It's no wonder opinion around the world is so low. Our government only has world domination in mind. All MYDD readers should check out the following link http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html Gene Burns from KGO San Francisco posted this shocking expose by William Clark on the real motives for this military strike. Tell your friends.

MyDD,

Unfortunately, the men in charge don't care about anyone's opinion. Manipulation, lies, spins, anything that gets them to the end result is good enough for them. And they have a vast number of lock-step followers in your country, who heavon knows why, buy the who package and follow it. It is very scary.

It's nice to see that opinion in Airstrip One isn't solidly behind the president of Oceania, George W. Bush.

JB-
"However, is is America, or Bush? And yes rightwingers, there is a difference. It's Bush."

Well, its interesting because the poll is about the view of AMERICA - the pollster doesn't ask about Bush. So one must conclude one of two things
- The feeling results from General Anti-Americanism, or
- The respondants dislike Bush, BUT sees America in agreement with him, so they dislike America, too.

I think I'll pick the second also. Even the Europeans recognize that this country is behind its President.

By the way, did you know there are MORE countries in the "Coalition of the Willing" than were allied in the Gulf War in 1991?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

Mike, you are still an asshole.

You nutty-nuts will ensure that Bush is re-elected in 2004. You are worse than we conservatives were for Clinton. What Tom "Satan" Daschle said was very unbecoming for the leader of the opposition. You appear to be the kinds of people that are hoping for things to go badly for the US. After we overthrow the illegitimate Hussein crime family and bring democracy to Iraq, the opinion polls regarding our country will be in our favor. We are the only country on this f'n planet with the will and the means to provide freedom to the oppressed peoples around the world. So what if we do it for equal parts humanity and security reasons?

enjoy the following - http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf

Dear John B. - Your argument is brilliant. I have no idea how to counter that blunt argument. You have illustrated how incoherent the arguments on the right are. You are my hero. I wish that I could be as intelligent as you one day. Please email me directions on how to be more like you:

mailto:gofuckyourself@eatit.com

Mike

You should stop. You know good and well what Daschle said is true. And stop with the "Satan" crap.

Daschle is solidly behind out troops and hopes for their safe return. He had every right and was correct in assailing the failed diplomatic efforts of the Bush Administration. Why do some many Republicans find it necessary to try and imply that a person is "against the troops" and "giving comfort to the enemy" when clearly there was nothing in what he says that was even near that.

Dude, you just make yourself look like some rabid rightwinger when you say those things. Stick to a more reasoned argument.

Spain is such a huge backer of this war that there providing no troops. I'm glad to see that only 14% of the Spanish have a favorable view of our country. Keep it up Georgie boy!

What Senator Daschle said was mainstream, that war represents a failure of diplomacy. Daschle's remarks were timely, since this war is a pre-emptive strike, and diplomatic options were still available. Bush didn't run out of time, he just ran out of patience.

Only the GOP leadership (i.e. Santorum, Hastert) condemned Senator Daschle's comments. As a former U.S. Air Force officer, there is no question Daschle supports the troops. He certainly doesn't value Bush's sloppy diplomacy and how inspections were abandoned, but I'm sure Daschle supports the troops.

Hey corportista, how many of the coalition of the willing are providing actual military support compared to round one of get Iraq? How popular is Jose Maria Aznar in Spain?

Weren't there 80+ countries in the 1991 coalition? Last I checked 80 is greater than 30. Of course, since the 2000 election no one has accused the Republicans of being very good at counting.

Wishing for the safety and success of the military people and agreeing with the administration's policies and actions that have brought everyone to this point are two different things.

If someone is NOT saddened to see a failure of steps short of war in solving an issue, then that person, I'd say, has problems. But the issue here isn't just that we've witnessed a failure of diplomacy. What we've seen is an arrogant administration show that it doesn't care if it antagonizes and/or scares everyone else around the world and that it has no heart for diplomacy. The only efforts in diplomacy that these people have made to stave off war and try to find a peaceful means of mitigating whatever threat Iraq poses have been strictly half-assed. One has to suspect that that's been the case because all along the administration has had only one goal -- to eliminate Saddam Hussein -- never mind that his regime is far from being the sole repressive regime that there is.

A person who's actually experienced combat and knows the horrors of war, such as Sen. Daschle, is certainly in much better position to decry the failure at efforts in diplomacy than the chickenhawks are to knock him for what he said. Delay et al. are totally classless and shameless.

