will declare that it has materials that could be used for dual purposes but has no weapons made of biological, chemical or nuclear materials.
Fleischer called Aziz's statement "as false as statements that Iraq made in the late '90s when they said they had no weapons of mass destruction, when it was found they indeed did."
The United States has left open several options in case Iraq's declaration is patently false. It can give U.S. intelligence to the inspectors, which Fleischer confirmed the U.S. will do, it can seek U.N. Security Council support for use of force, or if the Security Council hems and haws, it can seek to form a coalition of the willing to force Iraq to comply.
Fleischer said U.N. weapons inspectors should not have access to all U.S. intelligence because they "are not a sovereign government" though the Iraqis already have accused the weapons inspectors of being spies and staging a surprise search on Wednesday of a presidential palace as a provocation that could lead to war.
You asked.
What more convincing scenario is needed than the inspectors unearthing the weapons sites in full view of the global media. What does waiting till the 8th buy the US strategically?
If they have a good idea of where this stuff is I'm sure you will see it on every newscast.
What does waiting til the 8th do strategically ? So they have the chance to declare it. They already obviously lied since they found shells loaded with mustard gas. It's actually a good move politically, they can say, o.k we gave them a chance to declare it. They said no WMD, well take a look at this........ Catching them in a blatant lie and showing WMD's AFTER the declaration that they have nothing is a very good move.
The other reason is that it could be a bluff too. They could be saying it and Sadamn might start wondering."O.K , what do they know ?" Wondering that and thinking that we do have specific info on WMD's might cause him to rethink his posistion.
After all the debate and screwing around at the U.N and months of debate Iraq had plenty of time to hide things under the bed, they knew the inspectors were coming. It would be like calling a drug dealer and telling them when the cops are coming and wonder why nothing was found.
Bullshit--- utter parrot-prattle. I doubt even drug-dealer can't hide his business without a trace let alone someone--- a country--- who is trying to manufacture evil-doer weapons of mass destruction. Under the bed indeed--- what the fuck are you smoking?
If they have a good idea of where this stuff is I'm sure you will see it on every newscast.
More prattle--- state-run media doesn't turn in its boss.
The other reason is that it could be a bluff too. They could be saying it and Sadamn might start wondering."O.K , what do they know ?" Wondering that and thinking that we do have specific info on WMD's might cause him to rethink his posistion.
Or maybe not--- we'll never know because the CIA has comandeered our democracy is will only tell you what they want you to believe--- dumbshit.
The other reason is that it could be a bluff too. They could be saying it and Sadamn might start wondering."O.K , what do they know ?" Wondering that and thinking that we do have specific info on WMD's might cause him to rethink his posistion.
I personally think little boy bush is playing a game as stated above.
Well, it appears there is a 13,000 page document the UN has to peruse, absorb and digest.
Eid celebrations have started and all the Muslim world is partying . No inspections, no more from so dumb insane's side.
Let us see what we can prove to the rest of the world on the 8th. Any credible evidence corroborated by non-American and non-British observers seals the fate of so dumb insane. I hope we are finally able to close a chapter old geezer bush should have finished a decade ago.
So you also suffer from that Caucasian delusional paranoia about the UN do you? Afraid the virgin white landscape is going be polluted and overrun by us browns, yellows and blacks who will descend in hordes backed by the UN?? Tough - the advance force, led by folks like me has already entrenched itself here. Live with it and us!
Since we went to the UN and coerced/persuaded the security council to back our inspections request and since the inspectors were all approved by the US, they are our agents.
No, I think the UN is an ineffective organization with a majority of the members having adverse interests to those of the United States. Do you believe the UN put the inspectors in Iraq because we wanted them there? I think Mr. Annan and the UN put them there in attempt to stave off any US military action.
More like paranoid, seeing racists under every bed. I am so sick of that overblown, hyped-up shit about Americans being racist. All -- and I mean ALL -- of the truly racist statements I hear and read come from brown and black people.
In Chico, a shy, 83-year-old World War II veteran and former naval officer surprises his son by attending an anti-war protest outside Rep. Wally Herger's office, where 21 are arrested.
