Posted April 7, 2003

Now, True Shock and Awe

I am in shock that, after only just over two weeks, the invader managed to get its hands (or close enough) on such a high price as the Baghdad Airport, and in awe at how ineptly the Iraqis defended it. They did not even booby-trap it! That was the minimum promised "non-conventional" reaction I was expecting. The General in charge of Baghdad's defenses was truly an idiot (might have been a criterion to be allowed to reach such high rank in Saddam's world), or he's already after a piece of the post-Saddam pie. The subsequent incursions into Baghdad are unfortunately not just psy-ops lies, they are truly signs that the end is near.

As a non-American, I am becoming truly afraid of the consequences of such an easy Rumsfeldian victory. Trying to appease his gang is becoming an ever-more futile exercise.

As American non-neocon non-fundamentalist Republicans, I guess you probably have even more to fear. The Rumsfeldian clique will undoubtedly exploit your anti-Gulf-War whatever-the-number stance to try to ridicule you into oblivion. The French Republicans? Kid yourselves not about the George Bush Sr. scenario: the recession that brought him down has already happened. And even if the Iraq-nation-building exercise keeps the recession long enough to last till 2004, the guys have other wars up their sleeves. They'll do the most controversial one, the Syria one, now; they'll keep the one that could get them most votes, even at the U.N., for late 2004: the Korea one. Take your pick when they'll fit in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China (for Taiwan), France, etc. 2008 gets you rid of George W. Bush, but not necessarily any of the other ones.

It may be an exaggerated feeling, but I truly feel like in 1938. Appeasement is tempting, and I am sure that the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan are thinking very hard about it, but it won't work. Does someone need to sell the secret of Patriot missiles to any present or future AOE country? All the public associates Patriot missiles with (mostly failed) attempts at shooting down SCUD missiles; very few realize that these things were actually designed to shoot down planes, and are very good at it. Do you need to start an all-out war within the GOP? I am not a politician, I don't know how one could win one like that. Even if I did, I am a foreigner, so I can't tell you – unless, of course, I ask the U.S. Army to do that liberation for you.

It's a wonderful, wonderful world.

~ Jacques M., Canada

Friendly Fire vs. WMD

Does anyone find it ironic that we killed more of our soldiers with friendly fire than Saddam did with his nonexistent WMD? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

~ BK

This Invasion

I am not a political person but the invasion of Iraqi has left me feeling angry and frustrated because of all those innocent people of Iraqi who are being killed in this invasion. I just cannot bear the destruction of all those buildings day in and day out. The people of Iraq are only welcoming the soldiers out of fear. Those who think that the Iraqi people are genuinely welcoming the soldiers are deluding themselves.

I am a black Zimbabwean. Robert Mugabe is killing people in Zimbabwe, is he next on the list? I fear not because there is no oil in Zimbabwe.

I feel totally wretched about this invasion.

~ Caroline Fletcher

Invitation to Send Money

What I really like best about your site is the invitation to send you money (for the cause of course). You will even allow me to use my credit card. Now that's convenient! It's like one stop shopping. I can read stories which make me feel more comfortable with my world view, and you can make money. After the war is over and the credit card contributions begin to slow down, what will be the next cause for you to profit from. I know you won't print this, but I think you are well aware that us neocons aren't the only stupid people around.

~ Jim Baker, Denver, Colorado

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

I'd really like to know what this is all about: for a while we were receiving completely inaccurate emails accusing us of being Democrats who didn't object to Clinton's wars; now we're getting one after another similarly misinformed emails claiming that the site will no longer have a purpose once the US military has completed its occupation of Iraq. Is someone coordinating this effort? Or do whole tribes of Machiavellian nationalists receive erroneous information simultaneously through some form of the supposedly discredited Hundredth Monkey phenomenon?

We await clarification, but for the time being suggest that before emailing us critics should peruse our new F.A.Q. page. On this page you can learn interesting facts about Antiwar.com, such as this:

"At the end of 1995, the editors registered the domain name Antiwar.com. The site only became a full-time effort with the beginning of the US intervention in Kosovo."

See, AWC didn't form to take advantage of opposition to this most recent act of superpower aggression, but formed several years and wars ago. While we would love for the site to become irrelevant, unfortunately it seems that the US government will persist in stationing troops in dozens of foreign countries, funding foreign governments' military violence, and attacking countries that never attacked or threatened the United States. The costs of this global hegemonism are rising as American "soft power" decays. (Most of America's allies now disapprove of US foreign policy.) Antiwar.com's mission will be even more vital after the "successful" overthrow of the Hussein government.