I'm completely sick of these "Mike" jerks. It makes reading MyDD a chore.

If Armstrong won't delete them it's highly likely I'll stop coming back.

That's no threat to Armstrong, not in the least, whom I like and admire very much. Who of course has the right to maintain his blog any way he pleases.

I'm just sick of them. They don't deserve a microsecond of my time.

I am saddened that diplomacy failed. But what you (and Daschle, but for political reasons) fail to accept is that diplomacy failed because of Chirac's dream of curtailing America's influence in the world. He is using the Iraqi people as pawns in his attempt to exercise French power (an oxymoron if i ever heard one). If France, or any other European country wants to have exercise their power, than they should start building a military. Those socialists should pay an additional tax to us for the cost of their defense. They have expanded social programs because we pick up the tab for their defense budgets! If they want power, they first need the will and the means to exercise it.

Mike the Troll -
I don't appreciate the reply to John B. - I don't care if I get flamed, there are still enough sensible people who are willing to discuss opposing differences in a civil manner.

John B.-
In re to your reply: That may be true. Still, can you refute my assertions that (1) the World sees America united with Bush and (2) there are more countries in this coalition than in the first?

paradox -
If conservatives come on here and act like a jerk, I agree - ban them - this is your house. (If I act like a jerk, let me know how and I'll correct myself.) But don't confuse your irritation with jerks with frustration at not being able to answer reasonable questions.

Mike the Analyst, AZGOP, and AC are GOP'ers that post here in a sensible manner. And no, they are not the same person as "Mike the corporatista whatever". The libertarian in me says one more chance.

As regards to the "is it Bush, or America" question. The guy who did the polling said he thought it was Bush as well. Basically, we have about a 30-35% minority that have taken the US foreign policy into a hard right, pax americana direction, alongside deep deficits, in short, liberal to the extreme.

However, in regards to social issues, it is a regime that is conservative to the extreme. I can't imagine an easier target to defeat.

A democratic candidate can easily out-flank Bush to the conservative side on foreign matters, can you think of how "$10 Billion for Turkey and nothing for Arizona" might play? Or, "Billions for new roads in Iraq, but nothing for Ohio bridges". All the Dem will need to do, is throw a little isolationist red-meat in their rhetoric, and Bush will be defending shelling out Billions to foreign countries, while this nation crumbles.

On social matters, this country is very liberal. If Bush wants to cede the "America first" to the Dem, with his choosing the "war first" liberal globalist direction, he's already on the defensive.

To compound that with his taking a social conservative position, that is devisive and exclusionary... hey, '96 and '98 all over again.

Mike the Analyst-
I agree with point one partially (I think the support is weaket than most suspect)
and point 2 is easily demonstrable as bs.

I cannot accept the 'it's ALL France's fault' line.

The reason: the U.S. never treated the U.N. process seriously. It's plain to see that Bush and the hard-line right wing faction have little regard for the U.N. or for any form of international structure. I strongly suspect that they only intended to make a show of things on that end while they were hoping that things would stall and they'd be free of any kind of constraint.

I'd say that that stance is very naive and ultimately boils down to believing foremost in 'might makes right.' We depend on other countries, yes, and they also depend on us. The preferable situation is for mutual goodwill to exist and exist not just because the world fears the U.S. but because the U.S. has earned such respect by exporting values without imposing itself on others, however, one doubts that this administration grasps such a concept.

In any case, what could have been done at the beginning was to have first respected France's desire not to have an automatic trigger for war, as a show of good faith, while at the same time marking out a timeline for disarming along with a list of specific weapons with a stipulation of a reconvening of the Security Council if the specific deadlines aren't being met and/or the weapons inspectors declare that they had reached an impasse. The U.S. never posed the questions to France as to "how much progress?" should Iraq have to make to show meaningful co-operation or "how long?" inspections could continue before the conclusion could be reached that inspections are failing to diarm Iraq. The resolution should have been written as to define progress or lack thereof with the inspections process, but they didn't do that. Why?

John B.-
I think the point of "more countries" needs to be explained:
- It does not mean more troops. There are only 2 main sets of troops in this coalition (US and UK).
- THe "more countries", even though technically true, does mislead in thinking that dozens of nations are arming against Iraq.

