Avalanche, your comment is both pathetic and insulting. USA should take control of every nation around the world, except Canada? That«s not an original idea! In the 60-70«s, your government in the context of the cold war, installed and actively supported cruel dictators in south america, with the idea that "anything is better than communism". The result: torn economies, hundreds of thousands of people killed, imprisioned or "disappeared". Doesn«t america stand for democracy and freedom? That«s a simple illusion. You stand for those values WITHIN YOUR FRONTIERS, while exploiting minor nations for the sake of your economy throughout the world. So please, read a history book and play less Nintendo...Van Pelt is full of them! Try an elementary school history manual, they have cool pics which you might enjoy.. Leandro lgcaputo@hotmail.com

President«s Bush autist foreign policy is mainly to blame for the chaotic present international context. Phrases like "you are either with us or against us" or "axis of evil" are an insult to the international community. War against Al Qaeda was clearly a justified venture. But what does Irak have to do with that? Pathetic proofs have been presented of the alleged "secret reunion" between Atta and iraki intelligence. Bush«s true intentions are far less appealing: dominance over Irak«s oil reserves and a boost in popularity. I honestly respect and admire american people, but this is one of the most negative aspects of their culture: the blind glorification of their military leaders. Remember ALbrights statement "500,000 iraki children«s lifes are a fair price to pay for the fall os Saddam". Do i need to say anything more? Saddam Hussein is certainly a cruel dictator. But so many more roam free throughout the world. Only one thins differenciates him from the rest: oil. Argentine alumni lgcaputo@hotmail.com

Dear Channtal What a wonderful surprise to read such article filled with an independent and intelligent point of view from a history major. As full of surprises as the destiny can be I am also a history enthusiast. Congratulations ! Your Uncle Carlos Ps. please feel free to send me an email if you wish Carlos Fleischfresser, Economist Curitiba, Brasil cfresser@onda.com.br

A man comes to power. He decides to purify his country by ritually killing all other ethnicities and destroying all other religions. He takes over other countries, seeking an empire. He blames all the world«s problems on the Jews. Sound familiar? It«s Saddam. He«s gassed the Kurds, killed Shiite Muslims, and invaded Kuwait. American intelligence clearly showed his attempts to take over Saudi Arabia. He blamed ¬Zionism¬ for the American desire to invade Iraq, completely ignoring Saddam«s lack of cooperation with inspectors and refusal to recognize no-fly zones. My earlier description probably reminded you of Hitler. Yes, Hitler and Saddam are very much alike. What would have happened if Hitler had come to power today? Would Penn students camp out on College Green protesting, insisting on a policy of non-intervention? What would have happened without US and British intervention in the Persian Gulf, in the form of sanctions or air raids? More Kurds and Shiites would be dead, and Saddam would be on his way toward a Middle Eastern empire. Do you want his ethnic cleansing to spread throughout the Middle East? Probably not, but many of you are probably part of the ¬America can do no good¬ camp. Joe, Student Madrid jnivin@sas.upenn.edu

Channtal, Maybe there isn't a frenzy of anti-war fervor on campus or throughout the country because the vast majority of Americans feel very deeply and passionately about preventing another 9/11, and yes, punishing those responsible for either supporting or facilitating those attacks. This is not an extreme right-wing sentiment, but for the most part, the consensus of the American people. Your observations of anti-war antipathy and the messages posted so far in response to your editorial should give you even further confirmation of this fact. David, Banker and Alum New York City

Excellent Editorial. While your treatment of some of the issues is debatable, it was refreshing to read a well thought out, honest opinion on this matter. Keep it up. Akshay, Wharton & College, 2003 New York, NY

Chantal is mistaken if she thinks that Iraqi laws "protect" their citizens and that removing Iraqi scientists and their families from Saddamn's reach for interviewing is dangerous. The reason the UN put this provision in the new inspection resolution is this: the only law in Iraq is Saddam's will. And he has, does and will kill anyone -- along with their families -- who rats out his secret weapons programs. So, akin to the witness protection program, the UN will transport any scientists and their families out of Iraq if they want to speak. This policy protects scientists and families and I challenge you to find any evidence that these scientists are being taken against their will and/or tortured and coerced into talking. MN

