I read that the Iraqi VicePresident has asked The Bush administration for a timetable for withdrawal but Bush has firmly rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal.

This has been the case before:

1.- Invent a reason for Invasion, Weapons of mass destruction, for instance..

2.- Tell the people we are coming to free them from their oppressive regime

3.- Invade, destroy, inflict “collateral damage”, plunder the country's resources.

4.- Use your servient media to promote the heroism of your militia and clear the news from coffins, dead bodies, blood, massacred civilians, because it is in very poor taste to show it to children or families at breakfast.

5.- Lend them money for their reconstruction and to maintain a long lasting relationship.

6.- Tell them “we are not ready to leave yet, until you are prepared to govern yourselves” we will let you know when, if at all..

7.- Tell your people “we are fighting this war in faraway lands to avoid fighting it in our streets” (do not mention growing resentment from the whole world).

8.- Move on to the next target..

With all due respect to Professor Chomsky, and to the Iraqi populace, who in their US-induced desperation want the military occupation to end, I have to contend that withdrawing from Iraq right now would most likely allow a looming disaster much worse than the current one to proliferate.  (See my article in the recent edition of Against the Current.)  Blaming the guilty party for the ongoing situation is one thing, but turning our backs on the horror that might follow if the guilty party takes away its shaky framework of security is another.  As professor Chomsky says, this is no Vietnam, where a highly coordinated political movement was afoot and ready to step into the fray.  Will Bush & Co. reap some political benefit if stability in Iraq is achieved? Yes.  (Remember, though, that Bush I "won" the first Gulf War but was defeated in the next election.) But in that case, if our concern is truly with the Iraqi people, those of us who opposed this war from the beginning will step up and support relative peace and stability in Iraq in the face of unrestrained civil war that could spread into neghboring countries.  If stability is achieved, the Iraqi police and army will probably be brutal and only marginally concerned with human rights, having learned so well from the US-backed reign of Saddam Hussein.  Nevertheless, the situation, hopefully, could not be worse than it is now.  (Polls also show that many Iraqis say they preferred Saddam Hussein's reign to the current chaos.)

--Kale Baldock, author of Is Iraq Another Vietnam?

With all due respect to Professor Chomsky, and to the Iraqi populace, who in their US-induced desperation want the military occupation to end, I have to contend that withdrawing from Iraq right now would most likely allow a looming disaster much worse than the current one to proliferate.  (See my article in the recent edition of Against the Current.)  Blaming the guilty party for the ongoing situation is one thing, but turning our backs on the horror that might follow if the guilty party takes away its shaky framework of security is another.  As professor Chomsky says, this is no Vietnam, where a highly coordinated political movement was afoot and ready to step into the fray.  Will Bush & Co. reap some political benefit if stability in Iraq is achieved? Yes.  (Remember, though, that Bush I "won" the first Gulf War but was defeated in the next election.) But in that case, if our concern is truly with the Iraqi people, those of us who opposed this war from the beginning will step up and support relative peace and stability in Iraq in the face of unrestrained civil war that could spread into neghboring countries.  If stability is achieved, the Iraqi police and army will probably be brutal and only marginally concerned with human rights, having learned so well from the US-backed reign of Saddam Hussein.  Nevertheless, the situation, hopefully, could not be worse than it is now.  (Polls also show that many Iraqis say they preferred Saddam Hussein's reign to the current chaos.)

--Kale Baldock, author of Is Iraq Another Vietnam?

With all due respect to Professor Chomsky, and to the Iraqi populace, who in their US-induced desperation want the military occupation to end, I have to contend that withdrawing from Iraq right now would most likely allow a looming disaster much worse than the current one to proliferate.  (See my article in the recent edition of Against the Current.)  Blaming the guilty party for the ongoing situation is one thing, but turning our backs on the horror that might follow if the guilty party takes away its shaky framework of security is another.  As professor Chomsky says, this is no Vietnam, where a highly coordinated political movement was afoot and ready to step into the fray.  Will Bush & Co. reap some political benefit if stability in Iraq is achieved? Yes.  (Remember, though, that Bush I "won" the first Gulf War but was defeated in the next election.) But in that case, if our concern is truly with the Iraqi people, those of us who opposed this war from the beginning will step up and support relative peace and stability in Iraq in the face of unrestrained civil war that could spread into neghboring countries.  If stability is achieved, the Iraqi police and army will probably be brutal and only marginally concerned with human rights, having learned so well from the US-backed reign of Saddam Hussein.  Nevertheless, the situation, hopefully, could not be worse than it is now.  (Polls also show that many Iraqis say they preferred Saddam Hussein's reign to the current chaos.)