BUT...
- It is technically true, and MORE IMPORTANTLY a hyperbolic way of answering claims that this is a "unilateral" goal for the US only.
Support is support - especially since a vast majority of the "willing" coalition have NOT been the brunt of terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Daschle is free to say whatever he wants. He just should not be upset when that tape is played back late in October of 2004.

The Bush people have been aiming at Iraq for years. They even wrote to Clinton in 1998 asking him to go to war with Iraq. There was no diplomacy tried by Bush. Only lies and deception. Every thing Powell brought to the U.N. was proven to be fabricated. Where was the diplomacy? Thank you to France, Germany and Russia for trying to stop Bush's war for power. And yes, the story about the Euro replacing the dollar in oil is gathering steam.

Please refrain from cursing, it shows poor judgment and every point can be expressed without profanity.

Mike brings to us another way of thinking, another voice. The voice of descent. I do not believe that people like Mike should be censored. They should be challenged, even if the result of the challenge is a difference of opinion. But, I do think we could make points and counter-points without profanity.

My view on Daschle:
I think that the comment made was what many democrats were thinking at the time. But, the game has been going on for longer than the Bush Admin. Dashle has supported the same war in the past. I believe that Dashle is a hypocrite. Not just because of his war stance, but also his love for the airline industry. He wants to give them a few more billion dollars. What is his problem? When Gephardt stepped down in exchange for better leadership, I was hoping that Dashle would do the same.

Democrats should be reluctant to go to war and only choose that path as a last resort. Everytime!!!!

Take back the party.
Only Support True Democrats.

The "Gulf War II coalition is larger" statement is a bald-faced lie. Mike the Analyst made the same statement on Daily Kos and there's a pretty good thread there debunking it.

Mike-
In GW1 there were over 90 countries that helped with troops, arms, $'s, logistics, morale, support etc...it truly was a coalition to revoke Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

In GWII there are 30 countries (approx.)
that have voiced support, and only three with troops (USA, GB & Australia), and less with $.
There is no way one can argue that this 2nd GW has more international support.
Absolutely no way.

I apologize for the A-word. I'm not a happy camper today, and although that is no excuse, I think alot of the rightwing proponents and Bush supporters are not being honest and truthful in their debate and tatics. I simply do not have any more patience with it. I can't stand hypocrisy in either party. If it is a good idea for the country it is a good idea for both parties. Period. Any other argument is dishonest partisan hackery.

Mr Armstrong-
you have a great site. I read it every day (mostly) and appreciate your hardwork and forum.

I hope to contribute in some small way both to your forum and your site.

Let's analyze something. First of all, I referred to Daschle as Satan as a joke because there was a previous discussion about this on another thread.

Second:
----
Mike, you are still an asshole.

Posted by John B. at March 20, 2003 06:09 AM
----

So, my response with a fake email address was wrong, but John B.'s response to Mike the Analyst was okay? I have seen no posts addressing what he said. As I have said previously, the ruining of discourse here is 50-50 (myself included). Do not try to pretend that the libs are blameless. And most of my posts are not like that. They are serious posts regarding the issues on this board.

PS - Get a grip.

PSS - Was that to harsh and offensive?

Mike the Troll: I am saddened that diplomacy failed.

Me too.

Mike the Troll: But what you (and Daschle, but for political reasons)

Daschle is the Senate Minority Leader. Any statements he makes have political implications. This does not mean there isn't personal belief mixed in as well.

In turn, Dubya is President of the U.S. Any statements he makes also have political implications. And of course his personal beliefs may be mixed in as well.

I do not hold a political office. I simply want peace to prevail.

Mike the Troll: fail to accept is that diplomacy failed because of Chirac's dream of curtailing America's influence in the world.

This may be one of the motivations for Chirac's stance, though he has never said so.

But even if it was, we cannot lay the failure of diplomacy solely on France. It was the U.S. and the U.K. who walked away from the Security Council. When you walk away from negotiations, you end them. Blair's whining to his Parliament of "Can you believe what position they want us to take? No military force? They're not budging, etc." is basically "They're not listening to us! They're not letting us do what we want!"

France and the rest of the Security Council agreed with the U.S. and U.K. that Iraq needed to disarm.

The disagreement was over the use of force, and, actually, the timeframe for inspections before any force.

It wasn't France's fault that the U.S. and U.K. walked away. If Dubya and Blair had really meant what they said about not desiring war, they could have continued negotiations.

Mike the Troll: He is using the Iraqi people as pawns in his attempt to exercise French power (an oxymoron if i ever heard one).