In Sacramento, a land surveyor for the state rounds up his book group to attend three peace rallies in Sacramento and San Francisco.
In the Bay Area, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur creates a Web site whose current anti-war agenda has attracted nearly 600,000 Internet followers.
It has been four weeks since I wrote about the burgeoning anti-war movement and the flawed media coverage around it. The stories have been pouring in since, among them:
The Rocklin schoolteacher who worries about his students' futures. The 68-year-old "stay-at-home protester" who e-mails and writes his elected officials. The 64-year-old semiretired carpenter who proudly stages a war protest in Auburn.
There is the Sacramento attorney who sees her peace activism as a "matter of logic." And a father who drives his 12-year-old son to the Oct. 26 peace rally in San Francisco. A 51-year-old writer takes a ferry to the rally, too, because she is alarmed by President Bush's "frightening drive to war."
This is what the anti-war movement looks like -- not just the collection of fringe characters and political oddballs some news outlets portray.
Yet media coverage seems stuck in a 1960s and 1970s Vietnam War- era frame, with journalists confining themselves to protest stories and visual images reminiscent of those times.
Problem? The times are most definitely changing.
"This is a much more mainstream movement than the anti-Vietnam War movement was at a comparable stage," said Stephen Zunes, chairman of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. Zunes, who specializes in U.S. policy in the Middle East and nonviolent social movements, recently published the book "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism."
It is true that the Oct. 26 anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco were organized by the Workers World Party, not the least bit mainstream.
But that's logistics. Then you have to ask: Who attended? And who else is stepping forward to publicly oppose the war?
Say hello to your friends and neighbors.
Unlike the early days of the Vietnam anti-war movement, says Zunes, churches and labor unions have edged into this movement much sooner. Those speaking out against attacking Iraq already include the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church and, in this state, the California Federation of Teachers. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney has expressed reservations to both houses of Congress.
There are many pacifists, says Zunes, but there are also pragmatists this go-round. These are the people who question from a practical, utilitarian standpoint whether war would be good for American interests. They worry about an international backlash against America and the loss of American lives. They wonder what would happen after a war.
"Afghanistan showed it's easier to throw one government out than it is to put one together," he said.
While much of the news coverage focuses on noisy protests -- it fits the '60s frame, after all -- a less visible element carries considerable clout: those "stay-at-home" protesters.
Joan Blades, a Berkeley entrepreneur who co-founded MoveOn.org, an Internet-based group, posted a petition Wednesday urging Bush to let the U.N. weapons inspections process work. She expects to get 20,000 to 30,000 signatures in 24 hours -- not unrealistic for a group that raised $1 million in a few days for four anti-war candidates.
Luke Wilson, a 55-year-old land surveyor for the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, attended recent protests with his First Friday Book Club. As a young student, Wilson protested the Vietnam War, too.
But this is different. And if the media can't see that, Wilson can.
"Back then, it was a long struggle to get mainstream people on board with that movement.
Now," says the father of two, "we've already got them."
The New York Times magazine today has a long and pretty interesting article where notable liberals weigh in on war with Iraq.
"Why is the Vietnam generation not marching against Iraq? The answer has something to do with Bosnia," reads the subhead.
There are long, compelling and complicated arguments laid out for and against. I won't go into them here, but the writer, George Packer, broke down the internal debate like this:
For War:
1. Saddam is cruel and dangerous. 2. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction and has never stopped trying to develop them. 3. Iraqis are suffering under tyranny and sanctions. 4. Democracy would benefit Iraqis. 5. A democratic Iraq could drain influence from a repressive Saudi Arabia. 6. A democratic Iraq could unlock the Israeli-Palistinian stalemate. 7. A democratic Iraq could begin to liberalize the Arab world. 8. Al Qaeda will be at war with us regardless of what we do in Iraq.