Funny how Channtal, a native of Brazil and a "visitor" in our country by virtue of our government wants to speak of American evils and tell us how we should live. Isn't Brazil guilty of shooting orphans and begging children in the streets of Rio and Sao Paulo? Aren't there also stories of police forces in this country being paid to do the same. Maybe Ms Fleischfresser ought to try to clean up her own country's evil before she takes on Americans and how we choose to live in ours. To speak of another country's evils while ignoring your own speaks of hypocrisy and self righteousness. Is it because Ms. Fleischfresser can get an audience and a forum here in our country but not in her own as well. If she is so upset with Americans why is she here no doubt enjoying our freedoms instead of home attending college in her own country. Oh it is because we have some of the best colleges in the world I guess something lacking in Brazil. ronald ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

This is the kind of nonsense and outright falsehood that the pro-war party parades around. Apparently, truth is of no concern to them: "If Saddam Hussein- who is threatening to destroy US vital interests and the US itself," Saddam has not threatened to destroy the U.S. or vital interests of the U.S. This is simply fodder to scare people into lining up behind the party line. This Bush administration, like the one before it, has no problem lying to the American people to entice them into war. For evidence of those lies used in 1991, please visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,854148,00.html and http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html Iraq has not threatened the U.S. and there is no imminent attack planned by Iraq against the U.S. The definition of "Preemptive" is that it is an attack when an imminent attack is feared. Given that no such imminent attack exists, this is not a preemptive attack but an act of aggression - similar to Pearl Harbor. 500,000 dead Iraqi children in the past 12 years due to the sanctions is proof the U.S. cares little for Iraqi lives. Norris Norris norris7171@yahoo.com

Norris, "Saddam has not threatened to destroy the U.S. or vital interests of the U.S. This is simply fodder to scare people into lining up behind the party line." Saddam attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States, he has tortured and murdered over a million of his own people including using professional rapists, he has invaded a sovereign neighboring country, he has aided and supported homicidal and suicidal terrorists who target the United States and our allies, he has in the past used weapons of mass destruction to kill non-combatants. These facts that are not disputed by the anti-war movement. The issue at hand is how the United States should deal with him. What is your proposal? David, Alum New York City

war is never the answer. no wars are just. thank you for writing that article channtal. to the others who posted feedback; if you have done any research into the history of american foreign policy, you would be aware that this very nation has done more killing globally in the last 100 years than any other. since WWII our military has been involved in 20+ nations and hundreds of thousands of innocent people die. and where our military isn't involved, our nifty foreign economic policies leave millions to starve (as in afganistan and other places currently). do SOME research before spouting off about how wonderful this nation and it's policies are. no war is justifiable. killing is never the answer. i for one stand opposed to all war everywhere. there simply has to be better way... eli eli here