We're using the Iraqi people as cannon and bomb fodder to topple their government and eliminate a fascist dictator.

France is not raining bombs on them. Which is the best choice for them?

Mike the Troll: If France, or any other European country wants to have exercise their power, than they should start building a military.

Oh yes, let's have everyone armed and invading to exercise power. What a deplorable argument to make. You clearly have no desire for peace do you?

Mike the Troll: Those socialists should pay an additional tax to us for the cost of their defense.

And the arguments get more ridiculous. Who are we defending France from?

Mike the Troll: They have expanded social programs because we pick up the tab for their defense budgets!

Of worldwide military spending, 50% is U.S. That means we spend the amount of our budget on military the equivalent to the rest of the world combined. 75 million Americans have no health insurance, which means there's a huge chunk of our country's population that is living in third world conditions.

I would say our military-worshipping system isn't working.

Mike the Troll: If they want power, they first need the will and the means to exercise it

Well, they've seemed to exercise it just fine without lobbing one missile at anyone. The UN Security Council agreed with them, not us.

Bush ran for President saying he was a Uniter and not a Divider. Well now looks what's happened. He has turned the whole world against us and divided the American people. I only wish that more people knew when he was running for Office that he had an agenda and that this "new world order" is only the beginning. His doctrine of preemption is just plain dangerous for us and the whole world.

Are you saying that the world will be safer if we cut our military? Who will defend democracy from terrorists and communists? And it isn't ridiculous to assert that Europe gets a free ride with our military. They know that we will protect them. IT IS US DAMMIT! WHO ELSE? THE FRENCH? THE GERMANS? THE RUSSIANS? WHO WILL DEFEND EUROPE FROM TERRORIST OR COMMUNIST THREATS? WHO, GODDAMMIT, WHO? WE PROTECT THE F'N WORLD! STOP BEING SO ASHAMED OF OUR MILITARY! WE ARE THE STRONGEST FORCE FOR GOOD ON THIS ENTIRE F'N PLANET! REALIZE IT!

And please tell which Americans are living in Third World Conditions? I won't hold my breath. Everybody has access to clean air and clean water and at least emergency health care, unlike the Third World Countries!

Geez, talk about hyperbolic. It's surely a strong argument that the world would be a better place if the US would place the interests of consensus above bullying, but regardless, I think 98% here would agree that this website would be better without "Mike the Troll/Corporista" posting... later. Please find another site to post on.

Regarding Daschle's comment:
That can play both ways. Let's say Nov 1, 2004 the Dem candidate starts running tapes of Bush saying "We're gonna smoke him out" and the voice over saying "Where is Osama?"

Osama will appear probably on Nov 1st 2004. I have never been so ashamed to be an american

Across the bottom of my tv screen, Faux News had this little stip saying that the Pentegon is reporting that more countries are signed up for this war than the Gulf War. What a damn lie they are perpetuating. I believe that this administration is one big lie.

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow cowboys: WHO, WHO, WHO LET THE DOGS OF WAR OUT?! BOO-YA! GO USA!

Tonight, having grown tired of waiting for Jesus, Big Daddy and The Spook to get off their high horses, I have decided to act unilaterally to open the gates of Hell and bring about the apocalypse. I don't have to tell you how fucking "A" awesome this is. I say jump, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff cock and lock!

Jogging, beer, hording ill-gotten wealth, fixing elections – those are all pretty cool rushes. But nothing beats being able to call down a cloudburst of hot, throbbing JDAM missiles to crash onto the brows of uppity, mud-colored sons of bitches who got a little too big for their girly sarongs, dig? WOW. Man – after this, I can tell you, I'm gonna pound the old lady but GOOD!

Tonight, on my orders, Christian forces have begun moving against Saddam Hussein, striking selected mosques, evildoer orphanages, and hospitals to undermine his ability to continue festering ineffectually in his impoverished, eunuch-like desert cesspool. We are also targeting Saddam's new Ford F150, rusted tank husks, Ho Chi Minh's grave, and the French Embassy.

