Posted January 31, 2003

Regarding 'Beware the Ides of March' by Justin Raimondo:

May I suggest that Mr. Raimondo's essay "Beware the Ides of March" be amended slightly by adding (General) Brent Scowcroft to the list of gentlemen with distinguished military backgrounds who have questioned the wisdom of attacking and "conquering" Iraq. Although Scowcroft has not been in the limelight recently, his Wall Street Journal remarks back in August, 2002 are certainly in the same league as those cited by Mr. Raimondo, and no less applicable today.

Also, perhaps you could somehow temporarily highlight this whole collection of military folks who question the Iraq insanity with a little "spot" on your home page, similar to the way the "Bombing Iraq" material is currently displayed. This would be in keeping with Mr. Raimondo's suggestion that readers advertise those opinions as widely as possible.

~ Thomas J. Wiswell, Jacksonville, Florida

Canadian 'fan' here – recently started reading your site. Awesome work – it helps us up here understand what's really happening behind the scenes with our cuzs south of the 49th! Maybe our Prime Minister's Press Secretary was right, 'Dubya-General Ursus' is a Moron! She lost her job because of that remark, I am afraid.

~ Frank L., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Please tell me it aint so. Please tell me you don't watch East Enders.

~ Richard Millett, England

Great article.

I anticipated the incubator story again in the speech. How disappointed I was last night. It could have been the perfect rerun of a bad movie. Instead we listened to the hydrogen cars.

~ Tony R.

I agree with everything Justin Raimondo said about Bush and his State of the Union address. But what I find more appalling than the man himself is the sight of all those smiling lackeys out there jumping up and giving him one "standing ovulation" after another. They confirmed me, once again, in my decision to stop voting several years ago.

~ Gunsmoke

In the midst of all your antiwar delusion, you seem to forget that the worst president left unwillingly in 1999. If you can't admit that, then I'll have to classify you with the kooks.

~ Logical Intelligent Citizen

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

So everyone that disagrees with you about one political item is a kook? There are so many bad Presidents, I can't see how one can make such a judgment on someone who thinks that cancer is worse than a heart attack.

State of the Union

What a disappointment. You would think that the richest and most powerful nation in the world could find a leader with true vision, and a man who could lead the nation and the world by wisdom and diplomacy.

Instead we get this strange caricature of a leader, and a man so lacking in the requisite skills of his office that his only recourse is to revert to aggression and brutality. He appears to the rest of the world as an unsettling little despot, and a scheming JR who is fitting up evidence to justify diabolical plans. They do not believe his claims of altruism, and only see his plot to steal another country’s oil as an attempt to save his own troubled economy. They fear that the war he is pursing will at best achieve a false prosperity, and at worst create even more hatred and war throughout the world.

This is not a Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt, this is a Hitler.

Are the American people so arrogant that they believe they should hold the worlds oil in trust, and dispense it’s proceeds less expenses as they see fit? Are they so arrogant that they believe they can pull this off and the rest of the world will put up with it?

The United States plans to launch over 400 cruse missiles a day on the people of Iraq and to pattern bomb them with B52 bombers and enriched uranium. The cost of all this will be charged as expenses against future oil proceeds taken from Iraq. In effect, the people of Iraq will be paying for their own conquest and demise. This may solve the problem the United States has with its balance of payments and huge budget deficit, but will the rest of the world put up with it?

How will you explain this to your grand children? “Oh, I was very proud to be an American then, we stole all the world’s oil, and then sold it back to them. Hee! Hee!”

Will we be like the people of the Third Reich who had to try and explain why they supported the party and followed the Fuehrer?

Those who wish for war should be very careful. They just might get what they wish for.