--Kale Baldock, author of Is Iraq Another Vietnam?

THERE ARE TWO LASTING FACTORS ABOUT THIS US INVASION OF IRAQ:- 1. THE INVASION IS BASED ON ILLEGALIY ( US INVASION WAS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE UN CHARTER). 2. THERE IS OIL IN IRAQ - A LOT OF IT ( I.E. THE US SEEKS TO CONTROL THAT OIL AND SECURE HEGEMONY IN THE REGION). READ MORE AT THE BLOG AT WWW.GLOBALJUSTICEONLINE.COM Annual NOTABLE awards for Blair and Bush ( 2005) - Afghan/Iraq Review - Carter speaks. December 22nd, 2005

"This very subject came up a lot during my thesis: it is inconceivabe in the dominant American worldview that "friendly" countries could be anything other than democratic, or that democracies could be anything other than friendly to the United States." Or maybe helping the US is to helping democracy as helping Jesus is to helping Christianity. Only we're better than Jesus. Holier too.

Cabral: As you say: "We present arguments against the war as if it was possible to make arguments in favor." "War is always wrong." (That is, there are no just wars.) In my opinion, the most important insights for all of us are to be found in these two little sentences. But---for the life-negating point of view of the American political leadership:

National Security (Homepage), White House Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2005 "President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (the President's Speech), White House Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2005 "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (Complete Document), White House Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2005 "Fact Sheet: Training Iraqi Security Forces," White House Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2005

As you say, David. It is incredible how people easily enter into discutions about the war filled with arguments and contraditory data. We talk about economic costs - meaningless numbers like $222,355,398,541. We make bodycounts and also count apart civilians and militars, iraqis and americans. We present arguments against the war as if it was possible to make arguments in favor. We discuss political organization systems and we build a power pyramid. We produce terrabytes of endless information and we get lost into discussions trying to search a definitive argument that could convince the world that war is wrong. But we all know the obvious: war is allways wrong.

Friends: For a monumentally disappointing---though very American---reason for ending a war:

"The End Of The War," Robert B. Reich, CommonDreams.org, November 23, 2005

Not because an enlightened decision has been reached about the immorality and the criminality of the resort to state violence to rule the world, to seize what other people have, and to compel them to obey. But because the $$$$$ just might not be there to keep this latest instance of the resort to state violence afloat over the long-term.

"Camilo Mejia," ZNet, February 17, 2005

I would realy like to have some data about the failing of US occupation in Iraq. And, when I say democratic, I don't mean it in the phylosophical way. The truly democracy is as utopic as anarchy. And I don't think republicans would call a withdrawl. I am sure they have an other way to call it. It is easier to 'negociate' with a 'democratic' government than with a dictatorship. A democratic government would be friendly with everyone. That means - opened to conversations. And, yes. The democracy is being forced in Iraq. This, perhaps is not the best way to do that, but it is the way it is being done. So, is the past wrong? The US army occupation in Iraq was a consequence of what? Now, is Iran the next?

Cabral obviously confuses an "American friendly" government with a "democratic" government. It is interesting how these two completely different(often times totally opposite) concepts are being depicted as almost synonymous in Amercian public discourse by the media and pundits.Wilful distortions such as this are very effective in shaping the public's way of seeing the world. This may explain why to the outsiders Americans often have unbelivably bizzare perceptions about themselves and the world.

"Stablishing a democratic government in Iraq is enough to control the oil." That is blatant contradiction. If the Iraqi government is indeed democratic the Americans will not be controlling its oil. If the Americans end up controlling the oil how can the governmnet be democratic? Would Americans democratically allow some foreign powers to control its own resources? The reason why the U.S is propping up dictatorships all over the world is precisely that truly democratic governments would use its resources to benefit their own people rather than enriching American corporations.

