Posted October 10, 2002

For the Children?

As Mr. Raimondo well notes, politicians always claim they (have to) go to war "for the children". But, of course, it is exactly the other way around. For the sake of the children, they should not go to war.

It is worth noticing in the picture you have featured today [October 7] just how young those Italians marching against the war are. It is precisely because they are young that they don't want the politicians' senseless wars. They have a future to live. That's why the organizers of a youth march for peace in Turin last Saturday were so successful (30,000), because they used the slogan "Il Futuro Sei Tu" (You are the future).

~ Maria Cerritelli

Prediction

Regarding "Call Congress," by Justin Raimondo:

I have a prediction about what your campaign to stop the war will accomplish: nothing.

Although I don't agree with many of your political views, you are easily one of the deepest thinking and most thoughtful of the idiot pundit class (although your smart-alecky insults tend to diminish your message and limit your appeal). However, when even you allowed your hatred of Clinton/Gore to blind you to the way the Bush thugs stole the 2000 election, the fate of our country was sealed.

"They've stolen the election and gotten away with it," I thought at the time. "What is going to stop them now?" With a sinking realization, I realized what you are about to discover: nothing will stop them.

The best we can hope for is a massive economic crash that will finally jar the public out of its stupor. When the average American realizes that it is far too costly to give power to such a vain and imperious regime, this madness might pass. But I hate the thought of all the people I love struggling through such bleak times, so I am beginning to think that maintaining my sanity might require a complete withdrawal from the events of the day.

So merrily we trip along, our "decent" President (your word not so long ago) guiding us closer to the abyss, reckless with religious conviction. Even as I write, a crowd of robots is cheering his bloody rhetoric. May God bless America, because if She doesn't, we are all doomed.

~ Bernard Gundy

Poll Numbers

Regarding "Call Congress," by Justin Raimondo:

Thanks for the Pew poll numbers item in your latest column.

The reporting on the poll numbers has been interesting, if peculiar.

Despite headlines like: "Majority agrees with Bush policy re: Iraq," actual poll numbers I've seen over the last two months have consistently reflected that a strong majority of Americans don't want Bush to act alone, and thus certainly don't support Bush's plans.

One example: these latest Pew poll results match CBS poll numbers -- that have "changed little in the past two months."

From the CBS September 24, 2002, poll story:

"But there is still the desire to wait before acting against Iraq -- for the U.N. and for U.S. allies. In this poll, 61% say the US needs to wait for its allies before taking any action, and 31% think the threat from Iraq is such that the US needs to act now, even without the allies' support. That has changed little in the past two months."

The Washington Post/ABC poll, too, has showed significant opposition to a unilateral invasion of Iraq for some months, although not as high as 61 percent.

Here's a quote from the story accompanying the latest poll (September 29, 2002):

"... When voters were asked whether the United States should launch an attack over the opposition of US allies ... 47 percent [were] opposed and 46 percent in favor. Also, a majority (52 percent) said they were more worried that Bush would move too quickly to challenge Hussein, while 40 percent said they feared he would not move quickly enough."

Again, this is certainly not "a strong majority supporting Bush's plans."

~ Jennifer P., California

Traditions

Regarding "War For Frivolous Reasons," by Alan Bock:

I agree there is no real justification for the imminent aggression aimed at Iraq (I wish people would stop describing what is about to happen as a "war." It is nothing of the sort. It is naked aggression, plain and simple). What I find curious is your short memory. The country "whose traditions and stated ideals" you love has been an aggressive belligerent for years. Of the top of my head Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Serbia come to mind. Yet you claim you will not be able to recognize your country if it attacks Iraq. It seems to me it has not been recognizable for decades.

~ D. Stojanovic

New Rulers

I've just read, The New Rulers of the World by John Pilger. It ties together a great number widely unknown events that has led us to this particular crossroads in history. The New Rulers of the World has an ominous ring of truth. I assume you are aware of this book. I think it would be appropriate to promote it as an excellent synthesis of what we have missed reading in the popular press.

You are doing a wonderful job for the people of the world at Antiwar.com. I applaud your efforts!

~ Dave H., Australia

Suggestion

There are a lot of cynics out there who doubt president Bush's case for war against Iraq. Bush says that, if the US goes to war, it will be to: remove a dangerous dictator; neutralize Iraq's WMD threat; clear out a terrorist haven; and, liberate the Iraqi people -- Bush has cast the US as a purely selfless actor. The cynics are not impressed -- they say that the coming war is all about the US grabbing Iraq's oil.

In order to defeat this cynicism and further secure support for action against Iraq (if needed), it is imperative that president Bush immediately proposes, and congress approves, a bill that would ban US oil companies (and oil service companies, like Halliburton, Inc.) from doing business in a post war Iraq for a period of at least 10 years.

~ Lloyd G.

Alaska Oil Tradeoff?

...An impeccable question could be whether the "Greenies" and peace-loving Americans will trade the target AWAR land area in Alaska in exchange for the interior larger portion of land offered by the government to preserve wildlife, and possibly spare the lives of soldiers in a trumped up war with Iraq. Will antiwar Americans allow Congress to pass the House approved HR 39 bill as a tradeoff for a short war, possibly even no war at all? Could we get a tradeoff if the House gets HR 39 passed in the Democratic Senate? ...

The Alaskan Senator (R) laid out the HR 39 Bill on Friday afternoon and if I was in on any part of the leasing rights or had the possibility of getting in on it I would pass the HR 39 Energy Bill immediately. He has the case against war ironed out to the exact point, where cutting off Saddam's cash flow is the greatest means to ending war before it starts. As the senator said, we are 70% responsible for Saddam's present cash flow directly in relation to America purchasing oil from Iraq. ...

The senator from Alaska said there is enough oil in that small area of Alaska for the next 40-50 years. That's a big long-term profit as well as more jobs and more taxation of workers to keep Congress alive and well way into the future. ...

We don't have to get oil from Saddam if we can get the land from the peace-loving American people. Maybe we can take the land while all of America focuses on "to War or Not to War." Let's keep on observing the flow of oil to see just when the Energy Bill gets passed. It may coincide exactly with a stricter Resolution on the Use of Force in Iraq that wins brownie points for the Democrats with the people. ...

~ TM

Editor's note:

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz is profiled in the Real World section of October's Smart Money magazine (print version only, not available online).