These are opening stages of what will be a media-drenched and politically invigorating campaign. More than 35 countries – including invaluable Nicaragua – have been handsomely compensated to suppress the will of their peoples and offer up insincere hosannas of support. Each of these nations has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of extorting your tax dollars to provide me with the politically necessary illusion of international backing.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, by putting your innocent lives in jeopardy, I exact personal vengeance on a tin pot dictator who made my feeble old man – and by extension, the whitebread pyramid scheme that is the Republican party – look weak. Furthermore, by exploiting your skill and your bravery, I will ensure that my family's petrochemical stock portfolio is not only protected, but is also vastly enhanced.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens - the ones we're not killing - and for their great subterranean natural resources and their ability - like all humans - to be convinced into accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Dudes and my fellow middle Americans: the dangers to my re-election prospects will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of fearmongering while the United States economy continues to implode. We will talk about defending our freedom while decimating our civil liberties. We will bring freedom from taxation to affluent white males and we will prevail.

Thank you, and good night. LET'S MOTHERFUCKING ROLL!

Would the rest of the world be safer if we cut our military? Well, that's how the rest of the world sees it. Who has the biggest military, by far? Who's the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons? Which nation has the largest inventory, by far, of weapons of mass destruction? And now, that same nation is ending treaties and trashing relationships left and right, determined to throw its muscle around, and even going so far as to engage in a preventive invasion/takeover of a smaller country who doesn't pose a real military threat to it.

Who's going to protect Europe from the Communists?? Hmmm, I think that's a little out-of-date.

Who's going to protect Europe and everyone else from terrorists? I don't think that the Europeans are begging the U.S. for a free ride there. The fact is that everyone is very interdependent there and that it's in no one's interests to be trying to carry the load by one's self.

Mike the Troll,

You have been asked by JB, the website owner, to stop posting, and Richard P. has made a very valid response to your most recent aggressive rant.

I won't respond to emotional or aggressive posts like that last one. I will debate if you can manage to come up with a post that's respectful and calm and questioning.

So, hey, we've now re-enacted on this blog the diplomacy of the UN Security Council regarding Iraq.

I'm France - consider yourself vetoed unless you calm down drastically.

"Osama will appear probably on Nov 1st 2004. I have never been so ashamed to be an american"

I have never been ashamed to be an American. Even when I disagree with the leadership. I loved being an America when Clinton was president, even thought I could not stand him.

I have never been so ashamed of the actions of our nation. Il Papa was right,

"Whoever decides that all peaceful means, that international law has put at our disposition have been exhausted assumes a serious responsibility before God, his conscience and history."

AC,

I love being an American, too, regardless of who's president. I'm not going to stop living because I can hardly stand Bush. Sure, I disagree with many of his policies, and I'm personally annoyed by many of his actions.

I can remember having similar feelings about Reagan, particularly the night he was re-elected.

But I can't afford to hold my breath or die until Bush is gone. You may have felt the same way about Clinton.

Regarding Osama, I wonder if the CIA or Special Forces really do know where he is, but they're concealing the info. After all, his death will cause a theocratic uproar among Muslim extremists.

And I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to "play the Osama capture" at the most politically opportune time--say 11/1/2004. But maybe Osama is hiding out. I don't think he's dead. Maybe he's in the jungles of Burma. Yeah, Burma.

Politically, Osama is either/or. As long as he's on the run, it's a drag on Bush, who solemnly swore to get 'im. If he's captured, it'll be a big plus for Bush for about a month.

Main developments across Africa

Protesters clash with police on the streets of Cairo chanting anti-American slogans.

The United States shuts its embassies in South Africa and Kenya.

Kenya which suffered terror attacks in 1998 and 2002 is publicly critical of the attacks. Foreign Minister Kalonzo Musyoka said full scale war could have been avoided through dialogue.

In Mauritania, a Muslim country, several hundred people including MPs, take to the streets of the capital in a march against the war.

In Somalia, which has denied links to a terrorist network, people are glued to their television sets and businesses express concern that goods from the Gulf region could be interrupted by the war.

Eritrea, one of two African countries to join Mr Bush's' "coalition of the willing", said in a statement that it did support the war but added that it was not directly involved in actual conflict.

The other coalition partner, Ethiopia, has said it has given the US the use of its airspace and also landing rights, as requested by the USA in relation to the Iraq war.

Mauritius described Thursday as "a tragic day for Iraq and for the rest of the world".

Cameroon's President Paul Biya, seen to be a close ally of France, left on Thursday for a surprise trip to the US prompting the press to put Cameroon's president "in the war camp".

Algeria and Morocco regretted that military force had supplanted diplomacy as the means to defuse the standoff.

African Union Secretary General Amara Essy said the launch of the war had caused grief and deep regret among its members.