"I wouldn't buy into the US debt, since its plan to control Iraq's oil is clearly failing. Even Republican Congressmen are talking about withdrawal now". This is an important issue. Reading the news, I get the impression that Iraq's forced democracy is starting to work out somehow. Stablishing a democratic government in Iraq is enough to control the oil. What do you mean when you say the plan to control Iraq's oil is clearly failing?

The opinions of the American public have zero relevance in the legitimacy of the war and the occupation of Iraq. Even if 100% of public opinion is behind Bush it is still a crime. American voters have NO right whatsoever in dictating the lives of non Americans. The argument that the war and occupation are somhow legitimate because Bush has democratic support is ludicrous and it may backfire. The implication is that there is no "innocent" American civilan. I don't disagree with Graeme on principle, even though I am not 100% convinced it is appropiate to withdraw right. But as I said I don't have a firm opinion on this. I do think there should be a definite time table for withdrawal.

"US public opinion is already moving strongly in the direction of demanding a withdrawal." What makes US public opinion move in this case? Are US citizens worried about Iraqi people? Does public opposition increase costs of war? Or increasing war costs generates public opposition? In fact, I don't think short term economics plays a major role here. If the US controls ME oil, I would really like to buy their long-term debt for a small interest rate. The public opinion re-elected the US government recently. And the US president is not worried about facing a 'war crime' trial.

" Middle Eastern oil is key to American political hegenomy (controlling the oil Europe, China, India and Japan need), not to "the American way of life." I agree that "hegemony/security" is a major (perhaps, in fact, bigger) factor. But, don't you think our way of life is made possible, in large part, by this hegemony?

"The US is in Iraq in direct defiance of current American popular opinion on the matter." If we had any idea how much our way of life is dependent on ME oil this would not be the case.

The US army is inside Iraq. In theory they are commanded by the government of the US wich, in theory is democratic elected by US citizens. So, US army is corresponding the needs of US citizens. You can't invade a country without a mass population support. But, I think it's easier just to forget borders. The army won't leave unless they have a very good reason. We shouldn't expect that the '102.000' deaths and the destruction of a country very far away (Baghdad is allways used in that sense) would move US public opinion stronger enough for a withdrawl. And the international laws... what role they play? At this point, I just can't imagine US army spontaneously leaving Iraq. Someone please help me do.

We need resources. Why we talk about a withdrawal? Iraq is very strategic. A permanent military base would be just fine. Or, maybe, the republic could say: "We went there, we've found no WMD, than we are comming back now. We apologise for any inconvinience."

"Most of the body bags won't be for American soldiers. What is irresponsible is to keep pouring gasoline on a fire while complaining about how dry it is so a fire is likely anyway." But the question is whether the violence would escalate or subside if the U.S hastily withdraw. You along with most people here seem to think it will subside. You may very well be right but this is not obvious to me based on the facts and arguments put forth here. The U.S is the world's biggest mafioso. But in a neighbourhood where local hoodlums are engaging in turf wars and shoot outs on a daily basis the presence of a mafia racket may have a stablizing effect. In the absence of any real police force perhaps a mafia racket is still marginally preferable than all out gang wars. When everyone is talking about the costs and body bags of occupation the wholesale plundering of Iraq's wealth in the background has escaped the radar. This can be stopped immediately without any adverse effect. Perhaps economical disengagment is more pressing than a military disengagment.(I know normally it does not make sense to think of the military presence as seperate from the economical objectives. But this temperory decoupling may be possible during a transitional peroid before military withdrawal)

Just to be clear. I am not arguing "we" are morally superior to the "resistance". I am saying "we" have the responsibility to take the blows since we have created the jungle situation in the first place. In the long run I agree with joeblog's proposals.In addition some kind of equitable peace among the different parties in Iraq have to be brokered by some credible third party(not the U.S) But the transitional peroid has to be well planned out in a TRANSPARENT manner. It is not pleasant to have an arrow stuck in your chest, but pulling it out quickly and recklessly may cause immediate death. At least 4) can in prinicple be worked out even if U.S troops are present. It is more important than immediate withdrawal(though very unlikely) "But the resistance's crimes against their "own people" are largely exaggerated, and in any respect the worst parts of the resistance will get stronger over time if America stays" You may be right in your first point. I noted in my first post that I was simply going by the info. availiable in the mass media. I could be wrong. The second point is your speculation. If my analyis in my first post was correct the "resistance" may have taken on its own dynamics at this stage. U.S presence may no longer be the fuel that feeds the fire. A full scale civil war may erupt if the U.S just cut and run now.

