Antiwar.com Blog

The always intriguing Paul Cantor on imperialism vs. trade in the Black Sea hood:

What drove one empire after another to try to take over the Black Sea, despite the enormous expenditure of resources, human and material, that was always involved? Different motives were advanced at different times. But beneath the variety of religious, ideological and other impulses feeding imperial designs upon the Black Sea, one assumption remained central: that to have influence in the area, and to benefit from its resources, one had to conquer it militarily and also forcibly impose one’s way of life on all the people of the region. But an alternate model of penetrating the region was, as far as we can tell from the archaeological evidence, always available. Merchants plied the Black Sea far in advance of their homeland navies and armies, showing that peaceful trade could accomplish what warfare, with all its dreams of imperial conquest, could not.

Asks this fellow, who thinks we’re leftists. I just love political commentary straight from the medulla oblongata: Bush right. Antiwar not Bush. Antiwar left. Left bad. (He must have hated watching this!)

If our esteemed detractor wanted commentary on Saddam’s capture, he could have checked the regularly updated main page, of course. And because I know he wants to be informed, here are some other reactions from our blogroll FOBs:

*Jesse Walker

*Keith Halderman, Wendy McElroy, et al., over at Liberty & Power

*Micah T. Holmquist

*Franklin Harris

*Deux Ego

*Karmalised

An incomplete list to be sure, but a wide range of opinion, I’d say. But don’t worry, my warbot friend: after reading the posts above, you can wash your mind out with Instapundit and Jeff Jarvis. Everything’s gonna be fine.

U.S. soldiers Monday used batons to break up a demonstration in Tikrit to protest against the capture of Saddam Hussein near his hometown.

About 700 demonstrators gathered outside Tikrit University chanting pro-Saddam slogans. Soldiers shouted back “Saddam is in our jail.”

Shorty afterwards, US soldiers charged the protest, beating and arresting some protesters.

Lt. Col. Steven Russell said that
“protests are not authorized and that participation in protests is punishable.”

Meanwhile, there are numerous reports of anti-Saddam demonstrations that are not being broken up, even though they are also not authorized. Many of these protesters are freely firing guns in celebration without any arrests.

UPDATE 12/17/03: US troops killed several protesters as pro-Saddam demonstrations continued across Iraq.

From Bush’s speechwriter to God’s press secretary. From today’s Diary:

My take on the capture of Saddam will appear in tomorrow’s National Post. I’ll post a link as soon as the Post has the story on line. For now, let’s say that while the President’s opponents have made much sport of the idea that God called George Bush to the presidency, it’s becoming increasingy difficult to doubt that God wants President Bush re-elected.

Finally!

Justin Raimondo’s The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection is now available from Amazon.com.

Take a few minutes to read this interesting post by blogger Ken MacLeod. A self-described “ex-Trot,” MacLeod lays out the leftist case FOR war (sounds amazingly similar to the current White House line, no?), then contrasts it with (an oversimplified but generally accurate version of) the right-wing case AGAINST war. I know of no one who would agree with everything in this essay, but it’s worth a read, if only for this rendering of the road to New World Order:

So what happens after the Cold War? Well, in the former Third World there are a lot of ramshackle tyrannies whose former position as key players in the great contest has been forgotten even by themselves. The US has lost a role and not yet found an empire. Maintaining hegemony means taking down any of an embarrassingly rich array of malefactors, and (partly by this means) dissuading the emergence of any military rival among the metropolitan countries. New American Century. Full spectrum dominance. Sole superpower. You know the drill.

In this situation it is absolutely inevitable that the targets of choice should be (a) no great threat to anyone outside their borders and (b) a bloody menace to people inside them and (c) completely uninspiring to, if not downright detested by, anyone on the left in the West. Vietnam without Vietcong. It’s hardly a surprise that their overthrow should improve matters in the countries concerned, at least in the short run. Whether it’s a good thing for the world and for the long run is another matter entirely. I don’t know where all this is heading, but I have a very bad feeling about it.

(Tip o’ the hat to reader Badri for the link.)