Tanzanian, also attacked in 1998 said it was saddened by America and its allies for attacking Iraq.

Madagascar's Foreign Minister General Marcel Ranjeva told national radio: "Our hope is that the war does not last because peace is more important than anything else."

Burkina Faso's prime minister told parliament it "stands resolutely on the side of the peace camp and calls for an end to hostilities."

Ghana, chair of the west African regional body Ecowas has so far said nothing although its president has cancelled a planned trip to Britain.

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about Bush pissing off the entire world. Other countries will form new alliances in reaction to policies that appear to be only in the interest of the US. Much like Microsoft and Intel triggered IBM's support of Motorola, Apple, Linux, and open source in the tech sector, the US will create new alliances in the rest of the world.

The process has obviously already begun. Two years ago, who would have thought that Russia, China, most of the EU, and Arab countries would all be in agreement on anything?

Why should the US care? Well, since the US economy is built on buying things from Asia with money borrowed from Europe, we need to attract more than $1 billion of direct foreign investment per day to keep our economy afloat. If Asia, China, EU, Russia, etc. are more attractive to capital it will flow there instead of to the US.

Bush has embarked on a risky strategy to dominate the world militarily when the US depends on other countries to keep the economy going. It's a high stakes wager.

Ooops., make that, "more than $2 billion of direct foreign investment per day"

I take politics as seriously as anyone. However it seems like many people, including myself at times, take it way too seriously. There is really no way to lower the temperature though. Especially now. Just because you lose an election or a debate over war does not make anyone less of an American. You just have to fight again tomorrow.

I dare Bush to make a public appearance in Madrid or London. We'll see how the crowd reacts to that!

Mike, your claim that more nations are supporting this than supported in 1991 is plain wrong and dishonest.

What is accurate is that there are more nations that are supporting the war now than nations that sent troops in 1991. To spin that in the way you have is completely dishonest. You aren't much of an "analyst".

Tommy-

Forget Madrid and London, bring that lying bastard to Portland (dubbed "Little Beirut" by Poppy Bush). We need something to get us fired up out here.

Come and get some of what we gave your daddy, you unelected weasel!

If we are the despised of the world, why are all those people from around the world trying to become Americans? I don’t see the masses trying to get into France so they can live that dream. I personally don’t care how those ungrateful foreign bastards feel about us. I think that I am in the majority who could not care less what they think. It’s about time that we had a President who put our needs first. Once the war is over, Bush will turn his attention to the economy. America first for a change.

The rest of the world both admires American ideals and values. The rest of the world does NOT admire things like unflinching U.S. support for heavy-handed policies in Israel. The rest of the world fears the presence of so many bombs and does not admire America being the bully of the world and looking to throw its weight around.

I can heartily support 'placing America first;' to me that means focusing on defending the homeland and avoiding misguided military adventures overseas such as invading a smaller country who is not an imminent threat and was not connected to 9/11.

Tim,
They are coming for the money, not because they like American culture or values.

I had an Indian Engineer tell me to my face that he despised American culture and as soon as he made his pile he was going home to lord it over a bevy of servants. My reply? " I hope you make that pile soon. Good Riddance."

Burbs, people come here for all sorts of reasons, some economic and some for freedom and some for the values. Evolved people, as well as money grubbers, come in all colors.

MrHappy, what in the world does color have to do with it?

The rest of your comments are correct. I have two very good Chinese friends. As in, we visit each other's houses and share our hopes and fears. One was sent to Mongolia with her Professor father during the Cultural Revolution. The other's father was sent to a re-education camp for counter-revolutionary activities. He was a small businessman before the Revolution.

These two are very definitely here for freedom and for their children to grow up in freedom. One of the many tragedies of
our immigration system is that my second friend's daughter, thoroughly American in speech and outlook, is subject to deportation as an alien because she entered the country at age 2 (she is now 17). Citizenship for this second friend's family is hampered by his membership in a communist youth group in China. I beleive him when he says that he only joined because his father was considered to be a traitor to the state and he had to join to throw off suspicion.

More on immigrants.

I have two neighbor familys from the Philipines, one from Mexico, one from Belize (look it up), and one from India. They are all better neighbors than the white native-born Republican neighbors.
This was originally a white etnic blue-collar community. Now white yuppies are moving in as well as many non-white immigrants. I find that as a white ethnic American, I have more in common with them than with the yuppies.