~ William Shier

I purposely avoided seeing George Bush declaring war upon Iraq which I believe will be his first victim on the road to complete domination of the Middle East at the behest of Sharon's Likud Party and his loyalists at AIPAC. However, on the way to the john passing my TV set, then being viewed by others, I will never forget the framed photo of Bush backed by Cheney and Hastert. At the time I wondered how many other veterans, like myself, laughed at the absurd irony of seeing this – a president still AWOL from the National Guard; with two draft-dodgers to his rear: chickenhawks – a foul breed of fowl.

~ Stephen Billock

After watching the state of the union speech it is clear that going to the United Nations was just a charade. When the administration states that they have evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and is cooperating with terrorists why wasn't it given to the United Nations and its inspectors a long time ago? It is probably because it is a fabrication and would be released shortly before the attack so that researchers would not have time to expose it. Why should we believe everything the government tells us?

Before the Gulf war the government said that 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the Saudi Arabian border which was a complete lie. And we know about the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication. President Bush lied when he said that all the hijackers were Iraqis.

The President said in his speech that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and the USA. That is ridiculous because none of the neighbors except Israel want a war. Even if Iraq did have chemical and biological weapons they would not dare use them because of more severe retaliation. The biggest threat to peace would be an American attack on Iraq.

~ Kenneth D. Curry, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada

Regarding 'On Some Rhetorical Devices of the War Party' by Joseph Stromberg:

Thank you for your succinct and timely writing on the Orwellian cooption of the language by the War Party(ies)(read your president's speech) and its lackeys (clapping Reps) in the Ivory Towers and the box.

Your writings, along with Mr. Bock's, are two of the best out there and please keep pointing out the dangerous hypocrisy of the "Republican," "Conservative" and "Liberventionist" elite and its minions and toadies.

~ Chris B., former fighter for freedom now married and working at a Democratic Law Firm

A nice article indeed. However, I doubt Mr. Stromberg listens to rap. He should try some of it sometime. Sadly, its about the only thing in our pop culture with any depth. Certainly more than anything on TV or made by Spielberg. Now its back to another installation of Friends and then that neato article in People about Drew Carey's hair. Lovely!

~ D. Meister

I love Stromberg – even though the rhetorical ink that flows through his pen overwhelms his communication sometimes. I just wish he'd step down a step toward us mere mortals so I could use his complex arguments among the more simple-minded folk I call, in moments of emotional weakness no doubt, friends.

~ Chris McHale

Regarding 'Growing Up' by Justin Raimondo:

If the antiwar protests are going to be effective in stopping the surge toward war with Iraq, then they must become much more disruptive to the status quo in D.C. There have been no protests or rallies to disrupt Dubya's meetings, or speeches etc. Toward the end of Clinton's presidency Bubba couldn't make a speech, or go to his favorite vacation spot without being confronted by a very vocal group of protesters; and those numbers were very small compared to some of the numbers in the present antiwar rallies.

There is precious little time left to stop the present war with Iraq. Bush is meeting with Tony Blair at Camp David on Jan 31-Feb 1 in what will most likely be a council of war. If hundreds of thousands can march in DC and S.F., then there ought to be hundreds of thousands lining the government property of Camp David (which all of us taxpayers helped pay for) calling for an end to this war madness and for the permanent deportation of Tony Blair.

Hopefully all of the efforts of those in the antiwar circle will turn the tide toward a peaceful resolution with Iraq. There can be though no permanent peace for Americans until they come to realize that the greatest obstacle to peace in this world is the very government, military, and United Nations which their hard work is supporting. Bush has said it is his decision, and his alone, as to whether the U.S. government goes to war in Iraq. And he is right. The US government is a government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite. It, its military which is its ultimate enforcer, and the U.N. which is its international whore, must be dismantled by those it purports to serve; otherwise there will be more Iraqs for ever and ever.

~ DW

You've written a good article. I think that within the past couple of weeks there has been quite a backlash in many circles about ANSWER. The points you make in your "growing up" article are good ones.

