|
|||||||||
Posted March 29, 2003
Reasons
I cannot be called a war protester, nor do I care to be referred to as pro-war. I agree with this current war on the Iraqi leadership. I feel I have good reasons for supporting it.
I am also aware that there are thousands upon thousands of people around the world who are strictly against war. Is it 'this' war they're against, or all war in general? I have heard antiwar protesters say that Hussein and his regime needs to be done away with, but that war or invasion is not the answer.
I think we are all aware of the crimes Hussein and other Iraqi leaders are guilty of. Unprovoked attacks on Israelis and the murder of thousands of innocent Kurds.
The U.S. in cooperation with the UN has tried to disarm Iraq through diplomatic and armed efforts for 13 years. There has been 17 UN resolutions but to no avail. The Iraqi people are being led by a regime which blatantly refuses to cooperate in a peaceful manner.
The presidential administration has decided that if the Iraqi government will not cooperate (even under force of war), then that government needs to be destroyed, and the people of Iraq allowed to set up a better one. How is it even remotely possible to give Iraq her government back when they have a regime which will not cooperate or lay down their power peacefully?
What peaceful solution would have rendered the Nazi regime powerless? The US waited a long time to get involved in the second world war. What was the cost of taking no action? At least 6 million innocent people were maliciously murdered. 100 people are too many. Indeed 1 person is too many.
Thousands of Kurds have already lost their lives due to Hussein's testing his weapons on them. He wants to continue building his arsenal. He will not listen to words of peace. We wants Israel destroyed. He wants Kurds destroyed. Hussein does not care for his people, if he did, he would have left the country already.
So, which is the greater evil: Stand by idly and let Hussein continue building his arsenal and committing crimes against humanity, or to forcefully take that power away from him? In war, civilian casualties are a certainty. The Iraqi people will lose the lives of their servicemen, and innocent people. We will lose more of our troops. But we will never take the lives of the Iraqi civilians maliciously, as Hussein has done. All he has to do is throw up his hands and leave the country. Presto! No more war. Not only that, but no more chemical/biological weapons, no more innocent people dead, no more oppressive military led regime.
I am sure there are intelligent reasons for stopping this war and avoiding war in the future, but I have no idea what they are. The antiwar protesters must be led by an intelligent people with sure solutions, because of the passion they show. How do we rid the world of a regime who will only cooperate when there is a gun pointed at their own heads?
I've seen the stickers, picket signs, buttons, Internet sites, and heard the chants. I have not heard the solutions to this conflict or the arguments supporting the objection to war. That is what I'm missing. That is what I want to know. That must be the very spine of the antiwar movement. Why haven't I seen it? And what exactly are the answers?
Thank you.
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
Refraining from invading other countries is the cornerstone of peaceful international relations and "international law," such as it is. (After World War II Nazi leaders were executed for waging aggressive war.) Invasion violates the UN Charter, the rules of which the US government has officially committed to uphold, and by doing so violates the US Constitution, which requires the government to honor its treaties. The lawlessness doesn't end there: President Bush's authority to decide to invade Iraq was "authorized" by Congress, but Congress did not declare war as required by our Constitution. (The founding fathers considered executive war powers to be a danger to republican liberty.) The government's violation of its agreements undermines the rule of law and its invasion of a foreign country strengthens the rule of violence. Every one of the many profiles I've read of bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked the WTC says that anger at US intervention in the Mideast (US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, sanctions on Iraq, etc.) motivated them to shift from fighting their own governments to attacking Americans. More of the same is liable to bring more of the same.
And what is the result of the billions of dollars spent and the decades of intervention? A region full of brutal tyrannical governments. This is why claims that the US-led invasion will rid Iraq of oppression lack credibility. We don't have to claim that the US government supports brutal leaders like Saddam Hussein, because the US government supported Saddam Hussein himself, and during Iraq's biggest killing spree, the Iran-Iraq war. You write that we are all aware of Hussein's crimes. Is this because his crimes are unprecedented or because the Iraqi government is a "brittle" regime in a region of key strategic importance to those playing the great game of global hegemony?