Against War
1. Containment has worked for 10 years and inspections could still work. 2. We shouldn't start wars without immediate provocation and international support. 3. We could inflict terrible casualties, and so could Saddam. 4. A regional war could break out and Anti-Americanism could build to a more dangerous level. 5. Democracy cannot be imposed on a country like Iraq. 6. Bush's political aims are unknown, and his record is not reassuring. 7. America's will and capacity for nation building are too limited. 8. War in Iraq will distract from the war on terrorism and swell Al Qaeda's ranks.
The Bush administration has alerted the C.I.A. and national laboratories to be ready to go into overdrive, homing in on a few crucial Iraqi claims that the United States believes it can show to be false.
But in private, administration officials concede that there is no single piece of dramatic intelligence that Iraq has continued to try to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
So - Iraq has played its hand - lets us see your evidence little boy bush.
That's if there's any evidence left after it went underground. They had 3 months to hide everything they have in an underground bunker out in the desert. Good luck.
Yes, and much like everything else, he gets his marching orders from the people that read for him. If it doesn't have an outline and a few interesting pictures, I am certain he won't bother to read it. Pure liberal propaganda. Too bad fold isn't smart enough to see through the lies.
What he should be doing, is concentrating on tracking down the Terrorists of the brotherhood of bin-laden, and containing Iraq. How do you know there isn't a connection?
The New York Times ran a long story over the weekend about South Korea.
Many, maybe most South Koreans, do not like the Axis of Evil sentiment. They think it's increased tension and decreased the chances for unification. Thirty-seven thousand US troops are becoming a heavy-handed presence.
There are signs on stores that say "Americans Are Not Welcome Here."
I've been there, twice. Most of that is from the younger South Koreans, mainly the students and Dennis' Korean alter ego. The older people, a mojority over 30 I would say are fine with it because they realize a few things. We could leave, if we did, their economy would be devistated. Their borders would become very very vulnerable. They have very good troops, mainly the ROK Marines whom I trained with. They don't have the manpower or money though to do it thoroughly and they know that. I'm sure if they were able we would be asked to leave tomorrow.
I would like to present my scenario of why this Iraq war will land us Americans in deep, deep doggie doodoo.
Next February, we will go in and whip so dumb insane’s arse. Vaporize him. No one will cry – not even his kith and kin.
There will be euphoria in Iraq – some of our GI's will be kissed and some may even get laid.
This will be short-lived – so dumb insane and his henchmen are Sunni Muslims – a minority in Iraq. The majority Shias – same sect as in Iran – will eke vengeance for so many years of repression. The carnage will be gory.
so dumb’s partisans will all not vanish – they will lick their wounds and then hit back. Their targets – us Americans and the Sunni Muslims. There will be a civil war in a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, surrounded by six neighbors with their own agenda.
The neighbors
The Kurds in Iraq – and we know how they were treated - will occupy the oil city of Kirkuk and thus acquire a strong economic base for an independent state of Kurdistan.
Turkey, which has no oil of its own, will use the overthrow of Saddam to move into Iraqi Kurdistan and occupy the oil region of Kirkuk and Mosul. The Turks hate the Kurds as much as so dumb did.
The Saudi Royal dictatorship will make sure that the "contagion of western style democracy" implanted into Iraq does not spread to its kingdom and will undermine the post-Saddam regime.
The Mullahs in Iran - a Shia majority country - will assist the long-suppressed Shia majority in Iraq to get even with their erstwhile Sunni rulers who have governed Iraq since 1638. That means a long-running Sunni-Shia civil war.
Syria, which is ruled by Bashar Assad, who belongs to a Shia subsect of Alawis, will be sympathetic to the Shia aspirations.
This is a fucking Pandora’s box of a mess folks!!
I lived in South Korea in Chonju for a year and half in 1981. Working in different paper mills though. Were you in Osan??
if we did, their economy would be devistated
I doubt it. They are quite strong economically. Memory prices will go up and we may suffer.
Their borders would become very very vulnerable
This is the reason the older 30's want us to stay there.
The South had the lesson from Germany as an example of what integration could cause. They are not ready for it now. When they are, they will bribe North Korea and merge. The money barons there make this call.