"Would you have accepted the pretense of a Japanese intellectual that staying in Manchuria was owed to them because, hey, if we pulled out the Commies might win? Those things aren't our right to determine." That is a flawed analogy. The Chinese civil war was not triggered by Japan's invasion. The current Iraqi government is more legitimate than the Manchuruian puppet. It was elected under occupation but even Chomsky acknowledged it was a relatively fair election and its outcome did reflect the interests of the Shia majority. I am not sure if the Shia and the Sunis look at the American presence in the same way. As calico said, many Shias regarded the Saddam regime as "internal occupation". IF she is right it is not automatic that the Sunis and Shias consider themselves as "Iraqis" standing up against a foreigen occupier. There equation is more nuanced. I am NOT justifying the invasion. My point is, having creating a mess in Iraq the U.S bears a lot of responsibility to the security in the country. It is self serving and irresponsible to cut and run when body bags are coming back. The latest change of heart of the Dems is just pure cost benefit calculations. It is not "our right" to determine anything but it is "our" responsibility to pay for what "we" broke.

"As far as that goes, if some Iraqis want to draw closer to Iran or whoever, that's their prerogative" Just like it was the perogative of, say, the Contras to draw close to us?

"The rise of Islamism in Iraq is directly attributable to the American presence there," Does that mean that if we stop it will just go away all by itself? I agree that we need to get out, quite soon, and I am as skeptical of the authenticity and motivations behind the "official" justifications for staying as most reasonable people are, but lets at least acknowledge that a hell of a lot of Iraqis are still going to die in violence in the near future after our pull out. And, lets also be honest and admit that the notion that our pullout will allow Iraqis to decide their own fate is freaking deluded. Forget the Jihadis - Iran doesn't want an independent Iraq any more than we do. It is not helping the resistance in order to help establish an independent Iraq - it is doing it to build up power bases from which to influence and control it's neighbor. Same with Syria, and Jordan and SA (proportionate with their resources - Iran is the biggest power though).

If the situation continues to degrade as is has every month since the occupation, regardless of all else, there is almost no good in staying (aside from the imperialist point of view). We will not make the country better or stop the violence nor do we have that right if the polls are correct. I work with a former vet. who did 2 tours there recently and aside from the horror stories he has told me he has given me a lot of insight into what average Iraqis think about the US. His answer is that we are generally seen as an enemy of sorts for many obvious reasons. If Iraq was here occupying us and the conditions were as bad as they are in Iraq, and I had the understanding of what the US is really there for, I'd take up arms in a heartbeat. My guess is that these polls are pretty close to reality. They wanted Saddam gone but with the condition that we not do what we're doing now so they've turned. It's so complex and almost impossible to know with limited information we all have.

A few comments on anti-americanism So if the number of people in the US opposed to staying in Iraq continues to rise --let's say to 90% -- does that mean 90% of the population is against itself? No, it means that 90% of the population is against war unless absolutely needed. When they begin to realize the war was based on lies(amoung other things) and not necessity they oppose it. Causing terror recruitment to rise as a result of an erroneous occupation is aiding the enemy. If my anti-war stance somehow aids the enemy in a totally meaningless way that cannot possibly be measured, what does it say when your actions proliferate terrorism with concrete results? Comment on Chomsky secretly being a money hoarding capitalist There is no possbile way for any of us to know how much money Chomsky makes or what he does with it. Although maybe through your years of obsession, Falseprophets, you have? Some proof would be nice. Check yourself into an asylum.