I'd say the latter. According to aid organizations, literally millions of people have been killed in sub-Saharan Africa during the past few years – post-Rwanda. Yet all day long here at Backtalk we get letters about Saddam Hussein and zero letters about African leaders. We all know about Hussein's crimes because the government shapes the public's perceptions based on government aims and strategies. During the height of the killing in Rwanda, for example, government spokesmen were instructed not to use the word "genocide," for fear that it might fuel demand for military intervention in the geopolitically relatively unimportant region. (See the New York Times article "Critics Say US Ignored C.I.A. Warnings of Genocide in Rwanda" for more on this.)
It's very unlikely that the US even intends to bring democracy to Iraq. Polls show that the popularity of US foreign policy has just hit and all-time low, and it's especially unpopular in the Mideast. Without dictators in the Mideast this invasion would have been impossible. As many commentators have pointed out, if Iraq were a democracy, its Shiite majority would likely oust the Sunni elite and ally the country with "Axis of Evil" member Iran.
The Iraqi government didn't retaliate against Israel for bombing its nuke plant in the '80s, couldn't defeat Iran even with US help, lost the Gulf War, lost control of Northern and Southern Iraq, and couldn't shoot down a single US plane in a decade of bombing. It's doubtful, therefore, that Iraq is a serious threat to its neighbors, never mind to the United States an ocean away. So we should mind our own business.
Invasion of Iran
I am writing to you about the American invasion of the Arab countries, specifically Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.
At this point in time, the American military is invading Iraq and attempting to conquer it with military force. Previously, the American forces invaded and conquered Afghanistan.
As you know, Iran is situated between Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me and to many others here in America that the American government is positioning itself to invade Iran. Remember, the American government has a score to settle with Iran. It is no accident that the American forces invaded Iraq immediately after they invaded and conquered Afghanistan. The American forces are positioning themselves on the right in Afghanistan and on the left in Iraq. With American forces situated on both the right and on the left of Iran, it would be much easier to invade and conquer Iran.
The American government has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because it seeks to gain control of the Middle East. The American political leaders have openly confessed that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are just the first steps. Once American forces have control of both Afghanistan and Iraq, they will attack and invade Iran from both sides. This is the first phase of establishing America's one world government.
I and many other American citizens believe that the Arab countries should and can settle their own disputes without interference from America. If the other Arab countries were in fact threatened by Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran, they would have taken care of the problem long ago.
~ Rev. Michael D. Mowery, Jacksonville, North Carolina
Regarding "San Francisco Rabble Brings Discredit on Antiwar Movement" by Justin Raimondo:
Get real! I spent the day in San Francisco, and you were clearly on another planet! I saw a lot of committed protesters, and not a single threat towards others, much less an assault. It's clearly possible that a few people were out of line, but the majority were nonviolent activists (many in their business suits).
I appreciate your web site greatly. I don't know what this is all about.
~ Andrew Hudson, Mountain View, California
That was a great article. Finally someone is speaking up in regards to the ridiculous actions of these SF protesters:
I live near the SF civic center (ground zero for protests) and the only thing I have seen resulting from all this mêlée is:
Many SF
small business owners are edging closer to bankruptcy
Vandalized streets
Impoverishing the greatest, most liberal city in the country
Protesters please leave SF alone, I love this city and hate to see it ruined.
Napalm, DU, and Cluster Bombs
I'm surprised that Antiwar.com has not made more of the fact that US forces are using napalm (banned by the UN since 1980), depleted uranium weaponry and cluster bombs in a war that is ostensibly about preventing the use of such horrific and indiscriminate weapons. Although a Navy spokesman denied that Napalm was being used and said the US had not used it since the 70s, the source that reported it was a Navy officer who was involved in the battle. Also the US military already admitted on the pages of the New York Times (Feb 23, 1991) that it was using napalm to kill entrenched troops in the last Persian Gulf war (as cited here).