I went back to Seoul a year and half ago. I was amazed and disgusted at the anti-Americanism and the spread of it among the professional class. We should get out of there - or we will end up with another tinder box.
I fear that Iraq's natural and other resources will be ruthlessly exploited in the post-Saddam period, should the US and its allies (and oil companies) effectively control the country, directly or by proxy. I am cynical about Western altruism .
Iraq is like Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. Just like Tito , so dumb has suppressed and repressed ethnic conflict by his brutal methods. Look what happened there after Tito.
It's been a while since I was last there so perhaps it has changed to some degree.
I would agree with you that the North and South will likely be reunited one day. I think we just disagree perhaps on the time it will happen. My guess would be in less than 10 years but not more than 3. I think it will be because the communist rule has failed so miserebly in the north that the north will do it out of nessecity due to their horrid economy infastructure etc. The south will reap those benefits and become much stronger and the support that the U.S gives them will no longer be needed or as much and that will be that. How China feels about that is a whole other can of worms since Pyongyang is a puppet state in many ways.
The question has nothing to do with reality. It is there and everyone knows it.
He could but it would be politically risky of course. It's the threat of force that got Sadamn to go along with it anyway. He's not stupid just insane so he knew if he said no that he was screwed. Now he gets to be the victim because unless they get lucky it will be darn near impossible to find the needle in the haystack. Since he knew they were coming. So acting unilatterally thus far is actually a hinderance. Bush is hogtied politically now as the editorial correctly points out.
If they are there a year and nothing is found Sadamn get's more sympathy at the oppresion of inspections. They and Bush's opponents will say see we told you we were nice. If he does nothing then Sadamn played his hand perfectly, the inspectors leave and he stays in power and can go back to killing folks. If we attack for any reason other than something major then the pundits can say well we knew the U.S was just looking for an excuse. Which is what they'd have said either way. That's why when the U.N waffled we should have taken a different course. acting multilatterally can be good sometimes but not all the time.
Again Sadamn wouldn't even have inspectors if the threat wasn't there so in a small way it worked. On the other hand the options are limited as well. We already have Kofi apologizing to Sadam essentially and chastizing his own inspectors. Thanks Kofi.
I don't think war is as emminent as some would have us believe. Unless Iraq starts hindering inspections I think it's a ways off. Part of me thinks that nothing will come of it.
So far, I can go with Rob and say there's a distinct possibility they won't find anything.
I think that has a lot to do with reaility.
Says the Strib:
"But what if they don't? How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support? Those hard questions deserve some consideration beginning now"
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopoll053032467dec05,0,2292683.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
As it campaigns against terrorism and prepares for a possible war with Iraq, the United States is losing the battle for world public opinion, according to a new international poll.
Pretty well researched report - here is the awful pdf version
http://people-press.org/reports/files/report165.pdf
I have perceived similar attitudes in my travels.
However one must also note the low esteem people hold about their own nations - especially those denigrating the US.
The true yardstick will be how much of American ideas and values - in the commercial, technological and cultural arenas - are rejected and not adopted by other nations.
They all despise us - but they ape everything we do!
So far, I can go with Rob and say there's a distinct possibility they won't find anything.
They may not find anything but it won't be because it is not there.
I'll reiterate the Strib, jethro, but this is the last time:
"But what if they don't? How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support? Those hard questions deserve some consideration beginning now"
How will Bush respond and what courses of action will the American people support?
He will respond by revealing what we know and showing Saddam to be the lying sack of s*** that he is. It isn't difficult to understand. You should even be able to get it, Rick.
If little boy bush and his poodle yelp and blare do know where the WMDs, germs, sarin etc. are being hidden in Iraq, why are they silent??
The inspectors are rightfully questioning the motivation of the US. The ultimate aim is to locate these, annihilate them - and then take out so dumb insane.
Some of Duane Barry's theories on little boy , the 911 attack may be true after all.
The inspectors are rightfully questioning the motivation of the US.