I think that current emergent Antiwar movements should not let the mainstream media paint them with the brush as ANSWER. The new global phenomenon of grassroots groups organizing online, and creating on the internet real-time feedback loops that often render repeated lies impotent is not a product of the type of thinking that creates and group like ANSWER. It is a genuine global emergence that was spawned by technology and by the evolution of humans thought across the world.

United for Peace is planning what may be the largest single antiwar protest in the history of the world on February 15, 2003, as I am sure you know. Although some of the momentum responsible for this phenomenon has it's roots in thinking of the past (particularly with nonviolent resistance movements), an equal amount is a newly-emergent type of thinking that cannot fairly be lumped in with the old socialist/trotskyist/Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/etcetrist paradigms.

Part of the "formula" of a good deal of mainstream media reporting cycles is to eventually restore the "old order" when something new emerges. This includes making sure that the "antiwar" movement will still be the old tatoo-brandishing, nose-pierced, crazy hair-dyed, chairman Mao-quoting, stereotype we have all come to know and love throughout the '80s and '90s. Yet, the interactive environment of the Internet has allowed real antiwar movements to splash caustic on those facades and wake people up to their reality at the same time.

~ Sam Rose, The Billions of Minds Project, www.billionsofminds.org, Publisher, The Parallel Journal, www.zerohour.net/paralleljournal

I'm a libertarian lefty (meaning that you and I would disagree on how fair capitalism really is – but I don't wanna get into that right now), but I respect you and the original voice you bring to the antiwar movement. I agree that the lefties in ANSWER need to f*cking lighten up and let other people express their own reasons for opposition to war in Iraq, but not all of us are like that. I'm a firm believer in "Take help wherever you can get it, otherwise you'll get trampled." For instance, as you noted earlier, neocons, pro-Israeli government liberals, and the nutso Pat Robertson crowd have all allied themselves to support this war. The opposition must put aside its differences and do the same.

~ Brad Reed

Where Did Saddam's Missing Chemicals Go?

Much of the case against Iraq that Blix presented, and the US administration relies on, relates to the missing chemicals that Iraq possessed. Of course the US is in the best position to know of their existence, since the US or its allies supplied those same chemicals or their precursors to Iraq, for the purpose of their use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. So where are the chemicals? Much of the inventory was actually used against Iran, and for Iraq to admit that use to the United Nations will present a 'confession' of war crimes by the Iraqi regime. The UN will then have to demand war crimes trials for the guilty and the US will then go to war to capture the 'guilty'. So the Iraqi's are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

No doubt, those guilty of war crimes should be made to pay, starting with President Reagan and his administration who supplied Iraq with the chemicals in the first place. The present administration knows very well the 'fix' they have put on the Iraqi regime. The hypocrisy is sickening.

~ Ahmad K.

Apologies

Firstly as a UK citizen I would like to apologize for Tony Blair and his cohorts in the UK government. They do not have the support of the majority of UK public but seem determined to slavishly follow George Bush down the path to war. I have just listened to an interview with Jack Straw the UK Foreign Secretary and nearly puked up my breakfast at his moral certainty and unctuous hand wringing.

Secondly, I honestly cannot see that Iraq is a threat to the UK – we spent billions on a Trident to deter aggression – is our Government now saying it is useless?

Thirdly, I see that the US is thinking of using Nuclear Weapons in Iraq – is your Government out of its mind? When did nuclear weapons stop being WMDs? – is it only when US /UK have them?

~ Bob P.

Blessing Minus Disguise

I want to compliment everyone involved in the Antiwar.com effort on a job, very nearly without exception, impressively well done. I used to pride myself on my awareness of the political and social events around me and my world, much to the chagrin of social buddies. I like to inform people of things that are widely initiated and accepted by the "powers that be," that may or may not (but usually should) be of concern to even the lowliest of political ladder-dwellers, if for nothing else than to catalyze some sort of (what's the term? Ah, yes) individual thought process. How relieved I was to find your project, with its open-minded and consistently inquisitive viewpoints and editorials, so that I have a much more grounded and solid well of facts and opinions from which to draw for my own thoughts. I have the utmost respect for your editorialists for their constant refusal (or occasional, seemingly, failure) to pull punches or sugarcoat the issues they cover. I have been inspired to a point of being responsible to posting Antiwar.com stickers on messageboards across at least eight different college campuses, and that is no small statement from this self-proclaimed couch potato. Please keep up the good work! Your project serves as a beacon to those who hope and fish for a dwindling number of voices of reason on which to stand.