The use of cluster bombs in many ways is even more atrocious because of the enormous civilian casualties these indiscriminate weapons cause not only when they are dropped, but for months and years later. Cluster bomblets fail to detonate on impact 10-30% of the time, but can go off with the slightest touch by a child or innocent passerby, hurling shrapnel in a wide radius that can kill dozens at a time (source). This unexploded ordnance is difficult and costly to track and dispose of and has created a humanitarian nightmare in countries like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq and Kuwait. Yet we have had no compunction against using these weapons in densely populated areas during the past week.
Likewise, the use of depleted uranium (DU) ordnance poses enormous medical risks to innocent people for years to come (not to mention our own soldiers). DU shells vaporize on impact into a fine radioactive dust that poisons water and food supplies, and has been linked to elevated levels of cancer, birth defects, and other terminal illnesses. Although the US military now denies that there is substantial evidence of medical dangers, a 1995 report from the US Army Environmental Policy Institute (cited here) is among the many that concluded: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences." The World Health Organization recommends "cleaning" areas that have been contaminated by DU dust, but Nature.com reports that "removing the weapon debris is virtually impossible because its exact location is unknown." In the last Gulf war we dropped 300 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq and we can hardly expect that this amount will be less during the current massive assault.
Although the US is not a signatory to treaties that ban the use of such weapons, these weapons definitely fall in a class with banned chemical and biological weapons in terms of their horrific, widespread, and indiscriminate killing pattern. That we would use them to punish a regime's WMD ambitions is the height of hypocrisy, and to justify this use in the name of "liberating" people sinks War Party propaganda to a new low.
Regarding Albert B.'s letter posted March 12:
I wrote a letter, that was posted on March 12th, and not one response to my question.
I think that the one thing that is getting lost in this whole mess, is that 9/11 opened up a can of worms. If not for that tragic day, everything would be business as usual. 9/11 made us take a look at the possible threats and take action before it happened again. If we were attacked again how many of you would rant about how the government didn't take the necessary measures to protect us? I'm sure you remember the stories on the news about how government had some knowledge of 9/11 and did nothing.
Who was horrified watching the Towers crumble and watching jump to their deaths? I know I was! Ask yourself, "Does the Government have the responsibility of protecting us?" I think they do. Nobody was out on the streets protesting when we were bombing Afghanistan. Why? Because we had a damn good reason to be there! And now women are taking their vales off and men are saving their beards. Schools are being built thanks to many contributions from American government and people.
Saddam has been playing games with the U.N. for years. The same UN that people hold in such high regard, can't go to war without their approval, Saddam continues to defy or just ignore. He has had 12 years, this didn't happen over night. The U.S. and the UN started to apply pressure in November and he didn't fully comply. Only a handful of the approximately 300 scientist were interviewed, possible sites of interest were not disclosed. The threat of disarming by force was made clear long before any deadlines were given. Even if Saddam can't launch a missile to D.C. or New York, would selling weapons or WMD, to terrorist groups be a threat to us. I think it would be. So do we wait for something bad to happen again? Do you want to feel the way you did on 9/11 again?
I've seen interviews from defected scientists that said "The UN inspectors will never find the WMD, because of all the underground bunkers and tunnels Saddam has all over the city and outside the city." There is an Iraqi man in my hometown, that is now a successful businessman, who went on local T.V. telling how when he was a child, he was imprisoned for 3 months and regularly beaten for telling a joke about Saddam. And my best source is an Iraqi woman, that I know personally, who moved with her family from Iraq to the US when she was 12, now 22, and her horror stories of how people get beaten down in the street by the Republican Guard, just to show and remind everybody watching who's in charge. I'm sure all of you have been watching the News. When you hear one story, so what, two stories, big deal, but 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. – now you start believing. Or least paying attention. The people there do want to be Liberated!