The inspectors are pawns in a big game. They are inconsequential and serve no legitmate purpose.
hey jethro - even if I do concede your blatantly partisan point about the inspectors - answer this. Americans and British say they have intelligence about the location of so dumb's WMDs. Why not declare them and reveal the GPS coordinates? Once exposed, the rest of the world will have to shut up. We can send Turkish, Pukisitani and Africans to wipe out the WMDs and our rangers to take out so dumb.
We will save a whole lot of money and American lives - with the 3rd world taking the hits. That should be motivation for someone like you.
- even if I do concede your blatantly partisan point about the inspectors - answer this. I doubt if it is partisan. I think all sides that have a grasp of what is really going on agree. The idea of sending in inspectors was agreed on by all parties for consumption by the gullible.
Americans and British say they have intelligence about the location of so dumb's WMDs. Why not declare them and reveal the GPS coordinates? Once exposed, the rest of the world will have to shut up. I believe they will do so if Saddam lies on December 8. It really is his last chance.
First of all, we do not have the GPS coordinates (please how dumb are you?). What we do have is proof of their programs, capabilities and what they are trying to develop. Why we do not tell what we know know is to wait and see what they admit to on Dec 8th. When they make that declaration then we will provide evidence that contradicts that and leave no doubt to the world that he must be removed.
Yesterday they found some shells loaded with mustard gas. The Iraqie response.....That was a mistake and it should have been destroyed.
Iraqi Commander:
Geez, where'd that come from?
The US agreed to inspections and approved the inspectors. If the location of Iraqi WMDs is known, what is the logic of holding it back from the inspectors who are our agents doing our dirty job. What more convincing scenario is needed than the inspectors unearthing the weapons sites in full view of the global media. What does waiting till the 8th buy the US strategically?
Does it not force the Iraqies to deny their existence out loud ?
(sort of in writeing)
Which they have been doing ad nauseum. Time to call their bluff by leading the inspectors to the sites - which little boy bush claims he knows.
Naradar,
Maybe this will help clear it up for you.
You asked.
If they have a good idea of where this stuff is I'm sure you will see it on every newscast.
What does waiting til the 8th do strategically ?
So they have the chance to declare it. They already obviously lied since they found shells loaded with mustard gas. It's actually a good move politically, they can say, o.k we gave them a chance to declare it. They said no WMD, well take a look at this........ Catching them in a blatant lie and showing WMD's AFTER the declaration that they have nothing is a very good move.
The other reason is that it could be a bluff too. They could be saying it and Sadamn might start wondering."O.K , what do they know ?" Wondering that and thinking that we do have specific info on WMD's might cause him to rethink his posistion.
Bullshit--- utter parrot-prattle. I doubt even drug-dealer can't hide his business without a trace let alone someone--- a country--- who is trying to manufacture evil-doer weapons of mass destruction. Under the bed indeed--- what the fuck are you smoking?
More prattle--- state-run media doesn't turn in its boss.
Or maybe not--- we'll never know because the CIA has comandeered our democracy is will only tell you what they want you to believe--- dumbshit.
The other reason is that it could be a bluff too. They could be saying it and Sadamn might start wondering."O.K , what do they know ?" Wondering that and thinking that we do have specific info on WMD's might cause him to rethink his posistion.
I personally think little boy bush is playing a game as stated above.
Well, it appears there is a 13,000 page document the UN has to peruse, absorb and digest.
Eid celebrations have started and all the Muslim world is partying . No inspections, no more from so dumb insane's side.
Let us see what we can prove to the rest of the world on the 8th. Any credible evidence corroborated by non-American and non-British observers seals the fate of so dumb insane. I hope we are finally able to close a chapter old geezer bush should have finished a decade ago.
If the location of Iraqi WMDs is known, what is the logic of holding it back from the inspectors who are our agents doing our dirty job.
No they are the U.N.'s agents.
So you also suffer from that Caucasian delusional paranoia about the UN do you? Afraid the virgin white landscape is going be polluted and overrun by us browns, yellows and blacks who will descend in hordes backed by the UN?? Tough - the advance force, led by folks like me has already entrenched itself here. Live with it and us!