~ Logan Hansen

The Lessons of History

For the best part of the last 50 years, the US has protected the West from the colonial ambitions of the USSR – something which the West greatly appreciated at the time, but France and German have forgotten.

Perhaps your readers were some of those who foolishly believed that the soviet model was worth undermining our government for, back in the '60s and '70s.

Prior to that, the US were instrumental in delivering the world from the darkness of Nazi and Japanese imperialism. Back in '98, at a time when atrocities and bloodshed were reported daily, the dis-United Nations were discussing the form of words for an appropriate course of action to take in Kosovo: the British and the US went in and intervened on the ground to prevent further killing – and the way was cleared for a course of diplomatic and political action.

In the last Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, the Adolf Hitler of the Middle East, was defeated, the Americans doing the spadework, as usual.

You preach peace as if it was something people have never had to fight to preserve before. There is a greater peace than the relative but unsustainable peace of today – it is the peace we shall fight for, as part of a world safe from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Hussein's to come.

Saddam Hussein, the mass murderer, is laughing contemptuously at you, for your weakness, but he takes the US and Britain rather more seriously – their threat of war is, after all, the only thing that put the UN inspectors in Iraq in the first place.

While our leader gathers the moral courage to do what is difficult but necessary, for the future of our children, you will doubtless do all you can to undermine his and the Nation's resolve. It is a pity that your readership lacks the ability to learn the lessons of history.

~ R. Grant, UK, Ireland and Scandinavia, Oxford University Press

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

Are you sure that's Saddam Hussein's contemptuous laughter you're hearing?

Mossad 'Targeted Killings'

So Mossad has decided to assassinate enemies of Israel on American soil. A better headline might have been "Homeland Security subcontracts wet operations to Mossad". And why not? Let's face it, the US Constitution is already null and void.

~ Steven V., Bermuda

Rumsfeld's View of Europe

Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed French and German opposition to war, because they are part of the Old Europe. He can point to Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic Republics, other Eastern European republics, and to a few of the smaller southern European nations. In some ways the support of these nations can look quite supportive to the designs of the misters Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and the President. But, when one takes a closer look at the alliance one begins to smell something else rotten in Denmark – by the way I imagine Denmark is also part of the old Europe that has seen enough crusades in its day not to get excited about the newest crusade to make men free and spend everything taxpayers can dish out.

Most of what Rumsfeld calls "the new Europe" are struggling economies that like foreign aid. Sure they will support America. I imagine some of these nations will even send a hundred troops or so to the cause of democratizing Iraq. I imagine also they will received American aid for their economies or at least be given consideration when the next punitive tariff is set on other European countries for producing goods cheap enough to compete with ours. You can pretty well bet that none of these nations will send more than a few troops to the desert dance, and that they will expect payment for proprietary rights when their names are used and advertised in this year's "Exxon-BP Crusade to rid the world of terrorists and all free radicals and to make the world safe for democracies" approved by the noble hegemons in Washington.

In other words, Rumsfeld has distinguished between an old Europe that has the economic capacity to make decisions separate from how many falling dollars flow to them from Washington, while the new Europe is still ripe for being persuaded by dollars, even if these dollars are falling in value every day because every one else in the world knows that this war and the implementation of the vision of our hegemons will bankrupt this nation. Or in simple terms, the Old Europe has accumulated enough wealth not to need American dollars, and the New Europe can still be bought by American dollars to lend their names but not much else to the cause that presently excite our noble citizen warlords. All Mr. Rumsfeld wants is to buy a few names for support of the crusade, and the basket case economies of Europe are willing to sell their names for this cause, but they won't be able to send many troops to the desert dance, maybe next time, but don't expect it.