I'm interested to see if Saddam does use Chemical or Biological weapons. After all, he has been denying that he even has them. If that happens I wonder how many Antiwar protests there will be then?
But after all my "ranting" I have a few questions for the Antiwar people. And please answer honestly and objectively. I can throw out rebuttals just for argument sake.
1. Who believes
that Saddam is an evil man?
2. Who believes that Saddam kills and tortures his own people?
3. Who believes that Saddam has cut off food and water to his own people?
4. Who believes that Saddam does have and will use WMD?
5. Who believes that Saddam has used WMD on his own people?
6. Who believes that Iraq would be a better, more prosperous country,
without Saddam?
7. Who believes that Saddam can be reasoned with?
8. Who believes that Bush is sending our troops in, for some of them to
die, for absolutely no reason?
If you answered yes to five or more, maybe were not so wrong after all. (All of you antiwar protesters, stay off the streets. People need to get to work and home, you take valuable resources, police, away from doing their jobs.)
Sam Koritz replies:
Albert B. said that he's a Gulf War vet "on the fence" about invading Iraq, and asked a logical question about it. Unfortunately, Backtalk readers didn't reply. I'll reply now to Albert's original question and leave his current letter for others to reply to.
As I understand his question, Albert was asking if opponents of invading Iraq think that the US government can reason with Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, and if not doesn't that imply that war is necessary. My reply is that Saddam Hussein did not use weapons of mass destruction against US troops during the Gulf War when the US military was dropping bombs on his houses and cars. (This was after the US obliquely threatened to nuke Iraq if Iraq used such weapons.) Supposedly, at one point the US blew up the car in front of Hussein's and the car behind his, and still Iraq didn't use WMD. Now the US and UK have promised to kill or capture Hussein, have invaded Iraq and seized more than half of the country's oil, have reportedly killed Hussein's son, and are surrounding the capital city – and Iraq has not used weapons of mass destruction. This does not seem like someone eager to attack Americans with weapons of mass destruction. If the US military withdrew from the Mideast, Iraq would have nothing to gain and everything to lose in attacking the US.
If the US military withdrew from the Mideast it would be in the interest of Iraq's neighbors to check any aggressive moves by Iraq, as Israel bombed Iraq's nuke plant and Iran fought Iraq to a standstill in the '80s. Saudi Arabia is well-armed and before the last Gulf War bin Laden offered his army to fight Iraq if Hussein attacked. There's every reason to believe that Iraq's neighbors would keep it check. This is a strategy known as "offshore balancing."
As for bin Laden, unless there's been some sort of conspiracy to frame him, he appears to have organized the 9/11 attacks; that is, he's a criminal suspect, and as such should be captured, not reasoned with. Invading Iraq seems to be helping his organization recruit.
Regarding Richard Perle Resigns from Defense Policy Board:
Yee-hah! It may be a somewhat minor victory, but a victory all the same. The entire antiwar movement should give itself a pat on the back and allow itself a feelgood moment. And then, get to working on how we can make the rest of them "resign".
Bush & Blair Show
Did you catch Blair's comment today during the short news conference after the scripted remarks? He attributed the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi children to Saddam Hussein's regime. To add insult to injury, he was the one who brought it up. Of course, there was no further discussion.
Voting Protest
I do not like this war, however, I don't think we should protest in the streets, George Bush has already said our opinion doesn't matter, I think our protesting should be done in the voting booths and then see how much our opinion doesn't matter, unless of course you live in Florida where your opinion really doesn't matter.
Regarding "Iraqi Pandora" by Justin Raimondo:
Whereas it is true that certain news media have perhaps overreacted to the fact that there is resistance to the US invasion and not the flowers and pretty girls scenario first envisaged, it is undeniable that US plans and the plans of their British stooges have been set back.