Since we went to the UN and coerced/persuaded the security council to back our inspections request and since the inspectors were all approved by the US, they are our agents.
No, I think the UN is an ineffective organization with a majority of the members having adverse interests to those of the United States. Do you believe the UN put the inspectors in Iraq because we wanted them there? I think Mr. Annan and the UN put them there in attempt to stave off any US military action.
My oh my, Naradar. That was quite a racist statement.
More like paranoid, seeing racists under every bed. I am so sick of that overblown, hyped-up shit about Americans being racist. All -- and I mean ALL -- of the truly racist statements I hear and read come from brown and black people.
By Marjie Lundstrom
In Chico, a shy, 83-year-old World War II veteran and former naval officer surprises his son by attending an anti-war protest outside Rep. Wally Herger's office, where 21 are arrested.
In Sacramento, a land surveyor for the state rounds up his book group to attend three peace rallies in Sacramento and San Francisco.
In the Bay Area, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur creates a Web site whose current anti-war agenda has attracted nearly 600,000 Internet followers.
It has been four weeks since I wrote about the burgeoning anti-war movement and the flawed media coverage around it. The stories have been pouring in since, among them:
The Rocklin schoolteacher who worries about his students' futures. The 68-year-old "stay-at-home protester" who e-mails and writes his elected officials. The 64-year-old semiretired carpenter who proudly stages a war protest in Auburn.
There is the Sacramento attorney who sees her peace activism as a "matter of logic." And a father who drives his 12-year-old son to the Oct. 26 peace rally in San Francisco. A 51-year-old writer takes a ferry to the rally, too, because she is alarmed by President Bush's "frightening drive to war."
This is what the anti-war movement looks like -- not just the collection of fringe characters and political oddballs some news outlets portray.
Yet media coverage seems stuck in a 1960s and 1970s Vietnam War- era frame, with journalists confining themselves to protest stories and visual images reminiscent of those times.
Problem? The times are most definitely changing.
"This is a much more mainstream movement than the anti-Vietnam War movement was at a comparable stage," said Stephen Zunes, chairman of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. Zunes, who specializes in U.S. policy in the Middle East and nonviolent social movements, recently published the book "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism."
It is true that the Oct. 26 anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco were organized by the Workers World Party, not the least bit mainstream.
But that's logistics. Then you have to ask: Who attended? And who else is stepping forward to publicly oppose the war?
Say hello to your friends and neighbors.
Unlike the early days of the Vietnam anti-war movement, says Zunes, churches and labor unions have edged into this movement much sooner. Those speaking out against attacking Iraq already include the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church and, in this state, the California Federation of Teachers. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney has expressed reservations to both houses of Congress.
There are many pacifists, says Zunes, but there are also pragmatists this go-round. These are the people who question from a practical, utilitarian standpoint whether war would be good for American interests. They worry about an international backlash against America and the loss of American lives. They wonder what would happen after a war.
"Afghanistan showed it's easier to throw one government out than it is to put one together," he said.
While much of the news coverage focuses on noisy protests -- it fits the '60s frame, after all -- a less visible element carries considerable clout: those "stay-at-home" protesters.
Joan Blades, a Berkeley entrepreneur who co-founded MoveOn.org, an Internet-based group, posted a petition Wednesday urging Bush to let the U.N. weapons inspections process work. She expects to get 20,000 to 30,000 signatures in 24 hours -- not unrealistic for a group that raised $1 million in a few days for four anti-war candidates.
Luke Wilson, a 55-year-old land surveyor for the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, attended recent protests with his First Friday Book Club. As a young student, Wilson protested the Vietnam War, too.
But this is different. And if the media can't see that, Wilson can.
"Back then, it was a long struggle to get mainstream people on board with that movement.
Now," says the father of two, "we've already got them."
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
Get on board.
Don't be afraid to do the right thing.
The New York Times magazine today has a long and pretty interesting article where notable liberals weigh in on war with Iraq.
"Why is the Vietnam generation not marching against Iraq? The answer has something to do with Bosnia," reads the subhead.
