Bob in Indiana - if you don't mind, please send me a copy of your paper: pstreet@niu.edu.

Judging by what I have observed over the last year or so, I would hazard to speculate that there are two separate issues fueling the ever-escalating resistance in Iraq. First, there is the deeply held desire to get Saddam's puppet master out of Iraq - the sooner the better. The US neoconservatives have, as usual, made a fundamental mistake - they actually thought that the Iraqi people would welcome them. This, even after they were responsible for the first Gulf War (if you want to call it that), utterly destroying their physical infrastructure, willfully murdering some 500,000 of their children thru a devastating sanctions policy, and taking away the average Iraqi's ability to earn a decent living. Secondly, there is a struggle going on over who should rule the country, or if there should even be one Iraq at all. It is yet to be determined if the Kurds in the North, the Sunnis in the middle and the Shiites in the South even want a single country. They might end up with as many as three countries. But that's for the Iraqis to settle among themselves with help from the regional powers that be. It's not an issue that the USA or Europe have any right to arbitrate, even though it has great economic implications for all.

Bob in Indiana I admire your courage in taking on a room of lefties, but on the serious side, I would strongly suggest that you broaden your horizons. You are obviously a bright young man who cares deeply about what is happening in the world. I know you. Thirty years ago I was you. But like a lot of young men, you have yet to be exposed to some of the current writings and research digging into current world events and where they have their origins. You have not yet been really afforded that opportunity by those who have nurtured you thus far. I would encourage you to read such authors as Noam Chomsky, David Ray Griffin (The New Pearl Harbor and also The 9/11 Commission Report), Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (The War on Freedom), John Pilger (The New Rulers of the World), Loretta Napoleoni (Terror Inc. - a real eye opener), Ziauddin Sardar/Merryl Wyn Davies (American Dream/Global Nightmare), and above all (in my opinion) Joel Bakan's The Corporation, which in the end is at the heart of much of the troubles of today's world. These to start with - others here will have more suggestions. After reading these books, I challenge you to see the USA/UK/West and capitalism as an economic system in the same way ever again. May God help us all if the US wins this struggle.

`Is the US really an Empire? I don't think so...maybe more of a hegemonic superpower.` Then its a hegemonic superpower with terrorist, homocideal, imperialist, tendencies. `The reason Iraq didn't have terrorist activities before is because of the brutal regime` Umm. no. Throughout the middle east there is a direct correlation between terrorist activity and US intervention, the former being directly proportional to the latter. `No we haven't found WMD, but most indications before the war were positive that he was reconstructing.` Again no. If you read the news article a cople blog topics up, youll find that the best the intelligence people could do was to find that Iraq has the equipment that could be used to make chemical/biological wepons, but symoltainously functioned for other purposes e.g. crop dusters. That doesnt come anywhere close to reconstruction. `I think the majority of Iraqi's want the US out...once it's more secure.` No, according to the polls run in Iraq, the majority of Iraqies want us out NOW. Knowing that the majority of Iraqies are Shia that were oppressed by Saddam, this is a very powerefull fact.

Sorry guys, I just typed 1700 characters and was shut out...now I'm having to re-type and it wont be as good as I have homework. I appreciate the conversation as the only reason I'm on this board is for an assignment. We're suppose to watch a blog for a week and report back to our instructor. If we actually post on a board, we get an automatic A+...thanks for my A. I will disagree with the kneejerk assumption...I'm throwing out other ideas for you to ponder. Is the US really an Empire? I don't think so...maybe more of a hegemonic superpower. A difference in how you influence. The reason Iraq didn't have terrorist activities before is because of the brutal regime...tell that to the Shia who were suppressed for so long as a majority. No we haven't found WMD, but most indications before the war were positive that he was reconstructing. Were mistakes made...yes and hindsight is always 20/20. I think the majority of Iraqi's want the US out...once it's more secure. We're in a do loop and hopefully someone will figure it out. No the US isn't perfect, but I'll take our ideals and government over any other...this is what supplies our ability to openly discuss these issues. Thanks for the discussion and I'll check back tomorrow.