But not all immigrants are like my neighbors and my non-neighbor friends. All too many are like the Indian engineer that I first mentioned.

"If we are the despised of the world, why are all those people from around the world trying to become Americans? I don’t see the masses trying to get into France so they can live that dream."

tim, are you really that naive? Do you know that 10% of France is moslem. These aren't native converts to the Prophet either. Too many people in the US don't understand that we live in a vast world that doesn't revolve around the US.

Sorry, the last one was me.

American blood has been shed all around the world that last century. In one name only freedom, not for any expansion or greed. If dictators and coomunists are afraid or dislike freedom than who cares. We need to stand by or morales and what is right. We need to follow PRESIDENT George W. Bush.

I can't wait for Bush to come to my city. He'll be chased out in minutes, the chickenhawk. WOOP!

Joe,

Who is Morales? I'd probably sooner follow him than Bush.

" In one name only freedom, not for any expansion or greed. "

That's precisely what makes this war different from the others. And see how much freedom Iraq has when we appoint one of those defecting Republican guard officers as their new dictator.

An update on feelings for Bush's War around the world.......

In Amman, Jordan, police used tear gas against more than 10,000 people demonstrating against the war in a rally led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Thousands of Palestinians also demonstrated across the West Bank and Gaza in support of Iraq, waving Iraqi flags, holding pictures of Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat and calling on the Iraqi president to "burn Tel Aviv."

Friday's protests followed unrest across the world on Thursday, including the United States, where more than 1,500 people were arrested from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. (Full story)

In Srinagar, the summer capital of India's northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, protesters shouted anti-U.S. slogans and pelted stones at passing cars. Police were forced to use batons and tear gas to disperse crowds.

Thousands of Muslims in eastern Malaysia burned American and British flags and effigies of the two countries' leaders.

In Bangladesh, thousands marched through the streets of Dhaka, shouting slogans like: "Bush is a war criminal."

In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, demonstrators threw eggs and vegetables at the British Embassy in the capital, Jakarta.

In Pakistan, the nation's religious right called for peaceful protests against the war but withdrew demands for a nationwide strike, saying it would hurt ordinary Pakistanis.

Labor unions in Greece declared a four-hour strike Friday while in Germany, police broke up a sit-down protest outside the U.S. military's European Command in Stuttgart.

In Melbourne, Australia, about 5,000 protesters marched Friday to the sound of mock air raid sirens. In Japan, at least 11,000 people marched amid calls for boycotts of U.S. brands including Nike, IBM and Starbucks.

A uniter not a divider. WOOP!

c. cameron: Paul Krugman doesn't buy into the oil-currency theory, and gives some good reasons why:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/oildollar.html

The last line from the article:
"Of course, you may well ask, why then are these people so determined to have their war? The answer is because. Just because."

Mike the anal: "By the way, did you know there are MORE countries in the "Coalition of the Willing" than were allied in the Gulf War in 1991?"

What's amazing is not that this is being repeated on boards throughout the internet ... after all, it was part of the Rumsfeld cavalcade of lies yesterday ... but that the Heritage foundation is trying to pretend it is true and offering "facts" to support it.

GW1: Full support of UN, troops from dozens of countries, monetary support from dozens of others. Of course, that time Iraq had just brutally invaded another country and was a serious threat to its neighbors.

GW2: security council 11-4 against, after months of sometimes vile arm twisting (i.e. threats of violence to Mexican nationals in US), troops limited to countries whose populace is overwhelmingly against the war but whose PMs have ties to Rupert Murdoch (UK, Australia), no one offering monetary support, only countries who diplomatically can't afford to piss off US giving tepid verbal support while trying to hold down the massive demonstrations.

On the face of it the claim is outrageous. Anyone who claims this completely destroys his/her legitimacy.

For the record, many countries on that list expressed surprise that they were included.

"I had an Indian Engineer tell me to my face that he despised American culture and as soon as he made his pile he was going home to lord it over a bevy of servants. My reply? " I hope you make that pile soon. Good Riddance."

Ha ha. I'll relay this story from the better times in Silicon Valley. This statement is from an Indian executive of a medium-size firm specializing in Indian engineering projects and contracts. He'd been in the US 10 years, and a young engineer had just made a comment like the one above.