One last thing. Their support will be rewarded by the very grateful American taxpayer who is always patriotic in their support of wars deemed important by our leaders. Who can be against our cause? How can you be, we don't even know what the cause is yet!

~ Dan McDonald

Regarding Sam T.'s letter posted January 27:

When someone like Sam T. writes, it provides an opportunity for you to encourage conscientious objection and to explain the history of resistance in the armed forces, including during the last Gulf War.

Sam T. seems like someone who might become very inclined to resist if given the idea, encouragement, and historical and other resources. When you print a letter like that, at least give a quick answer with links to CCCO and related organizations.

~ Martin B.

I know many soldiers wanting to hit the hills for Canada. Are there organizations that will help them if they run from their duty? Many of these people are young men and women who were promised the world when they signed that dotted line, and now they see what a mess they have gotten into. I am trying to research this for them, but I am coming up empty. Please get back to me.

~ LA

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

The best resource for them is this organization:
http://objector.org/.

Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Past, Present and Future" by Ran HaCohen:

As intelligent Ran sounds, his intelligence and arguments are flawed by starting his rhetoric way downstream from the causal issues. Nation building has been around for thousands of years and in many cases the very process creates issues that must be dealt with in some manner. Understandably the arabs did not want the Jews to have a homeland (a nation). The Arabs deal with it in the way they know best, they tried to destroy Israel and still do time and again, with any means possible. Arabs would, in their own words, "push the Jews into the sea" if they could. The fact remains that unless and until they do destroy Israel, the Arabs have to live with the Jews in their region. You don't really believe that a few million Jews want a perpetual war with a quarter billion Arabs, and an additional one billion muslim supporters, do you? If you can talk about the Holocaust and the current palestinian situation in the same breath you are truly not one capable of getting your arms around what it takes to live in peace.

...Issues of displaced Arabs should be worked through peacefully. Until the arab leaders are willing to recognize Israel's right to exist, and negotiate as one voice, peacefully, the result will be loss of human life. Israel must protect it's citizens which means very tough existences for those poor displaced Arabs I hope for peace, but not by the finishing of what Hitler started.

~ Ozzie Katz, California

Ran HaCohen replies:

Prejudice is always an excellent starting point, but following the news occasionally is also recommended. "The Arab leaders" have all (except maybe Iraq and Libya) recognized Israel's right to exist. Egypt has done so since 1978, the PLO since 1993, Jordan since 1994 (with many North African and Gulf States following), and all the others not later than at the Arab League Conference last April, that even issued a detailed peace offer. Israel's immediate reply was "Operation Defence Shield", the massacre in Jenin, and the ongoing dispossession and strangulation of the Palestinians.

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

Capitalizing "Jews" and "Israel" but not "Arabs," "Muslim" and "Palestinian" would seem to be a calculated insult to whole religious and ethnic groups, an approach that's unlikely to convince Israel's opponents of its supporters' peaceful intentions.

Regarding Bevin Chu's reply to Radomex's letter posted January 27:

Bevin Chu writes: "Reject any political movement grounded in ethnic identity." Does this include the "independence movement" of the Chechens, as well?

~ Steven Small

Bevin Chu replies:

Libertarian political philosophy is a rigorously consistent philosophy based on individual free will. Any American who wishes to side with either Chechen separatists or Russian nationalists may do so on an individual, voluntary basis, the way many Americans fought in the Spanish Civil War.

What libertarian political philosophy rejects is the notion that some Americans may compel others to bear the burden of wars they favor. If Mr. Small is morally outraged by some foreign political circumstance, he is entirely free to volunteer to fight for the side he favors. He is not morally justified in using the American military or American taxes to compel other Americans to assist the side he favors. Either side.