`US was protecting US citizens from a country who harbored terrorists and from a person who continually defied the US and UN.` And we have yet to find out how he posed a threat, he had no wepons, and harbord no terrorists. Moreover, Bush is doing all the things you accuse Saddam of, the majority of Americans dont like the war (i.e. defying the US), the UN disapprove of the war, the US is currently harboring South American terrorists. Moreover, perhaps you could show evidence of how we are constantly under seige from terrorists? Theres plenty of information showing how the US supplies terrorists, overthrows democratic governments, committs war crimes etc. Compare the amount of terrorism caused by america and the amount of terrorism directed at it, and the latter becomes almost invisible by comparison. `The sooner the country is "secure", the sooner we can get our boys home.` But again, the majority of Iraqies want Ameria to pull out right now, if we are creating a democracy, shouldnt we do what the people want? Moreover, these `terrorists` as you call them only exist because we are there. Iraq wansnt getting suicide bombers bifore we came in, and now we cant leave until the suicide bombers go away? The security will stabalise the second we get out and not a moment bifore.

bok abhors my willingness to sanction the destruction of holy private property and tries to connect this to some sort of horrible teaching conduct on my part. What can I say? I've led lively and productive and completely non-violent and respectful discussions on property rights (always interpret that to mean the rights of people who own property)vs. human rights and the common good. The left's main issue has always been with private productive property ---- tyrannical private monopoly of society's leading material structures (means of production and distribution) --- and also with related private domination of core economic activities (especially work/labor process), not private personal property. But when certain forms of private personal property become sufficiently destructive towards community and ecology, they become legitimate targets of direct counter-action. A Hummer or an SUV isn't a favorite toothbrush or pen. It's an assault on the earth (so is my Honda Civic) among other things. The best and real thing to push for of course is democratic, egalitarian, and participatory processes for making social responsible decisions on what we produce, consume, and how and why. The vile, amoral, and egoistic capitalist system (which concentrates bok's beloved private property in ever fewer corporate-plutocratic hands by its inherent nature) that bok defends as his personal God (anything that qualifies that God's hegemony is some sort of socialism-fascism [same thing in his account] by bok's account) is fundamentally opposed to that project and I shed no tears when some its more obviously destructive products are destroyed. Wow has "Bob in Indiana" walked into the wrong bar; still I encourage him to respond to our slant on current events in a little less knee-jerk sort of way. Most of us on the left have put serious thought (some of which is inspired in the writings of people like James Madison, Bob) into why we don't see America's vast overseas empire (including 730+ bases located in nearly every country on the planet for God's sake) in and beyond Iraq as protecting our freedom....and even see it is as undermining that freedom....imagine! "The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." - James Madison, 1799

VWood,Initially the US was protecting US citizens from a country who harbored terrorists and from a person who continually defied the US and UN. I think we face a direct and imminent threat from terrorists each and every day. With some luck and the heroic efforts of the military, police, CIA, FBI, etc... we've been able to minimize the threats. We'll never be 100% safe, especially with as open a country we are (nobody would want the US to become isolationist). I think there is a difference between resistance fighters and terrorists. Although you say it's "established" that they are resistance fighters, I don't believe it...they blow up Iraqi's as much as US personnel. Don't you think that they're actually hurting their resistance by these violent acts...especially against their people? The sooner the country is "secure", the sooner we can get our boys home. What we can't let happen is the country to turn into an anarchy (again!). The US doesn't want to colonize Iraq, we want to free Iraq. Now the resistance fighters are impeding freedom's progress. In no way is this situation anywhere close to if someone decided to invade the US. However, if you'll recall, Al Queda did invade the US before 9/11, which really started (or re-started) this situation.

Bob in Indiana First, I have to ask just who it is the military is protecting US citizens from? Who would dare invade the USA? Indonesia perhaps? Or Guatamala? Maybe Venezuela. Or perhaps Iran? Of course, Terrorists! But first you have to convince me that the US faces a direct and imminent terrorist threat. And then, you have to convince me that a huge military buildup is effective against terrorists. Secondly, we are fueling the will of what terrorists in Iraq? It has been established that the "terrorists" you speak of are in fact Iraqi resistance fighters who are willing to give their lives that the foreign occupier of their country will leave. Surely you can see their point, Bob? Afterall, what if the invader had been Iraq, and the country invaded, was the USA? What if the Iraqis felt that they had a really good reason for invading - perhaps the USA had stockpiles of nuclear bombs that could be dropped on someone at some time? What if they had stores of chemical weapons (like phosphorus) that could be used against people? What if they maintained biological weapons factories? Would that be enough to keep you from fighting to get rid of them? I don't think so. And should you then be considered a terrorist by the Iraqi army?