In the interest of living up to Chantal's call for shedding apathy and letting our opinions be heard through whatever means we chose: Chantal you are an idiot. Please do not trot out the tired and trite argument about American apathetic youth. Your argument depends on the assumption that as youths we are all leftist pacifists too scared to let their opinions be heard. I can only assume that your experience with our American generation is limited to your last three years in the ivory tower with probably one of the most skewed demographic of Americans, so this mistake is understandable, but inexcusable since you are in a position where you are being judged by your opinion, in the hopes that it might be an educated one. Are we apathetic? Maybe, then again maybe no one feels comfortable telling you to your face, or you donÃ?t know anyone that will say that they believe in this country. They believe that Iraq is a threat that warrants going to war. Instead of being angry and bellicose, Americans are uncomfortable with this reality. Prudent nations do not proclaim support for wars with shouts of jubilee and fervor. They enter what is a necessary and daunting task with the respectful silence, and steely resolve that this situation warrants. As for your media argument, I see protest coverage every day, but maybe that is because I read the paper. Go to Lexis Nexis, CNN.com the New York Times, or any other major media source, search anti-war protests, and then tell me that there is no coverage of the peace movement. If you still say there is no coverage, you either are a liar or lack even the most basic computer skills. Why donÃ?t the protests get front page treatment? They are too small to warrant extensive coverage because the do not nearly approach the Vietnam War protests in terms of size or scope: the ability to cut across the political spectrum. The protests, like you, are a feeble outflow of fringe leftists who enjoy all the benefits of a strong American nation yet criticize the same government for acting in their interests. That is your right, and you are welcome to it. If you actually knew any demographic outside of rich kids from Northern cities, you would encounter the exact opposite type of political opinion, and an extremely unapthetic reaction to the last years's events. I have numerous friends that are serving, joined, or are planning to join government bodies intended to fight the war on terror and against Saddam, be it the CIA, the Military, the foreign service, or NGO organizations designed to extend the benevolence exhibited by the last 50 years of American leadership, which I might add have been marked by a dramatic state of peace previously unbeknownst to mankind and improvement in the standard of living in the world at a rate comparable to the last 2000 years of human progress. The fact of the matter is that it is always easier to criticize leaders and argue that war should be avoided at all costs. However, please tell me when a nation is justified to go to war. If Saddam Hussein- who is threatening to destroy US vital interests and the US itself, while engendering the worst part of human fallibility- is not a dictator to whom the US must stand, I donÃ?t know who is. Stop backseat driving and pontificating. Make your views known but donÃ?t criticize others for not joining you in pomposity and ignorance. Scooter Ryan

David, >>Saddam attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States>he has tortured and murdered over a million of his own people >he has aided and supported homicidal and suicidal terrorists who target the United States and our allies>he has in the past used weapons of mass destruction to kill non-combatants>These facts that are not disputed by the anti-war movement. << No they aren't because if you actually provide context it becomes clear the U.S. can't have it both ways (supporting weapons of mass destruction against its enemies and then trying to reframe what occurred). Iraq was an ally of the U.S. when it used its WMD. The propaganda coming out of the White House is at a fevered pitch. It is reminiscent of the 1991 Gulf War pitch when false stories were conjured up to get the American public in a war mood (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,854148,00.html). Bush hopes he can keep his popularity high as long the U.S. is fighting a new war and dissent is unpatriotic. This coming war (the decision has already been made regardless of what Iraq does or the United Nations says) will plunge the U.S. into a major act of aggression. The only thing certain is that U.S. security will be weakened as this war makes new enemies. That is why there is overwhelming opinion in almost every country on earth against the U.S. war in Iraq. Anyone living outside the U.S. and not being inundated with U.S. propaganda can see what this war is really about. That is why vast majorities in Germany, Russia, France, South Korea, the Middle East (except for Israel), SouthEast Asia, etc. are all strongly opposed to the war. They see this as the U.S. wanting to extend its vast reach and wealth. The consequences as Jimmy Carter rightly said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech of a unilateral action in the face of strong world opinion will be disastrous. Norris Norris norris7171@yahoo.com