Falseprophets: Does Chomsky have a restraining order against you? Because you're obviously 1)Obsessed with him 2)A lunatic 3)A stalker 4)A creep

There is nothing wrong in charging universities for $12,000. They can afford it. Universities are big institutions. Universities have more or less set rates for speakers of different status, it is like an "industrial standard". It would actually be disrespectful and unprofessional to charge too little. I have no problem that Chomsky charges those who can afford it more to subsidize his appearance in other venues where the organizers cannot afford the expenses. There are expenses for travelling around, renting a building and paying the staff etc.

It is taken as an axiom here that "the resistance" represents a united Iraqi front against the U.S invaders. But I am skeptical about it, based on admittedly limited information. It seems that most of the violence is directed againest Iraqi civilians rather than U.S troops. A lot of the insurgencies are inner sectarian violence where Sunni "insurgents" plant bombs outside Shia mosques or summarily executing Shia civilians. While I support the right to armed resistance in principle I don't know to what extent that is happening in Iraq. The American invasion has unleashed deadly forces and apparantly these forces are sorting themselves out.I don't believe that the violence would stop magically if the American pull out right the way. I am not even sure if U.S presence is the prime motivator of the "insurgents" at this stage of the game. While the polls do indicate most Iraqis want Americans out, but that doesn't mean most Iraqis have anything to do with the insurgencies. If that is the case it would be irresponsible for the U.S to just exit without some proper arrangement with the international community and the Iraqis. After all it started the mess if it has to pay with more body bags to keep a lid on so be it. I can be wrong because my factual info.is very limited. But no one here seem to question the facts.

>Comment by r4d20 posted on Monday, November >21 at 08:52 PM >What makes a resistance legitimate? An entity which has taken over power through illegitimate means.

"Even if a legitimate revolution against a colonial occupier has nasty components, nasty self-interested people in it with nasty ends, etc., it doesn't disprove their legitimate aspirations." What makes a resistance legitimate?

In my opinion there are only two actions which can save our planet and our people from the excesses of corporations and governments worldwide, one heavily dependent upon the other. First, the political strucutre must be changed. The Party system of representation must be abolished and that power handed back to the people, not back-room power moguls financing the candidates of their choice and usurping the goals of the people. Secondly, and dependent upon the first, change the laws to limit Corporations. Corporations today have only one remit under law - to protect their shareholders and do nothing that would limit their ability to make a profit. And whilst they are given the same privileges under law that a real person has, they are not held to the same level of responsibilities. An amendment to the US Constitution revoking the privileges of Corporations as recognised under the 14th Amendment (which was really intended for blacks and other disadvantged peoples) should be one of the first steps taken to bring the Corporations under control of the people, rahter than the other way around.

More important than the polls is what is happenging on the ground right now. The U.S. administration is bending over backwards trying to get us to believe that there are hords of terrorists streaming over the borders of Iraq and launching attacks against us. The reality is that only 4-10% of the fighters are foreigners according to a Christian Science Monitor article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html I find it critical that almost all of the fighters are Iraqis who are telling us by their actions that they don't want us in their country. I can imagine what they're saying: "Thanks for removing Saddam - the guy you supported with money and military equipment which prevented us from taking him out by ourselves - now get the hell out!"

I think that these kinds of posts which are personal attacks on Chomsky and accuse him of being a greedy hypocrite should be ignored by the rest of us, and removed by the administrator for being irrelevant to the thread topic.

Frederic, Although I agree with much of your piece on the illusory nature of consuption activism, I must disagree in part. While I agree that certain actions, such as boycotts, will never change the system, some do actually help eliviate the hardships. Your oft cited vegitarianism is one that actually has potential to do alot. Eating is something we all do atleast three times a day and the current diet of westerners is a huge cause of pollution, hunger and wasteful energy consumption. Not to mention that it is a healthier choice. While we should not delude ourselves that this will end the problems of the world, or switch focus to a pure boycot political mode, everyday actions by individuals will help in the short term. It is simply to broad a statement to say that it does nothing. It infact helps to bring alot of people into the movement.