VWood commented on the defense budget and the big price tag...that could better be used on other social programs. However, without the security that the military provides, those social programs are non-existent. The bigger issue is the wasteful spending in all areas (including some in defense). How can Congress pass a Highway Transportation Bill that includes a "bridge to nowhere" that connects Alaska's Gavina Island to the mainland. This is a $200 million price tag...talk about wasteful spending. Reference the War: Whether the intelligence was good or bad or whether you disagree with our administrations actions it's time to focus on getting the job done in the most efficient manner possible. The more we talk about getting our boys home...the more problems that they'll have in country. This talk just fuels the will of the terrorists. We're there and everyone in the UN wants this to work (see SG Annan's recent comments). We need to push the UN to take true responsibility for world affairs or face irrelevance (they may already be there). We need more international troops on the ground to make it safe for the majority of Iraqi's who are definitely better off now than under Saddam's rule.

Yakov, notice how you didnt respond to any of the counter arguments posed here? What is it that drives you? I simply dont understand. Every time you write something it gets smacked down, every time you argure something you loose. Isnt it about time you started considering the possibility that youre wrong? What is it that keeps your mind so closed? Or are you just playing some kind of a game? In any case, if you want to discuss Paul and his SUV policy, you may perhaps want to pose an argument as to why it is wrong rather then simply stating your opinion. Also, the fact that Sheehan has a son in Iraq by no means disproves her quote. She never said anyone should shut up, she suggested they should speak out or volenteer. You posting here seems more and more like a joke.

Paul, thank you for the kind words. You're truely an inspiration, especially when advocating the destruction of private property, which I know you deplore. No matter how despicable an SUV may be, destroying one in the way you advocated is even worse. Such morals. I wonder how you conduct your classes. Cindy Sheehan: “If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.” By Sheehan's own words, she should stop her loud mouth crying and suck it up. Her son was a volunteer! He re-upped to be part of the War!

"How much of our economy is based on the defense industry? It is therefore good for business to have little nice wars now and then. Peace! Then we would have to spend all that money on infrastructure, education, health, research! What evil thoughts." - gladiator777 So true. When was the last time you heard the media discuss the budget, not in terms of how much of the Social Program could be cut, but rather how much of the military budget could be cut to make room for more social programs? It's probably been a LONG time. The military budget for the top five weapons programs will be around $450B next year. No one - I mean NO ONE - in the major media has even questioned that enormous figure. People are dying, homeless, jobless, hungry, sick, without futures. People are falling victim to natural disasters across the world. The USA is on a gluttenous weapons spending spree. And no one even questions it.

My experience has been that as long as the US is perceived as winning, both its people and its Congress are happy and the cause, however unjustified, is considered legal and righteous. It is only when things turn sour that the people and Congress start pointing fingers. Personaly, I no longer care if Congress or the people approve/disapprove anything - polls are little more than misinformation devices, people's memories are short-lived, and what is said in public is never a reflection of the true power-brokers. I try to learn the facts and form my oprinions as best I can, in spite of people's emotional reactions which seem to change on a daily basis.

`The United Nations consists of at least 60-70 countries led by dictators nearly as brutal as Saddam Hussein, many of them totalitarian, Communist, and/or direct or indirect supporters of global terrorism` And the number one totalitarian, brutal, terrorist supporter would be the USA. I challange you to find a truely socialist government that acts in the way you accuse them of. `Nearly two-thirds UN members are countries with largely socialist economic systems led by corrupt leaders who regularly register their opposition to US policies.` Perhaps you should show how 2/3rds of the UN is socialist? Perhaps more socialist then the US, but thats hardly a valid comparison. I also would like to see evidence showing that 2/3rds of UN leaders are corrupt. Moreover, youre implying that the US isnt corrupt, wich is criminally ignorant. `Economics, i.e., socialism, is one of the major driving forces behind the anti-war movement.` Supposing this is true, how does it make Socialism bad? `If you want to argue oil politics, why don't you (the left) also start advancing green technology?` Because Big Oil/car corperations dont let people do that. Cars can run perfectly on methane and Hydrogen, but the car companys arnt building any, and there are no places to get green fuel, so theres no point in building any, so theres no point in making green fuel available.