Before the war Basrah was supposed to fall in the first few days, it was a priority target. Now, two battalions of UK infantry supported by tanks and helicopters are trying to cover a town of 1.5 million before a backdrop of Iraqi sorties and probing attacks.
Before the war, it was thought that US forces would romp through to Baghdad which would surrender within weeks. Currently the slightly over two US divisions launched against Baghdad have been essentially stopped, In Najaf on the wrong side of two rivers and over 50 km from Baghdad (heavy artillery range is about 37 km), in the Mesopotamian plain between Nassiriyah and Kut and around Basrah where invasion forces have failed to secure the bridges over the Tigris.
While waiting for the US army's vaunted "digital" division to deploy in the gulf (this could take over a week), Saddam has now five or six days to grind US supply lines, sap US forces an act all beleaguered and noble to the eyes of the Arab people. Even the weather has helped him since the sandstorm and more astonishingly the rain are seen in the Arab world as a sign that god is with the Iraqi people. The Iraqis are an educated bunch and unlike Americans don't tend to buy into all this god sh*t, but wars have a strange way of playing with people's minds.
America can do nothing in this war that doesn't completely destroy the image which they tried to sell to world public opinion. If they persist in this sort of mincing about and engaging Iraq with just ground forces and discrete carpet bombing then they will be bogged down around Baghdad which red cross officials say has enough food and water to last at least until the end of April. If they start bombing indiscriminately (you know those missiles just ain't no reliyahble after jammin' sheeeat we aimed at them thug units down-ayre but it hit a field hospital instead sorry!) you all know the consequences of that.
Remember, every extra soldier on Muslim soil will inflame the crowds, every bomber flying overhead in Europe to blow away women and children will increase European bitterness and resentment, every humanitarian problem will be squarely blamed on the US.
Remember, every Iraqi who dies in the name of resisting invasion will serve only to reinforce the determination of his compatriots who will not have wanted him/her to have died in vain.
I don't think that a US victory is a foregone conclusion. For the sake of the thousands of civilians who have so far and will continue to be killed, maimed or handicapped for life, I hope for a quick end to this conflict, but at the present time the essential prop of the US invasion plan, i.e. that the Iraqi people would spontaneously rise up and overthrow Saddam, has collapsed. This is now a largely a military affair and a question, for US victory, of conquering and subduing a nation which does NOT want to be governed by the US.
Final question: Even if Saddam does fall... what makes you think that the succeeding government (assuming his overthrow occurs through internal dissent) will not continue to fight against the US ?
The faking of the documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to secure uranium from Niger is a story of epochal importance. A doctrine of preventive war is dangerous enough. If preventive wars are based upon trumped up indictments, the dangers increase immeasurably.
Hersh's story begs questions, which need the kind of relentless attention Raimondo has given to the matter of Israeli intelligence and 9/11.
1. I am quite prepared to believe that MI6 propagandists could be capable of such a forgery. But as CIA veteran Ray McGovern has pointed out, one would expect that they or the CIA (or indeed Mossad) would do a better job. However, given the fact that such a crude forgery was incorporated in Blair's dossiers, a significant number of people – either in the intelligence bureaucracy, or among the politicians, have to be knaves or fools: or both. We need to know who knew what when.
2. The CIA spokesman's contention that the documents were only obtained by the agency early this year, although they were the basis of both British and American official statements in September, cannot be accepted at face value. It could be true in a literal sense, in that the CIA might only have seen copies. But given the blatant nature of the forgeries, copies would have been quite adequate to establish the fraud.
The contention that nothing was seen by the CIA for many weeks after the public statements were made would suggest either extraordinary negligence on the part of the agency or extraordinary stonewalling on the part of MI6. There is something very fishy here.
3. Unless both CIA and MI6 are corrupt from top to bottom – which I very much doubt – there must be people in both organisations who are absolutely incensed by this. So information could be expected to come out, sooner or later.