>>He has acquired, refined, developed and, yes, actually used chemical weapons against civilians and soldiers alike.<< Let me respond to this issue of using chemical weapons. Preventive-war advocates point out that Saddam has used WMD against his own people (the Kurds) and against Iran and that therefore he is likely to use them against the United States. Thus, U.S. President George W. Bush recently warned in Cincinnati that the Iraqi WMD threat against the United States "is already significant, and it only grows worse with time." The United States, in other words, is in imminent danger. SaddamÃ?s record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. IraqÃ?s calculations would be entirely different when facing the United States because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Saddam thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States and its alliesÃ?unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against U.S. forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel. Furthermore, if Saddam cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Saddam in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future. President BushÃ?s repeated claim that the threat from Iraq is growing makes little sense in light of SaddamÃ?s past record, and these statements should be viewed as transparent attempts to scare Americans into supporting a war. CIA Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And if Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime, then one wonders why advocates of war are trying to do just that. Hawks do have a fallback position on this issue. Yes, the United States can try to deter Saddam by threatening to retaliate with massive force. But this strategy may not work because IraqÃ?s past use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran shows that Saddam is a warped human being who might use WMD without regard for the consequences. Unfortunately for those who now favor war, this argument is difficult to reconcile with the United StatesÃ? past support for Iraq, support that coincided with some of the behavior now being invoked to portray him as an irrational madman. The United States backed Iraq during the 1980sÃ?when Saddam was gassing Kurds and IraniansÃ?and helped Iraq use chemical weapons more effectively by providing it with satellite imagery of Iranian troop positions. The Reagan administration also facilitated IraqÃ?s efforts to develop biological weapons by allowing Baghdad to import disease-producing biological materials such as anthrax, West Nile virus, and botulinal toxin. A central figure in the effort to court Iraq was none other than current U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was then President Ronald ReaganÃ?s special envoy to the Middle East. He visited Baghdad and met with Saddam in 1983, with the explicit aim of fostering better relations between the United States and Iraq. In October 1989, about a year after Saddam gassed the Kurds, President George H.W. Bush signed a formal national security directive declaring, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East." If SaddamÃ?s use of chemical weapons so clearly indicates he is a madman and cannot be contained, why did the United States fail to see that in the 1980s? Why were Rumsfeld and former President Bush then so unconcerned about his chemical and biological weapons? The most likely answer is that U.S. policymakers correctly understood Saddam was unlikely to use those weapons against the United States and its allies unless Washington threatened him directly. The real puzzle is why they think it would be impossible to deter him today. Norris norris7171@yahoo.com

without offering any sort of opinion on this matter, i felt that channtal deserves a little bit of clarification in one aspect. while she is listed as hailing from san paulo, brazil, she in fact lived in scarsdale, new york for the majority of her childhood. additionally, she has been at university here for the past two and a half years. she considers both of these places home. while it is fine to disagree with her politics, it is unfair (however understandable, given her one-line bio) to discredit her regarding american affairs. mc, student

Norris, Your argument is fine, but you skim over some rather important details. 1) World Opinion is against unilateral US action, it is not against the US working within the Security Council to ensure that Iraq does not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. Should it come to a choice between supporting Saddam Hussein and a nuclear arsenal, or a US war to oust Saddam once it is clear that all diplomatic channels have been exhausted, I think your "overwhelming" popular opinion will quickly disappear. The current US actions are forcing this issue, not igniting a unilateral crusade. In any case, no nation has ever achieved anything by trying to make itself inoffensive to others. World opinion was also against provoking a war in 1937, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether it was in the worldÃ?s best interest to provoke such a war. 2) Politicians lie all the time, and anyone who is dumb enough not too see through obvious war rhetoric should not be involved in any current debate. However, your argument that anyone in favor of war is obviously confused by the Bush administrationÃ?s propaganda is equivocal. One need not be misled by war propaganda to have legitimate fears of Saddam Hussein, who has initiated offensives against three of his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against foreign adversaries and his own people, and whose only check on territorial ambition has been the armies that stop him. Add to the mix the fact that he supports terrorism (maybe with Al-Qaeda, but undeniably through his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers families) his anti-US rhetoric, and a history of miscalculation when it comes to judging foreign responses to his imperialist ambitions, and yes, Saddam Hussein is a threat to the US, which has vital interests in the Persian Gulf region. Actually, neither of us can speak with definitive proof because it is essentially an argument about what MIGHT happen in the future, depending on different interpretations of the past, but I think you will have a hard time proving that he has not threatened US interests in the past. And I think the prospect of keeping Nuclear weapons out of ambitious, miscalculating dictatorÃ?s hands is a cause worth fighting for. But then again I suppose I am just a lemming. 3) The poor Iraqi children. Who is stealing the money from the Oil for food program and using it to build Iraqi palaces and military infrastructure? Why are the sanctions in place? They were a peace agreement meant to end war, which is never justified (except that almost every nation supported the US in 1991). How simple would it be for the sanctions to be dropped? 3 scenarios a) no more Saddam Hussein due to a war- present US actions are bringing this issue to a head b) Saddam Hussein exchanges his war machine, and disarms- present US actions are bringing this issue to a head. c) US decides to abandon sanctions leave the Iraqi people and the Persian gulf to be threatened once again after Saddam Hussein builds a new war machine, except this time we get to have 1991 with nuclear weapons. Scooter