Yak: "please explain the security council resolution that says Iraq violated the terms of the Gulf War 1 cease fire by not complying with the UN resolutions saying Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors? If Iraq violated the cease fire, the US was in the right to inforce the UN resolution." There were weapons inspectors in Iraq until Bush forced them out in march 03 inorder to invade. The US is not the inforcer for UN resolutions, besides the UN never passed a reolution to use force against Iraq. Therefore, the war is in violation of international law. "There has not been any UN action condemning US intervention in Iraq." That's because the US has veto power, that is why the one country that has had more resolutions proposed concering its illgeal activity, Isreal, is still breaking international law with no consequences. "The U.S. is acting to try and democratize those countries " The current US regime is not interested in democracy, not in the US, not in Iraq, not anywhere. "The United Nations consists of at least 60-70 countries led by dictators nearly as brutal as Saddam Hussein" This is just pure hyperbole. Name one country that is as brutal as Saddam. Name the 60 countries that are dictators. You exagerate and make yourself a fool, Yakov. "Economics, i.e., socialism, is one of the major driving forces behind the anti-war movement." So, socialism is anti-war. No you are finally making some sense Yakov.

I was not really surprised that a congressman, someone, anyone, would eventually speak out. But what puzzled me is how Murtha's policy recommendations (the "immediate redeployment" - note he never uses the word 'withdrawal', comparable to Gaza as a 'disengagement' - "of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces," constructing "a quick reaction force in the region" and "an over-the-horizon presence of Marines ...") were immediately condemned and branded as "extreme" and, implicitly, as part of a sinister leftist plot to "rewrite" history and fire shots at US credibility. (As a sort of aside, I notice a strange and disturbing pattern: every Vietnam veteran of political influence to publicly challenge the President has been spat on by his administration, prominently McCain, Kerry, now Murtha. Maybe they know something about guerrilla war that Bush and Cheney do not.)

Notice to new readers: YB is this blog's resident right-wing nut-case. I limit my responses to him to 1 and leave the rest to others. Somebody (maybe it was gladiator777) mentioned Hummers and oil addiction. How criminal is it that during this whole imperialist oil and race war ON Iraq (and ON standard international norms and rules of decency), tens of thousands (Iraqi civilians mainly) die prematurely while "American" (multinational) automobile corporations continue to carpet-bomb American print and electronic media with sexed-up sales images of their climate-baking and community-destroying products sweeping past abandoned ghettoes and across retreating ocean beaches at gass-guzzling rates of extreme speed. I wrote an amusing piece relating to Hummers once: "The Manly Scent of the Hummer" at www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-12/28street.cfm. The (7-8 MPG) Hummer is in its own little way an ecological, political, and mass-cultural war crime. If you see one parked, unoccupied, and unguarded, I suggest taking a cue from the French -African youth of the Paris suburbs: burn it to the ground. David Model I said the war was illegal...this was one of my main points and its what I've been saying from the start.

I do! That was a set-up. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq. We gave the nod for Iraq to invade Kuwait in response. Then we pounced. I used to be on the inside. We used to call Saddam a bastard, but he was "our bastard". Yes, at one time there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How do we know, we sold it to them. the same is true for Iran where there are Westinghouse nuclear reactors. Seeing a pattern yet? How much of our economy is based on the defense industry? It is therefore good for business to have little nice wars now and then. Peace! Then we would have to spend all that money on infrastructure, education, health, research! What evil thoughts.

Who thinks the U.S. intervening in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait was wrong? Unfortunately, we are finishing the job 15 years later. When WWI was finished, the issues that led to Germany's initial aggressions were not resolved. That led to WWII. As a result, the spread of totalitarianism/socialism was stopped. While it may not be a perfect analogy, there is a lesson to be learned. Sadaam had to go - and so do the leaders of Syria and Iran.

