1. Jesse Kopelman on June 13, 2005 02:44 PM writes...

"If 9-11 was Pearl Harbor, and this is WWII, that's what you do."

A trenchent point indeed.

2. Brad Hutchings on June 13, 2005 06:22 PM writes...

I don't see anything controversial here. No more controversial than suggesting, for example, that if you feel so morally superior to the half of America that understands the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things, maybe you should stop paying your taxes, stop taking any money from the government, and just get the hell out of here. I'm sure the Blankenhorns in Germany need someone to stomp on the grapes 24/7. If you're not willing to inconvenience yourself that small amount, you're just a blowhard.

Is this any way to discuss a serious issue? Why not start over and avoid calling people you disagree with cowards and hypocrites? Under these rules of debate, the charge works both ways.

3. David Sutton on June 13, 2005 10:02 PM writes...

An outspoken and courageous statement from a clear and prolific thinker. I doubt very much whether half of Americans understand what is being done to them right before their noses: the fraction is much, much smaller and Dana is in-clue-ded in it.

By the way it’s interesting also to note how close this is to Ralph Nader's stance on Iraq.

4. Nate on June 14, 2005 04:43 PM writes...

"We lost. We can't win. It's over. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. No way out. Get over it."

It's true of Iraq, I think, but I think it's true of the near entirety of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world. And I don't think it's just a symptom of sick leadership; the way we walk in the world as a country reflects the attitudes of many (maybe most) of the American population. And it doesn't take that much evil intent to make this country dangerous; all it takes is an electorate that is a little selfish, a little busy and distracted, and we end up ceding control of our foreign policy to businessmen like Dick Chenney.

America's very profitable Ba'athist alliance over the last 30 years made Saddam a very powerful man, and earned us a lot enemies among the Arabs and Persians. I think it's possible that we owed it to the Iraqis to dispose of the monster that we created, and I don't know much more cleanly we can expect it to be done. What I can't stand is that my government seems to be constantly engaged in the process of creating more monsters, more future enemies. It sucks that servicemen are dying, but it may be only sort of impetus that causes us to demand change. Americans (as a group) are sometimes peculiarly immune to the suffering of others; remember the silence and apathy that accompanied UNICEF's determination that sanctions had lead to the death of half a million Iraqi children by 1996? Madelline Albright's declaration that such a toll was a just cost of America's righteous foreign policy was not just her personal opinion. She served aptly as spokesman for most Americans, then and now, and I believe that statement can easily be justified by walking out your door and asking your neighbors about it.

5. Chris on June 20, 2005 10:50 PM writes...

Brad, care to explain "the importance of Iraq" to us ignorant plebes? I think it's about time someone did. I mean, I understand Bush's bloodthirsty lack of respect for human life. I understand Cheney's deepset lust for oil and kickbacks from Halliburton. I understand that the White House admires the prison administration tactics used by the Nazis. I understand Rush's frequent pill-popping escapades and inexcusably foul mouth ("anal cyst! anal cyst!" -- somehow ignored by the FCC) are explicitly excused in the Bible (John 3:15).

Further, I understand that Iraq and the surrounding countries have been internally divided by multiple religious/ethnic groups who have been at each other's throats for thousands of years, and are only too happy to see Saddam out of power so that they can take over. I understand that Bush was warned about this, repeatedly, by everyone who knew anything about that area of the world. And I understand that Bush ignored the warnings and that almost 1900 Americans and a much larger number of innocent Iraqis are dead as a direct result of Bush's lies, ignornace, willful deceit, and, yes, treason.

But I don't understand the "importance" of Iraq. Please educate me.

6. Chris on June 20, 2005 10:55 PM writes...

Brad, I forgot to add one thing: you are comparing stomping grapes to dying for your country. Your blood filling the back of a Humvee has nothing on stomping grapes for sheer inconvenience, I realize. What the f is wrong with you?

7. Brad Hutchings on June 21, 2005 03:16 PM writes...

Brad, I forgot to add one thing: you are comparing stomping grapes to dying for your country.

Chris, you are, by far, the stupidest person I have ever come into contact with on a message board. There is no such comparison. There is a rhetorical suggestion that if Dana doesn't want to seriously protest the war, he should get the f out, and he might find employment on the family farm in der Fatherland (implicit Nazi reference intended). Just as he suggested that those who support the war should sign up or get out. His was a stupid, thoughtless suggestion. Mine was a rhetorical comeback to point that out. Your above conclusion makes a very good case that if you ever reproduced, the average IQ of our country would take a serious hit and the mother should probably get a rabies shot.

Anyway Chris, you do (certainly unwittingly, as you have no wits) help me make my point, which is that this mode of argument, started by Dana, is unproductive and useless. I will agree to disagree with Dana, you, and others on the merits of the Iraq war. But if you want to throw crap, I'll toss it right back in your face tenfold.