Part B: Chomsky does paid speeches around the world. So where was he in 1989 when the Chinese rose up against their government, choosing Tiananmen Square as the place to do battle? The Chinese were doing exactly what Chomsky recommends people to do in such a situation. And the result: a bloodbath! So, where was the brave Chomsky, the man who is prepared to live up to his words? Surely, as Chomsky is happy to take money off foreigners, he'll stand by them when they listen to him, or after they have been used as fodder for his speeches. Chomsky was safe in America, living in the lap of luxury, that's where he was. That's Chomsky for you, lecturing others to change the system, to overthrow their governments, yet too cowardly to risk anything himself. Instead, he charges universities $12,000 a time to lecture their students. Thatcher and Reagan WERE right. Greed IS good, even Chomsky endorses it. People are ONLY motivated by money - it's true! Bush's recent tax cuts to the rich were well considered given this fact - Bush understands people! The wealthy, like Chomsky, need an incentive to keep working hard. We can only hope Bush doesn't lose sight of this truism.

From the front page of this "blog": >"...the content of this blog is drawn >largely from his ZNet Sustainer Forum where >he answers queries from members of the ZNet >Sustainer Program." In other words, you have to be a paid member of ZNet, contributing to Chomsky's wealth and to the wealth of his friends who run this Web site, to have a say in what he writes. Very egalitarian! Too poor to become a paid member? Then fuck off you inadequate and envious peasant, and leave Chom$ky, his two homes, his boat (I'm sure it doesn't run on oil!), his $12,000 fees, and his good buddies at ZNet alone. Chomsky is acting a lot like a politician, encouraging ZNet sustainers - lobbyists! - to influence what he talks about. Pay me, Chomsky says, and I'll listen. Don't pay me, and I won't. Yes, just like a politician! He claims to speak on behalf of the poor, on behalf of those without a voice, yet only listens to those rich enough to buy themselves a voice. In other words, Chomsky only considers people with money as worth listening to. Tells you everything you need to know about the guy. America slaughters, and Chom$ky collects - in multiples of $12,000 each time! No wonder Chomsky refuses to leave America in protest at what his country is doing.

If your dog on leash, you don't have to worry about pulling them out of your neighbors' trash can or flower bed. The problem is that the American people have left their government off of its leash. Take back your government. www.newdemocracy.org

Not to beat a strawman or digress from the topic or anything, but theres a common line of anti-Chomsky thought that points out that while Chomsky is anti-Capitolist/Imperialist, he has lots of money, and is therefore a hipocrite. But the proponents of this argument seldom think about the other options. What would they have him do? Donate all his money and then live as a homeless person? He wouldnt be a hypocrite if he slept on the side of the street, but that would probably kill him, and even if it didnt no one would listen to him, because he`d just be a crazy bum. The people who argue this are often the same ones who hate taxes and love personal property, but what they conviently forget is that by their own belifs in that the rich are entitled to be rich by their ability and hard work, and that those who arnt rich are so because of their own discisions. To belive this is to be hypocritic when one accuses Chomsky of being a hypocrite. And to admit to the contrary is to say America is classist, and then prove Chomskys critiqes of American classism.

Tony I would submit that under the conditions faced by Iraqis today, there is no security to be contemplated. You can't think rationally about security when your country is illegally occupied by a foreign power who refuses to leave until it has "stayed the course" (whatever that means). And may I remind you, Saddam Hussein is gone now, replaced by his puppet master - one whose capacity for evil and dark intrigue cannot be overstated, and whose willingness to rape, pillage, and plunder other countries cannot be argued. And its ability and willingness destroy the spirit of freedom-seeking peoples everywhere is without peer in the world today. And by the way, the last I heard, there are no legitimate motives for forcibly invading a country. Such hypocrisy! What about China then? Or Uzbekistan? Or North Korea? Or Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Personally, I think that if any people on the face of the earth are in desperate need of freedom (and thus invasion), it is the people of the United States of America.

falseprofit: may I direct you to the previous blog: stop talking about race 2. It has an extensive diologue between those of this site and someone known as The-Abyss making the exact same claims you do. In any case, if Chomsky only does things out of financial interest, then why does he post topics here? We dont pay him. Moreover, why does he attend marches/peace rallys? Why does he travel to South America and talk to victims of Amerian crimes? These things cost him money and arnt publicity stunts because no one finds out until you read his books and he tells you. Your saying Chomsky just regurgitates information from other scources, but what would you have him do? Should he just not cite anything at all? Or maby he should travel to all the hotspots in the world and see US attrocites while they happen and get killed in the process? You underestimate how taxing it is for a 76 year old man to read 7 newspapers a day, attend rallies, hold lectures, and travel to foreign countries. Also, the fact that Chomsky makes money does not somehow disprove his points, nor does it invalidate the signifigant contribution he has made to fighting the establishment.