There are long, compelling and complicated arguments laid out for and against. I won't go into them here, but the writer, George Packer, broke down the internal debate like this:
For War:
1. Saddam is cruel and dangerous. 2. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction and has never stopped trying to develop them. 3. Iraqis are suffering under tyranny and sanctions. 4. Democracy would benefit Iraqis. 5. A democratic Iraq could drain influence from a repressive Saudi Arabia. 6. A democratic Iraq could unlock the Israeli-Palistinian stalemate. 7. A democratic Iraq could begin to liberalize the Arab world. 8. Al Qaeda will be at war with us regardless of what we do in Iraq.
Against War
1. Containment has worked for 10 years and inspections could still work. 2. We shouldn't start wars without immediate provocation and international support. 3. We could inflict terrible casualties, and so could Saddam. 4. A regional war could break out and Anti-Americanism could build to a more dangerous level. 5. Democracy cannot be imposed on a country like Iraq. 6. Bush's political aims are unknown, and his record is not reassuring. 7. America's will and capacity for nation building are too limited. 8. War in Iraq will distract from the war on terrorism and swell Al Qaeda's ranks.
In today's NYT also
The Bush administration has alerted the C.I.A. and national laboratories to be ready to go into overdrive, homing in on a few crucial Iraqi claims that the United States believes it can show to be false.
But in private, administration officials concede that there is no single piece of dramatic intelligence that Iraq has continued to try to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
This is really worrisome if it proves to be true.
then GDubbya may not recover in time to remain in office, esecially if the economy is still stalled.
Recover from what? Do a Google search on Poll Bush Iraq.
He's got nothing to recover from.
The disdain for human life is so transparent in the opinions of Fold and reflected also in the sarcasm of THX.
This is war people - public opinion polls and election prospects should not be part of the equation.
This American propensity to reduce everything of import to entertainment and power brokering is truly apalling.
So - Iraq has played its hand - lets us see your evidence little boy bush.
Naradar,
So - Iraq has played its hand - lets us see your evidence little boy bush.
That's if there's any evidence left after it went underground. They had 3 months to hide everything they have in an underground bunker out in the desert. Good luck.
Let the evidence show what existed before it underground. Would add credence to the devious nature of so dumb insane and justify attacking Iraq.
I agree but that evidence is hard to find, not impossible but hard to find.
I don't think Bush is going to read that report from the Iraqis.
Why do you think that ?
I'm sure he's not, he has people to do that and summarize it and advise him on it. It's 12,000 pages afterall.
I agree but that evidence is hard to find, not impossible but hard to find. --- Luv2Fly
Mr. Fly! its a statement by your state department that US has 'concrete' evidence of Iraqi WMD :-)
Yes, and much like everything else, he gets his marching orders from the people that read for him. If it doesn't have an outline and a few interesting pictures, I am certain he won't bother to read it. Pure liberal propaganda. Too bad fold isn't smart enough to see through the lies.
What he should be doing, is concentrating on tracking down the Terrorists of the brotherhood of bin-laden, and containing Iraq. How do you know there isn't a connection?
North Korea had admitted it has nukes.
Now it has been caught red-handed proliferating Scuds and other WMD's.
The North Korean link to Pukistan - the hotbed for AQ - has been established.
And we are going to war with Iraq - with nothing more than a hunch and the word of little boy bush?
Tell me what is wrong with this picture people??
Nothing.
Naradar,
North Korea hasn't launched an attack on it's nieghboir since 1951.
They crapped in their own crib and their aid is being shut off as it should.
They also have at least addmitted it so we can proceed from there.
You guys went nuts when he called them evil. Well there you go.
The New York Times ran a long story over the weekend about South Korea.
Many, maybe most South Koreans, do not like the Axis of Evil sentiment. They think it's increased tension and decreased the chances for unification. Thirty-seven thousand US troops are becoming a heavy-handed presence.
There are signs on stores that say "Americans Are Not Welcome Here."