8. Brad Hutchings on June 21, 2005 03:30 PM writes...

Now Chris, I will indulge you with what I believe are the merits of the Iraq War. This is only for completeness, not because you deserve the courtesy.

Since we deposed Saddam Hussein... (1) Libya ended its WDM programs, has agreed to pay to financial settlement of Pan Am 103, and is actively working to become a member of the modern world under Kadaffy. (2) Lebannon has rejected Syrian-backed politicians and is starting to realize how cool it is to have prime coastal real estate where regular folks might like to vacation in peace one day. (3) Uday and Qusay are pushing up daisies rather than shocking national soccer team members' scrotums and hacking off their fingers. (4) Iran understands that if we wouldn't tolerate an alleged nuclear arms program in the region, we certainly will not tolerate an acknowledged one. (5) Terrorists are fighting us on Iraqi soil rather than on American soil.

I see these as worthy outcomes and signs of continuing positive results of the Iraq war. You and Dana may see Bush, Cheney, Halleeberrrtun, etc. as negative outcomes. I have several close friends who share your opinion of the War. However, we can discuss our opinions and agree to disagree. If you would prefer to debate like an ass, my only hope is that the terrorists you would prefer to have here rather than there have your address higher on their target list than mine. By contrast, I don't wish the same for my friends who know how to disagree without being jerks.

9. Nate on June 22, 2005 04:34 PM writes...

Brad, the reasons you've given for supporting this war are specious and poorly connected.

1.) It has indeed been suggested that the motivation behind Libya's exposure of their nuclear weapons program was fear of experiencing Iraq's fate. There's not a whole lot of evidence to support this, but it could be true. At any rate, Libya's nuclear program was very rudimentary, and it's unveiling was primarily interesting because Pakistan, one of President Bush's current allies, turned out to be a supplier.

2.) Lebanon has not rejected Syrian-backed politicians; Syrian-backed politicians still occupy the country's highest positions, including President and Speaker of Parliament. What did happen is that a PORTION of Lebanon's highly segmented and sectarian population has succeed in securing a parliamentary majority for the anti-Syrain opposition, but this had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq. The opposition movement was reignited after the assasination of Rafik Hariri.

3.) Saddam's sons were bad dudes, yes, and they profited from corruption and nepotism, and they executed vendettas and persecuted the soccer team and... wait a minute, does this sound familiar? Doesn't this sound like a whole lot of America's allies, past and present? And do you suppose Saddam's family and friends were bad guys back when Iraq was one of America's favorite friends? And do you suppose that our government has EVER let human-rights violations stand in the way of profitable alliances? (If your answer to that last question is Yes, I will happily engage you in that debate.) My point is that bad dudes are killed in every war, and those deaths can always be used to justify a war after the fact, no matter how unjustifiable it may be in other respects.

4.) Iran understands nothing of the kind. Have you been following the news at all? Iran has become MORE defiant with regard to its nuclear program, not less. It could just as easily be said that Iran's clerics now believe that they are more safe from the U.S. than before we went to war with Iraq. In addition, you seem to be forgetting how enormously offensive this war is to the vast majority of the middle-east, Iranians included. It is highly likely that the Iraq war has made reform in Iran MORE difficult, and that the gains seen by reformers in the recent elections were achieved IN SPITE of America's involvement.

5.) My goodness, where do I start with this one. I'm not even sure what this trite little platitude is supposed to mean. Do you mean that the war specifically has prevented more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, as opposed to the security measures that were implemented independently from the war? If so, I would like to hear your evidence. Or, worse yet, do you mean that we have made ourselves safer by diverting the hostilities of our enemies to another region? I really hope that this wasn't you meant.

10. Jason on June 25, 2005 11:34 AM writes...

Let's not forget the real reason that we're in Iraq....Personal revenge.

Anyone remember the primaries in 2000, when Bush was debating McCain, and the reporter asked if either was elected President would he try to oust Saddam Hussein? Anyone remember W's answer? "Well, he did try to kill my father."

I remember it. I knew that very instant what a Bush victory would mean. I saw it coming miles away. WMD, democracy, Cheney's greed, PNAC, none of that matters next to personal animus and revenge.

This isn't the sort of things that leaders of Republics do. This is monarchical behavior.

11. Jay on June 26, 2005 08:38 PM writes...

Dana,

You are quite right, yet politically naive. The administration is desperately looking for an anitwar party to blame its failures on. Karl Rove, just last week, tried to blame all this on leftists who want to put terrorists in therapy. It mostly didn't work, for lack of an antiwar movement worth talking about.

So far the Democrats have given Bush everything he asks for in Iraq. That helps to make sure he gets the blame. It's politically astute, but not so honorable.

Is there a way to stop the war without making yourself a straw man for the administration to demonize? I don't know.

Jay