The automatic rallying of peoples to their armed forces in war is a natural response. It is also what the Bushes and Blair's rely on – those Pied Pipers who seem determined to lead us all straight into the elephant trap the Islamic fanatics have laid. To combat them, we need to be explain to our peoples that they have been lied to.
$500 in Gratitude
The picture of the girl with the blown off foot broke something in my head.
I want to feel like I am one of the good guys again, but I don't know if that's even possible.
I have marched, I have written the politicians, I have called the people in charge, and I have now put my money where my mouth is.
Here is $500 so I can feel like the good guy one more time. It should help offset the money I "spent" earlier this year to pay for that bomb that blew off her feet.
Thank you for all the work you guys do.
Regarding The Fallen One's letter posted March 26:
Fallen One, you claim you are in the USAF? Didn't you look at the pic, those are Brits.
God, I hope you don't go into combat, might explain why the US has been killing Brits with friendly fire and not the other way around.
(If you see troops in green they could be ours in their NBC suits, please don't shoot them either.)
Regarding Sam Koritz's reply to Carter Mitchell's letter posted March 26:
I agree one hundred percent that politically motivated killing of civilians is terrorism. Whether done by Palestinians, Israelis, Americans or anyone else.
I appreciate the response, but the main point wasn't addressed. Eric's reply focuses on method of attack (are kamikaze pilots attacking warships terrorists?), while Sam Koritz makes a valid distinction between people financing a killing and those carrying out the killing. If the financing is involuntary (like our coerced income tax) then, Sam, you are correct.
The point is: is there such thing as an Israeli civilian? In the Marine Corps, when I swapped my uniform for civvies I didn't change stop being a Marine. How does universal service affect the status of the Israeli population? Are they or are they not all soldiers? I've never been there, and I don't know the situation.
~ Carter Mitchell, Gurnee, Illinois
Sam Koritz replies:
I stick by my original definition of civilian, someone who's not in the military. So, when you leave the Marines, you're a civilian. But even if you believe that anyone who ever was in the military remains a valid military target for life, there's still the question of people who are exempt: not just religious conservatives, but also, I believe I've read, Arab and Muslim Israelis (hope I'm not getting into a Macedonia/FYROM situation with the terminology here). And the handicapped. And children. Surely children and babies aren't valid military targets just because there's a very good chance that they'll someday join the army. Then there're tourists and migrant laborers....
Also, if only the fact that taxation is coerced exempts Americans from being valid military targets, the fact that Israeli military service is coerced should do the same, it would seem. And can taxation really be considered to be coerced? Aren't taxpayers able to avoid paying taxes by moving and renouncing citizenship? No, I definitely prefer my definition of civilian.
Regarding Eric Garris reply to Willie Watson's letter posted March 26:
A:
There's a difference between an SUV and a van.
B: In a war over oil, high consumption vehicles are most definitely an
issue.
C: Let's not bicker, though. I appreciate the job you guys are doing
~ Willie Watson, Prague, Czech Republic
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Dear Vehicle Commissar:
I won't bicker with you, as long as you don't try to take my money, life, or property. If you do, I will "welcome" you the way the Iraqi people welcomed the US military to Umm Qasr (my apologies to Tariq Aziz).
Macedonia Section
Where has the Macedonia section gone from your homepage?
Eric Garris replies:
I am sorry, but we have been unable to update the page for over a month. Just too busy with the Iraq war. Less than 10 people a day were still trying to access it.
If you would like to see the old page it is here: http://www.antiwar.com/maknews/macedonia.html
But for the most up-to-date Macedonia news, we strongly recommend MakNews: http://www.maknews.com/
Breaking the Law
Just so you know, I think you are welcome to voice your opinion and that right is protected by the Constitution; However, Please use common sense, use common decency, and remember that your rights bear responsibilities.
BREAKING THE LAW to PROTEST makes you nothing more then a CRIMINAL! Not a protester.
Eric Garris replies:
We have condemned the breaking of the law.