As for neocons not being the only stupid people, it seems to me that anyone who is politically aware enough to identify himself as a neocon is probably relatively well educated at least.

Regarding "World War IV" by Justin Raimondo:

Being German, I cannot but agree with our Chancellor Mr. Schröder who has to decide not to follow the US government into Iraq. 80% of all Germans share his opinion. Even the Turkish minority in Germany was suddenly talking of "our government" when Mr. Schröder defended his position against the "Neocons" in your country. This was quite a new experience. Let Bush, Rumsfeld, and Perle and call us cowards. The Islamic countries are just a few jet-hours away from Europe. All our countries have now large Muslim minorities who live together with us, and pay their taxes. Shall we declare war on them, and put them in concentration camps on behalf of some Washington lunatics? I don't think so! Once a year the Muslims in Germany offer an "open door day" to the non-Islamic public, where the principles of Islam are explained, and prayers will be exceptionally held in German instead of Arabian language.

After the shock of 9/11 an increasing number of Germans took that opportunity to inform themselves about Islam which is more than just a few terrorists. This really helped to ease the situation. "Old Europe", as Donald Rumsfeld called us (we take it with pride) should continue this way.

Yes, the USA has done a lot to defend freedom of the people in Western Europe. Consequently we should support the American people who are fighting monsters like the Patriot Act, and other laws the restrict the civilian rights of a US citizen imposed by the Bush government.

~ Wolfgang Stephan

I agree that it has arrived and that securing Israel's rightist-wing's agenda is behind much of the conflict. However, it's very important to point out that what the Israeli right-wing agenda is about in every article. In other words, the point has to be made time and time again that the vast majority of Israeli's don't live in the West Bank or Gaza and that the vast majority of Israeli's would agree to withdraw from this land to form a viable Palestinian state which is of course would be an equitable solution to the conflict at the heart of World War IV. Only about 400,000 settlers live in the West Bank and Gaza and probably about one-third of those would be prepared to fight and die for their "G-d given right" to own this land (as they claim). However, of course the Sharon/Likud government is the major supporter of these 150,000 religious zealots.

Thus the bottom-line is that America's launching of WWIV is on behalf of these 150,000 or so fanatics so that they can occupy this few square miles of biblical territory which of course forces the ongoing conflict with the 3 million Palestinians who live there. That's one big reason why US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying right now with many more to come. The terrorism supported by Iraq and Syria is against the Israeli occupation and not Americans but they will undoubtedly be next on the list to get in line – or else!

A much better alternative to going to war with Iran and Syria next is to force Israel to end the occupation and give the Palestinian's their state. This America could easily do, of course, because it's US Dollars (billions annually) that prop up the fanatic settlers and the settlers government. But your leaders have chosen to go to war with 1.2 billion Muslims rather than take on the 150,000 settlers and their government. It's undoubtedly a very bad choice in the long run.

~ David Woolfson, Toronto, Canada

Right on! Now that we 'liberated" their country out of goodness of our heart, only makes sense to give them the oil proceeds and rebuild country for them, right? Whole damn thing makes me so mad want to chew keyboard. Keep right on swinging and I'll keep educating and talking!

~ Bruce A.

Shadowy Danger to Civilization

What a brilliant idea to leave Saddam alive. When things go wrong in occupied Iraq, he can be blamed. When ordinary Iraqis balk at the occupation, it can be attributed to the fact that Saddam is still alive. All kinds of things can be done and then blamed on him; he can become another Osama Bin-Laden – an ever-present, shadowy danger to civilization.

~ R.O.

Regarding Mr. Wells' letter posted April 4:

...When the country is in financial and moral lows, when the work force is out of work, it stands to reason (certainly, the Bush Administration has seemed to reason thus) that Military Recruitment for the neocon's hoped for wars will become much easier, faster and more voluminous. Could that be?

~ Oma C.

Regarding "Why the Left and Right Must Unite and Fight" by Neil Clark:

Your article is very thought provoking and it made me start thinking about imposed liberalism in so called free countries making individuals feel trapped and increasing prejudice, for example over asylum seekers. It seems that if the government is saying we should be liberal, people become more intolerant of one another. My views on liberalism have changed dramatically since the start of the war, and I now understand why my mum laughed when I said that I was only intolerant of other people who were intolerant. I'm quite embarrassed about that now.

Also, I thought you would be interested to know that Starbucks is skcub rats backwards – telling isn't it?

~ Ayisha Bari