This is true for any other foreign conflicts as well. Taiwan or Tibetan independence advocates who are US citizens are free to return to China and fight wars of secession if they choose. They have no right however to compel other Americans to support their causes with either their blood or their taxes.

Regarding "Target: Scott Ritter" by Justin Raimondo:

Justin Raimondo needs time travel to explain a conspiracy to discredit Scott Ritter for his criticism of the Bush administration on its Iraq policy, since Ritter's arrest was in June 2001 – when Ritter's Iraq position was still largely in agreement with the Bush administration. Isn't it more likely that his arrest is just the tip of the iceberg and Ritter has been blackmailed into changing his position by a foreign intelligence service?

~ J. Neil Schulman

Regarding Backtalk editor Sam Koritz's reply to Kenneth Sterling's letter posted January 21:

Deebee: I found the response to Lt. Sterling's letter very unconvincing. I think you can do better.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "Since you're interested in history, I suggest you read The Pity of War, by prominent British conservative historian Niall Ferguson, which describes how reckless British interventionism helped create the conditions in which the world war disasters occurred. Between the world wars, Britain's allies imposed sanctions on Germany, much like (though arguably less deadly than) the US/UN sanctions on Iraq."

Deebee's comment: ...You're reaching here! I would ask why did Britain and her allies impose these interventionist sanctions? World War I ring a bell?

Sam Koritz's reply: The Pity of War's full title is The Pity of War: Explaining World War I.

I mentioned the inter-war sanctions on Germany to challenge Mr. Sterling's comment about British appeasement. Since Britain and allies militarily intervened in German affairs prior to World War II, it's not self-evident (to say the least) that the lesson of World War II is that non-interventionism leads to war.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "Who is the aggressor? A government possessing weapons of mass destruction has threatened to invade a country whose government may be trying to build them."

Deebee's comment: You conveniently left out a government more than willing to use them.

Sam Koritz's reply: Both governments involved have demonstrated their willingness to use WMDs – see, for example, "The US has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon," LA Times, January 26.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "There's plenty of evidence that the UN/US sanctions are killing more people than is the Iraqi government."

Deebee's comment: Doesn't that say something?, given the opportunity and the wealth Iraq possesses to buy health care. They choose instead to buy Silkworms.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "It should be noted that the Bush administration's preemptive defense argument resembles the Nazis' justification for invading the Soviet Union."
  

Deebee's comment: The Nazis had their own problems if I recall. The Soviet Union had a dictator at that time named Stalin, remember?

Sam Koritz's reply: Your comment doesn't seem to have any bearing on the point I was trying to make. Mr. Sterling mentioned Nazi conquest as an example of unacceptable aggression; one of the Nazis' attempted justifications for this conquest was the preemptive "defense" argument; one of the Bush administration's attempted justifications for invading Iraq is also preemptive (actually, preventive, as Alan Bock has pointed out) defense, yet Mr. Sterling is in favor of an invasion.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "Iraq hasn't invaded anyone in over a decade."

Deebee's comment: And? Are you suggesting Saddam deserves a boy scout merit badge for this?

Sam Koritz's reply: What I'm suggesting might not be clear from the sentence fragment you quoted but it should be clear from the whole sentence: "British appeasement refers to that government's failure to stop Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia; Iraq hasn't invaded anyone in over a decade, the US is threatening to invade Iraq." My suggestion is that stopping an invasion and invading are very different things.

• Quote from Jan. 21 reply: "...number of Japanese civilians killed by US nuclear weapons."

Deebee's comment: Saddam gets a medal for not using WMD's for a decade, what does Uncle Sam get for not using them for 6 decades? and then in a war in which the US acted exactly the way the Antiwar.com folks are saying we should act now. ...

Sam Koritz's reply: No one said Hussein should get a medal, just that Iraq shouldn't be invaded. The US government might not have nuked anyone lately, but every other organization in the world has never nuked anyone.

Deebee: War in Iraq is not the answer, but for reasons other than those you listed!