Here
is our spotlight from today:
and an editorial on the San Francisco demonstrations last week: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sfprotests.html
Regarding "Radical Ideas Require Conservative Style" (originally titled "Nation's antiwar left remains clueless") by Philip Gold, The Seattle Times:
Tony A: Radical Ideas Require Conservative Style? Please, don't make us gag. ... Is this the same King Channel 5 News's Philip Gold that you have spotlighted? There, they describe him as a "terrorism specialist"! What a joke! The article you highlighted is from the Seattle Times, which is a Randolph Hearst publication. Hearst is hardly a friend of the antiwar movement.
You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in trying to differentiate yourselves as being the responsible antiwar crowd, as opposed to the supposedly irresponsible Left section. Philip Gold is pure pro-war hackster, masquerading as a dove. Just pathetic that you would see fit to highlight his drivel. What next? Are you planning to publish "antiwar commentary" from Fox News soon? See if O'Reily has some supposedly antiwar bullshit to put online? That would about match this crap by 'Gold'.
Better yet, why don't all you proper Popular Front Rightists get together and demonstrate against the war in a Conservative PC way. I'd love to see it! I'll bring the apple pie.
Eric Garris: Sounds like he hit a nerve. It amazes me how some leftists seem to believe it is more important to satisfy their own political agenda then to unite to save innocent Iraqis. It also amazes me how so many leftists resort to the McCarthyite tactic of attacking the writer, and ignoring the substance of the article.
Tony A.: Let's see, Eric? But I think I attacked the article for not having any substance. In fact, I attacked it for being printed in your site, even though it showed no signs of having even been written by someone with an antiwar point of view.
This seems to be the current mode around the country, of daily newspapers printing columnists who supposedly are antiwar, but they just can't stomach people who are antiwar. Do you want me to send you the same gibberish by another writer in the Dallas Morning News with the exact same tome? And just like the Hearst press, the Dallas Morning News has never opposed any US war either. In fact, they specialize in always publishing cartoons of opponents of government policy, as being dirty, uncouth, and with flies buzzing around their heads. If I send it to you, you'll probably publish that column, too?
Oops, who is Philip Gold anyway? Here is another comment (see below) about why Gold is supposedly leaving 'Conservatism'?
Damn, Eric! It's so fucking incoherent as to not really be in the least bit understandable. It seems that Gold is just plain dissatisfied by all! You figure it out, ay? It seems that he has suddenly discovered that American conservatism is 'malign'! ...
What gets this guy's incoherence published? The fact that he lives in the ritzy Mercer Island section of Seattle might be a faint clue? But I don't dare venture there with you, Eric, because I know how sensitive you are about any signs of a class warfare attitude.
Still, I want to praise you for keeping your site going and being a source of much needed info. You guys are much better than the Common Dreams DP dreamers site. It's just that I searched the Internet far and wide to see just what qualifies Philip Gold as being an antiwar voice, and came up nothing for both him and his supposed 'institute', that he is said to head? ...
Eric Garris: Yes, as I said, you attack the writer and say it has no substance, but you don't tell what that means. In other words, you don't like it because we printed it and because you don't like it, and plus you don't like it because Phillip Gold wrote it because you think he is not important enough for you to listen to. How descriptive and open-minded.
Then you go on to explain other things you don't like, I guess to try to give me an idea of what your preferences are. But I get the message: If someone isn't approved by you, they have no right saying that they are against the war. I am sure the Iraqi people are happy to know that you are checking passes before anyone can get in line to defend their right to not be bombed by our government.
Why Now?
The silence was deafening from you people when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from antiwar groups. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, you want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change?
Eric Garris replies:
Not at all true. I went to many peace rallies during the Kosovo War. As a matter of fact, here is an article with a photo of me at an antiwar rally during the Kosovo War. We started Antiwar.com to oppose Clinton's illegal wars, as you can see by our history. Antiwar.com was started in 1995 specifically to protest the Bosnia War, and we expanded in 1999 during Kosovo.