Well it's not only the oil that's there but more importantly the PROFIT of oil. If we suddenly had every house hooked up to solar panels and every car ran on gum drops, Iraq still would have been invaded. Our government will never let "the most stupendis source of stratigic power" slip out of their hands. But history has shown that even the darkest of situtations can be over come. Not without sacrafice and struggle of course.

to think that withdraw is possible is fantasy. How does the US get its oil addiction met if we pull out? We will use every brutal method at our disposal to insure that we have cheap oil for our SUV's. "The american way of life is not up for debate". We will be the evil empire; we will rape, pillage and decimate anybody who stands in our way. An addict is not a rational being!

yakov, stop using the term ANTI-AMERICAN please it's so childish I just have to laugh. If you can't see the difference between government policies and a society,culture etc. than you should know that you're joining a long list of anti-democratic pro-totalitarian thinkers, many I'm sure you've heard of. ANTI-AMERICAN...god thats funny, you're the next lenny bruce man!

"Chomsky charges a minimum of $12,000 to universities to give speeches." False, I attended a *free* lecture on thrusday night. see:http://lists.topica.com/lists/act-ma@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=811654234&sort=d&start=7783 "One, it is aiding the enemy and two, it is not necessarily against war, it is simply against America winning. Hence, the anti-war movement is inherently anti-American. " Depends on who your enemy is. The anti-war movement is not simply against america winning, it is against anyone winning who is opposed to freedom and self determination. It is opposed to imperialism and aggression by states for self gain. The fact that Bush will not pull the troops dispite the fact that majorities in both the US and iraq want them to come home, shows his contempt for the will of the people to self determine the use of its own forces or to build its own government. The anti-war movement is not against the US (america is a continent) only its policy of illegal aggression for the gain of a small percentage of its citizens. Are you one of them Yakov? Being anti-freedom is easy when you are in the belly of the empire.

"The resistance to the Iraq war is among the greatest successes for peace in human history, even though it ultimately failed in preventing the war. The resistance in Iraq depends in no small part upon our contribution." If this statement is true, the criticisms of the anti-war movement are correct. One, it is aiding the enemy and two, it is not necessarily against war, it is simply against America winning. Hence, the anti-war movement is inherently anti-American. Being anti-American is easy thing to do when you're sitting in the luxaries of civilization.

>Mr. Chomsky Chomsky doesn't visit this "blog" because there's no financial incentive to do so. I have found nothing online that Chomsky has done on his own initiative. It is everyone else promoting Chomsky, posting Chomsky's articles, writings, speeches, etc., etc. Chomsky charges a minimum of $12,000 to universities to give speeches. He's running a business, and wants you and me to promote his business for free. Chom$ky is a shrewd entrepreneur. >You...[refer]...to these polls, but >the names of the institutions...that run >them go unmentioned. Chomsky does this a lot. Like all greedy, famous people, he doesn't want to promote his competitors; for that is how Chomsky sees them. He doesn't want to send you off to other sources for information, because that would lose him money. If people made the effort, they'd realize Chomsky is merely regurgitating information he's read elsewhere for a whopping, great fee. Not long ago, Chomsky cited a survey that estimated up to 100,000 innocent Iraqis may have been butchered by the U.S. military, mainly by indiscriminate bombing. Chomsky's title to his post was "The Lancet Study". No mention of Les Roberts, or his team, who carried out the survey. The Lancet PUBLISHED the study; it did not COMMISSION it! That's another of Chomsky's tactics, to twist the facts subtly. Chomsky is a plagiarist, steals other people's data and research, and co-opts it as his own, making himself wealthier in the process.