Rick,
I've been there, twice. Most of that is from the younger South Koreans, mainly the students and Dennis' Korean alter ego. The older people, a mojority over 30 I would say are fine with it because they realize a few things. We could leave, if we did, their economy would be devistated. Their borders would become very very vulnerable. They have very good troops, mainly the ROK Marines whom I trained with. They don't have the manpower or money though to do it thoroughly and they know that. I'm sure if they were able we would be asked to leave tomorrow.
jethro bodine 12/11/02 7:48am– like all other warmongering idiots , you are hiding your head in the sand.
I would like to present my scenario of why this Iraq war will land us Americans in deep, deep doggie doodoo.
Next February, we will go in and whip so dumb insane’s arse. Vaporize him. No one will cry – not even his kith and kin.
There will be euphoria in Iraq – some of our GI's will be kissed and some may even get laid.
This will be short-lived – so dumb insane and his henchmen are Sunni Muslims – a minority in Iraq. The majority Shias – same sect as in Iran – will eke vengeance for so many years of repression. The carnage will be gory.
so dumb’s partisans will all not vanish – they will lick their wounds and then hit back. Their targets – us Americans and the Sunni Muslims. There will be a civil war in a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, surrounded by six neighbors with their own agenda.
The neighbors
The Kurds in Iraq – and we know how they were treated - will occupy the oil city of Kirkuk and thus acquire a strong economic base for an independent state of Kurdistan.
Turkey, which has no oil of its own, will use the overthrow of Saddam to move into Iraqi Kurdistan and occupy the oil region of Kirkuk and Mosul. The Turks hate the Kurds as much as so dumb did.
The Saudi Royal dictatorship will make sure that the "contagion of western style democracy" implanted into Iraq does not spread to its kingdom and will undermine the post-Saddam regime.
The Mullahs in Iran - a Shia majority country - will assist the long-suppressed Shia majority in Iraq to get even with their erstwhile Sunni rulers who have governed Iraq since 1638. That means a long-running Sunni-Shia civil war.
Syria, which is ruled by Bashar Assad, who belongs to a Shia subsect of Alawis, will be sympathetic to the Shia aspirations.
This is a fucking Pandora’s box of a mess folks!!
Naradar:
I think, among the plans may be a division of Iraq to account for the various ethnic and religious groups.
Was it really a cohesive country from the start? Or was it something like Yugoslavia?
Luv2Fly 12/11/02 8:30am
I lived in South Korea in Chonju for a year and half in 1981. Working in different paper mills though. Were you in Osan??
if we did, their economy would be devistated
I doubt it. They are quite strong economically. Memory prices will go up and we may suffer.
Their borders would become very very vulnerable
This is the reason the older 30's want us to stay there.
The South had the lesson from Germany as an example of what integration could cause. They are not ready for it now. When they are, they will bribe North Korea and merge. The money barons there make this call.
I went back to Seoul a year and half ago. I was amazed and disgusted at the anti-Americanism and the spread of it among the professional class. We should get out of there - or we will end up with another tinder box.
Rick 12/11/02 8:46am
I fear that Iraq's natural and other resources will be ruthlessly exploited in the post-Saddam period, should the US and its allies (and oil companies) effectively control the country, directly or by proxy. I am cynical about Western altruism .
Iraq is like Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. Just like Tito , so dumb has suppressed and repressed ethnic conflict by his brutal methods. Look what happened there after Tito.
"Look what happened there after Tito."
More important, look what happened after Gorbachev.
You think he knew what would happen after the Soviets pulled out of Romania and Yugoslavia? -- You can bet he did.
Naradar,
It's been a while since I was last there so perhaps it has changed to some degree.
I would agree with you that the North and South will likely be reunited one day. I think we just disagree perhaps on the time it will happen. My guess would be in less than 10 years but not more than 3. I think it will be because the communist rule has failed so miserebly in the north that the north will do it out of nessecity due to their horrid economy infastructure etc. The south will reap those benefits and become much stronger and the support that the U.S gives them will no longer be needed or as much and that will be that. How China feels about that is a whole other can of worms since Pyongyang is a puppet state in many ways.