Norris, Address the issues. What do you think the United States should do? Saddam is a mass murderer who has brutally oppressed his own people, invaded its Arab neighbor, attacked Israel and attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States. He has acquired, refined, developed and, yes, actually used chemical weapons against civilians and soldiers alike. He has made no secret of his hatred for the United States and his support of terrorists. What context mitigates these facts? What relevance does American opposition to Iran, which you equate with being an "ally", of Iraq have to do with Saddam's gassing of his own civilians? Please think about these facts for a moment as you contemplate what we should do and assume 9/11 never even happened. What's your answer? Now add to your analysis the important fact you seem to be missing: 9/11 actually happened. We, the United States of America, American civilians were attacked and murdered. Most Americans' opinions and perceptions have changed now that over 3,000 American civilians are dead. Of course the "overwhelming majority" of the world (you forgot Australia) doesn't share our conviction or our determination to win the war on terrorism, but why should they? We will do their work for them. No surprise. Norris, I ask you again, what do you think we should do to solve the problem? PS The anti-American protests in South Korea are related to an acquittal of US servicemen in a drunk-driving case. DSS, Alum New York City

Eli, I highly doubt the veracity of your statement: "if you have done any research into the history of american foreign policy, you would be aware that this very nation has done more killing globally in the last 100 years than any other." The Japanese conservatively killed 15 million Chinese during their ten year war with China (we call our two and a half year involvement after the attack on Pearl Harbor: "World War II") and millions more Fillipinas, Koreans, Southeast Asians and other Asians. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of Americans, British, Dutch and Australians. The Germans killed 6 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and political prisoners alone before counting the 10 million Russians, millions more Europeans and North Africans and a couple hundred thousand American GI's. I guess that slipped your research? The Germans were responsible for killing a few more people in what we call "World War I." That was an armed conflict about 85 years ago. Stalin killed millions of his own people, and of course, millions of Germans, Poles, Finns and other Europeans. Although the United States of America takes credit, and rightfully so, for defeating Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Kaiser's Germany. The US had relatively brief involvements in both World Wars versus the other combatants. I'm sure you agree that our involvement in both wars shortened the conflicts and reduced the total numbers of casualties on both sides. Cumulative deaths in the other major US armed conflicts of the 20th century of Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, do not approach the individual totals of either one of the World War's based on even the most exaggerated estimates. "do SOME research before spouting off about how wonderful this nation and it's policies are" I am not sure if your post was a joke or stems from simple ignorance. David, Alum New York City

david, you are obviously correct that other countries have killed millions, but your number totals are suspect, AND you completely miss the point. clearly the germans killed millions, and so on and so forth. your disagreement with my numbers has no relevance and is a misunderstanding of something that i mistakenly thought was obvious from the context. i was unclear, sorry... i was not referring to killings that take place during war or other highly publicized events such as the genocide of the jews (which, i might add, america stood by and watched just as we watch millions a year become infected with HIV in africa and continue to hoard our drugs and abundant resources). i guess i was referring more to the killings that happen behind the headlines. the corruption that this government covertly supports. so now you have taken specifics of my argument and disagreed (clever), rather than dealing with the overall point that the USA is corrupt. it is run in the interest of profit, not people. it wants to save money, not lives. if these are the things you support, than i wish you well... but i have no more time for you. why do we kill people to show people who kill people that killing people is wrong? why is revenge considered a virtue? what exactly is "a pre-emptive strike"? isn't that terrorism? what is a terrorist? isn't it someone who kills others in order to serve some interest of theirs? isn't that what we do?? you need to ask yourself some of these questions. no saddam hussein is not a saint... no osama bin laden is not a saint... but neither are our leaders (gwb etc.). do you consider it at all possible that you have been and continue to be taught and fed a web of lies by the education system and the media? maybe not even lies so much as they are misguided ideals... did you ever see the matrix, or read fight club, or 1984, or peoples history, or manufacturing consent, or malcolm x? what do you think these stories are talking about? you are a smart kid david, think... war will never create peace. eli eli here