"That's what all Indian ex-pats say when they first come to the states. No 401k, rent instead of buying a house, cheap, used car. The plan is to hoard cash and move back. Then with about 2 years left on their last work visa they go back to India to visit. On the flight back there wives, who have now been in the states for 4 years, tell them: 'There is NO WAY I am moving back there.' So, they apply for permanent residence, put money in 401k, buy a house, and get a nice car."

An overgeneralization, to be sure, but in the 8 years since I first heard it, I've seen this story played out again and again. It even happened to that young engineer who made the comment that started the conversation.

Z,

Do you have any links to Rupert Murdoch's specific ties to Blair and Australia's MP John Howard?

My friend knows Murdoch (she grew up in Australia) and says he is right of Attila the Hun. Fox is the worst of the Hollywood studios for the unions (actors & writers) to deal with.

Murdoch is one of the major architects in making the U.S. swing far to the right.

I'm sure he has right wing Australian PM Howard in his front pocket, but I hadn't heard of a connection between him and Blair before.

Murdoch, of course, publicly declared full support of Dubya's Iraq Debacle several weeks ago.

Brad V:

The Blair/Murdoch connection is something I ran into recently, but a simple google search turns up tons of documents:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=tony+blair+rupert+murdoch&btnG=Google+Search

One of the first links gives you this brief history:

http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html

The Howard/Murdoch link is too obvious to even spend time on, but I'm sure a google search will yield documentation if you require.

BTW, I found Blair/Murdoch link while trying to figure out what the hell had gotten into Blair with his support for the war. This gave me the answer I was looking for.

Z,

Thank you for the links - much appreciated.

Murdoch is the master pulling Blair's strings to the right. I can't believe Rupe would ever support Labour, but perhaps the Tories found him too repulsive and too "new money" to welcome him fully into their circle.

There's a British reporter (I read an interview with him on Buzzflash) who says Blair's only real opposition is the left in his own party, and he is out to discredit them at every chance he gets, especially with his full support of Dubya's Iraq Debacle.

Oh well, it's up to our friends in Britain to take care of Blair. We've got our own deceptive right wing mess to shine the light on.

"American blood has been shed all around the world that last century. In one name only freedom, not for any expansion or greed. If dictators and coomunists are afraid or dislike freedom than who cares. We need to stand by or morales and what is right. We need to follow PRESIDENT George W. Bush.
Posted by Joe the troll at March 21, 2003 07:18 AM"

Joe the Troll: Look up "War is a Racket" by Gen. Smefley Butler. No, better yet:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

"Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Educated Haverford School
Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz,
Mexico, 1914,
and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
Distinguished service medal, 1919
Retired Oct. 1, 1931
On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety,
Philadelphia, 1932
Lecturer - 1930's
Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the
United States Marine Corps.

" Chapter One
WAR IS A RACKET
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most
vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the
profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it
seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it
is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very
many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the
conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States
during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax
returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them
dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out?
How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and
machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of
them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are
victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the
few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public
shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones.
Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a
racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the
international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to
stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion],
their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia]
complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each
other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was
Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who
fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to
profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our
statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being
trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the
future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the
moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War
alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility
upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained
army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for
it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with
Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border
after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose
sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for
more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of
Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then
our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison
us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us?
Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent
about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and
industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect
these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all
stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of
billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds
of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit –
fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few.
Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They
would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It
pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit
their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their
children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge
profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside
the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted
aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning
about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At
the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international
affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade
balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a
purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade
might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average
American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this
racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost
of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit."

There are four more chapters.

Thanks, Z, for the anecdote and the links.

""That's what all Indian ex-pats say when they first come to the states. No 401k, rent instead of buying a house, cheap, used car. The plan is to hoard cash and move back. Then with about 2 years left on their last work visa they go back to India to visit. On the flight back there wives, who have now been in the states for 4 years, tell them: 'There is NO WAY I am moving back there.' So, they apply for permanent residence, put money in 401k, buy a house, and get a nice car.""

I've heard the same about Japanese wives.
I believe this country leads the world in sex equality.

My neighbors and I protested a zoning change on the block behind us. Everyone signed the petition except my Filipino neighbor. He was afraid to criticize the government, which is a very wise policy in his home country. At the board meeting, the developer made much of the fact that the petition was not unanimous.
During the break, my neighbor's wife, who was present, signed the petition to make it unanimous. I remember the huge grin she gave me when I said, "Lily, you have defied your husband, now you are truly an American woman."