There has not been any UN action condemning US intervention in Iraq. Individuals, or individual countries have spoken, but the body as a whole has not taken any action on this matter. "it must be immoral to keep the leaders of such countries as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, and others in power as well." You're saying either act against all at once, or don't act at all. The U.S. is acting to try and democratize those countries or keep them from disrupting the balance of power in their regions. Iraq, however, had gone further to disrupt the region/flout international condemnation then any other. Please consider: The United Nations consists of at least 60-70 countries led by dictators nearly as brutal as Saddam Hussein, many of them totalitarian, Communist, and/or direct or indirect supporters of global terrorism? Nearly two-thirds UN members are countries with largely socialist economic systems led by corrupt leaders who regularly register their opposition to US policies. Economics, i.e., socialism, is one of the major driving forces behind the anti-war movement. Otherwise, why support the UN and by proxy, so many retched regimes? If you want to argue oil politics, why don't you (the left) also start advancing green technology? People complain about oil, and that's it, nothing more. The beauty of markets, if you bring green technology that works and is cost-effective, people will adopt it.

Yakov, you state: "If it immoral to remove Hussein from power, one must conclude is is moral to keep him in power." Let's carry that further, then. If it is immoral to keep someone like Hussein in power, then it must be immoral to keep the leaders of such countries as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, and others in power as well. True? Then why, may I ask, is the US sucking up to many of these? It doesn't take much to figure that out. There are essentially two motives behind not taking a "moral" stand against these countries and invading them. One, like any playground bully, the US is reluctant to attack someone who might actually be capable - and willing! - of returning fire. Two, economics - the US really doesn't care who is running the country or how muderous or repressive they might be as long as those leaders play economic ball with the US under US rules of engagement. It's really as simple as that.

Yakov your argument is patently outrageous. Your essentially claiming that while the majority of the security council is opposed to the Iraq war, we are essentially acting for and in the name of the security council, because Iraq didnt comply with their resolutions. Thats totally crazy, how can we act in the name of someone or something that opposes what we are doing?

The real Iraq question is 'how do we fill our cheap oil addiction if we are not taken it from someone else?' The US has been in decline since the 70's. We have this massive oil addiction that we ignored for so long after it was apparent, and now we are killing people to meet our addiction. In a supposedly advanced society we still have massive gas guzzling cars driving on our roads. It only takes an IQ of 30 to realize the problem. Until the American people decide to down-size their life style we will be killing for oil. If you see Hummers still be sold off the showroom floors next year, then you will see US troops in Iran or other countries securing our fix. The process will acerbate until it crashes. Then you will have pockets of high tech societies surrounded by people thrown back to near stone age living. Hold on to your camping gear.

Paul, please explain the security council resolution that says Iraq violated the terms of the Gulf War 1 cease fire by not complying with the UN resolutions saying Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors? If Iraq violated the cease fire, the US was in the right to inforce the UN resolution. What about the later UN resolution allowing the U.S. and Britain to be in Iraq? The later would indicate that even in the UN's eyes, the US has not broken any international laws.

Shame on you Yakov,yet again. International rules regarding use of force start with Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another except (a) when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or (b) when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). Whatever you want to think about UN authority or the enforcemeent of past UN resolutions,neither exception holds in the case of what Uncle Sam has done to Iraq and international rules between March 19 2003 and today. You say its all ok "from an American perspective" (whose "American perspective," Yakov?..that of the chickenhawk cabal?) but it is a serious crime against American law for policymakers to disregard international laws to which their government has signed on. Wars of aggresion like the invasion and occupation of Iraq were treated as the supreme high state crime at the Nuremberg trials. Even shameless Colin Powell now hangs his sorry head in connection with his pivotal role selling an unjust war that has made things almost immeasurably worse for almost all parties concerned, including the Iraqi people, in whose defense you disingenuously claim to speak.

The war is NOT illegal from an American perspective because the Senate approved the use of U.S. troops. The war is NOT illegal from an international perspective because 1)the UN doesn't hold binding authority (sorry, but that's the truth), and 2) the security council acted numerous times against Iraq and then failed to do anything because of politics (remember the current French and Russian connection to the Iraq?). The U.S. is merely enforcing past UN Security Council resolutions. What is the moral authority for saying that the war is immoral? If it immoral to remove Hussein from power, one must conclude is is moral to keep him in power. Is it moral to keep a despot like Hussein in power who has killed thousands of his own people, declared war on his neighbors, openly gives money to terrorist organizations, and make no qualms about his desire to disrupt the entire middle east?

yep, it's just grand to see the 'big johns' of the political arena speaking up....but why do I have this gnawing mantra in my head? : Too Little Too Late!!