The sanctions are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be provinces of Iraq, its people subjected to Saddam«s oppressive rule. There would be a form of Holocaust against Kurds and Shiite Muslims. The no-fly zones are necessary for the same reasons, to protect Kurds, Shiites, Kuwaitis, and Saudis. I don«t see any other alternative to intervention, and the only long-term solution is to oust Saddam. Yes, the main reason for our interest in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is the oil. It«s obvious why- look at the distastrous economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis, and imagine if Middle Eastern oil came into the hands of Saddam. Where«s the alternative, Norris? Joe, Student Madrid jnivin@sas.upenn.edu

Eli, I'm a bit confused by your post; let me take a shot at clarifying what you're trying to say: "david, you are obviously correct that other countries have killed millions...your disagreement with my numbers has no relevance and is a misunderstanding of something that i mistakenly thought was obvious from the context. i was unclear, sorry... i was not referring to killings that take place during war or other highly publicized events ... i guess i was referring more to the killings that happen behind the headlines." TRANSLATION: You're correct David, my previous post that claimed "this nation has done more killing globally in the last 100 years than any other" was complete fabrication and meant to misinform anyone who was ignorant enough of world history to actually believe it. "so now you have taken specifics of my argument and disagreed (clever), rather than dealing with the overall point that the USA is corrupt. it is run in the interest of profit, not people. it wants to save money, not lives." TRANSLATION: the United States has a capitalist economic structure. People are generally motivated by profit. Market forces dictate decisions that do not maximize safety and health above all other concerns. Really?!? I never would have guessed it. Do you mean that because the rich can afford to drive safer cars and the poor cannot, the government should distribute to every commuter a brand new Volvo? Great idea comrade Eli! I'll take a red one. "do you consider it at all possible that you have been and continue to be taught and fed a web of lies by the education system and the media? maybe not even lies so much as they are misguided ideals..." TRANSLATION: The media and the educational system are influenced by special interest groups and have their own political agenda. No way! Do mean there's not a Santa Claus or a tooth fairy either? Eli, are you suggesting Ivy League faculties, CNN and the NY Times have a conservative bias? What planet are you on? For a few helpful hints, please see the DP editorial above. If the answer isn't crystal clear, please ask the head of CNN, Ted Turner or his former wife, Jane Fonda. "did you ever see the matrix, or read fight club, or 1984, or peoples history, or manufacturing consent, or malcolm x? what do you think these stories are talking about?" TRANSLATION: Do you get out much? Eli, I try to get out, but the demands of a career, family and maintaining a respectable handicap prevent me from doing a lot of mind altering drugs or fantasizing about a world that has no violence, greed or bad men. "you are a smart kid david, think..." TRANSLATION: Since I can't make any logical arguments, I will attempt to pander to David and delude myself into thinking he is a small child. David, Alum New York City