Tony, while I will agree that most Iraqis want a sovereign and secure state, I will disagree with you on how that can be acheived. To bring up crimes of saddam do very little to further the discussion of what to do now. It we look at what is the major fuel for the insurgency we can see it is the presence of US troops. If this were removed and attacks on civilians were to continue it would be seen simply as Iraqis or forigners (other than US soldiers) attacking Iraqis. The country would unite around the issue of security and democracy. No, it wouldn't come easy for them, but it must be their fight. We do nothing but deligitimate their goals as long as we are present. And lastly the motives behind the "intervention" (ie: illigal invasion and occupation) were simply to grab a stratigic position within the middle east oil countries.

"It would be an utter catastrophe for the US if it were to withdraw and leave a sovereign and partially democratic Iraq in place." I can understand why it would be a catastrophe for the US very clearly. My question is what would happen in Iraq if this would occur?. Since it was said and now viewed that invading Iraq has united Arabs and promoted more terrorist recruits, how would a withdrawal of the US affect this? would this be viewed as a victory for them and give terrorist groups some sort of momentum just like Al Qaeda had after fighting the Russians in Afghanistan? Can the idea of the US forces leaving Iraq even be speculated since it is a fact that their infrastructure has not been rebuild to the pre-war levels?

What was happening in the u.s. house two years into the vietnam war, was there ANY talk of troop withdrawl? Maybe I'm wrong here but I see what's happening as a vast improvement.There seems to be hope now because the curtain of fear is being lifted. The public is starting to realize how FAR to the RIGHT this administration is to OUR opinion.

The revealation http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm that US forces used white phosphorus against civilians, a substance which causes the skin to melt and the flesh to burn to all the way, shows the moral foundation that Colin Powel, John McCain and others seem to be so proud of. Words of Chomsky actually prevents me from pulling hair out of my head. "the exit strategies that are proposed are a waste of time. The Pentagon can easily think them up, without help (thank you), but can't execute them because the US must somehow maintain control of Iraq through a dependable client regime, with basing rights, etc. " In other terms, This is what they are supposed to do. It is not in their best interest to do otherwise. It is up to us to make them change their policies. WE have to fight them and force them through non-violent civil disobedience, to make them do that.

"with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will “stay the course” as long as we—not they—decide to do so" Americans are too brainwashed to correct the amount of fraud that has beset their electorial system. The level of deceit cannot be fathomed with being considered a radical. Only with Pat and Jimmy watching the voting booths, could save the world from another cabal being installed in the white house. The credibility has gone. Nazi's had some perverted ethic. Where's the ethics of using chemical warfare upon 'resistance' fighters? The gloves are off, where's the U.N. inspectors during the next American Federal election>? This is the new millennium and everyone should vote in America with being harrassed and intimidated and subjected to unduely waits. Time for a stock market crash to save it's soul. America needs to awaken. Their is no exit strategy. look towards the isreal model of occupation. American media has taken the spirit of 76' and replaced it with ashley simpson. Wallmart, the marines or jail u pick your dream in America. Time for negotiations! get eddy murphey to be the host diplomat in the green zone peace accord. Counter-insurgency operations work that's the only comparison you can make to vietnam. death squads eliminating the competition while a bunkered media hide in the shadows and snap pictures of 'liberated' zones for victory propaganda. Welcome to your future america.

82% opposed to presence of our troops... Those numbers are even worse than the recent Gallup poll where 35 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq while 63 percent disapprove. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N1892736.htm

Very thorough. Thanks a bunch.

For the telegraph poll mentioned in Chomsky's post: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html For a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted from March 22 to April 9 of last year (2004): http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/iraq.poll.4.28.pdf Oxford Research International poll: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf Channel 4 (Britain) poll: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/images/iraq_survey.html Wall Street Journal selectively citing the data to serve its own ends: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=193010&attrib_id=7511 Milan Rai on the subject: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5235 I couldn't find the website where the Washington Post cites an early poll, showing that 5% of Iraqis thought the U.S. invaded to help them, 1% thought we invaded to “bring democracy” and 43% said we went in to gain control of the oil.

Mr. Chomsky: You have often referred to these polls, but the names of the institutions (or organizations, whichever) that run them go unmentioned. If they are available online, from what address could one access them?