Eli you're so wrong on so many levels it makes me sick. First, even if we do disregard World War II, there's still Cambodia, Saddam gassing his own people, Stalin's gulags. None of these things happened in the context of a "war" as you would define it. David's number totals may be suspect, but at least he has numbers. All you have are empty accusations with absolutely no facts to back you up. You tell other people to do research when you have done none of your own. Second, you contradict yourself to no end. If I may: "war is never the answer. no wars are just" Those are your own words in your first post. Then you criticize the United States for failing to come to the aid of Europe's Jewry as they being slaughtered by the Nazis. While I agree with that criticism, you contradict yourself implying that the moral thing for the United States would have been to enter the war to save the Jews. Lets face it. Not all people in this world are nice, and some start wars for land, money, glory or because they simply like killing people. When that happens, taking up arms both the defend yourselves and others is a just and moral cause. The morality of every war since World War II is questionable, but even Joseph Heller, the eminent writer and outspoken critic of war said that World War II was a just war. They do exist. Unfortunately they are usually forced upon those who are just and moral by those who are not. Third, the United States is a capitalistic society. You may not like capitalism and that's your right (I'll get to the irony of that in a bit), but that's the way it is. The United States is interested in saving lives. That's why it dropped the atom bomb on Japan twice even when it was morally questionable. Truman did not want to see one more American die in combat. As for the lives of other people, well they are important too, but they take a backseat. Why do you ask? Because we pay taxes and they don't. Our money should be serving us, not the rest of the world. Don't like it? Move somewhere else although I can guarantee you that trying to convince other nations to give out foreign aid on the same scale as the US will be a pretty tough task. Fourth, you are an ingrate. You criticize the United States as corrupt and evil, when it is the same country that gives you the right to criticize its policies. You see it as an inherently evil nation when the truth is that we have more freedom even these days than most of the rest of the world. Try spouting your anti-war rhetoric anywhere else but Europe and see how far it gets you. Fifth, a preemptive strike is both just and not terroristic. The only thing is that the GWB's plan of action is not a preemptive strike. It is PREVENTATIVE. There's a big difference. If an attack by Iraq becomes imminent (i.e. obvious and unavoidable) then striking before Iraq attacks is justified. As of today, a strike is not justified. But then again, I don't see a war going on right now. Do you? Sixth, we each have our own set of misguided ideals. Everyone does. I see a truth where we have not yet attacked Iraq, so I wonder what the point is of protesting a war that hasn't even happened yet, and may never happen for that matter. You think the US government is corrupt (and it probably is, but certainly less so than most countries and I challenge you to find a country free of corruption), and hell-bent on making money for its citizens (but I ask you what non-Communist nation isn't?). I don't like our leaders any more than you do (I for one voted for Gore), but to compare GWB to Bin Laden or Hussein is simply ludicrous. If that's going to be your stance, have fun in your extremist corner with Dan Fishback. I'm sure you two will have a whole lot of company. You have managed to convince yourself that leftist lies and liberal ideals are truths. Well they are half truths at best, complete garbage at worst. I'm sure you'll answer this backing up and correcting yourself as you did answering David's post, but really, you have to think about what you're writing before you write it. There are so many holes in your argument that people will break it down into nothing but a pile of liberal gibberish if you're not careful. I'm sure you're a smart guy, if not a very good writer. Think about it. Aaron

less dependency on oil, joe. take public trans, ride a bike, walk... AND alternative energy is real. give up our dependency on oil and we take away the opportunity of power gained through controlling oil fields. eli here

Eli, I think we (meaning you) should spend a little bit of time considering your idealistic, knee-jerk reactions to serious problems. Less dependency on oil. A noble idea in theory, but a poor solution in practice. First of all, lets look at the facts instead of just spouting nonsense. The US happens to be the leading consumer of energy resources (it also produces the most, but that is besides the point for our discussion) The US is also one of the Western countries that is least dependent on Middle Eastern oil as a proportion of total oil consumption (Unlike some of the European nations who are also anti-war) Certainly a need for oil drives our foreign policy but is not it is not the sole determinant. So, we can all ride our bikes, walk, and do whatever else you want, but how do you propose to heat our houses, light our streets, or transport vital goods to factories and stores. You certainly didn't grow and produce that your organic tofu and Save Tibet bumper sticker using resources and production facilities that you found within walking distance did you? You probably donÃ?t realize it, but automobiles and light trucks donÃ?t consume anywhere close the majority of our energy. I've heard your argument a million times from other idealists, content to criticize others for destroying the world, while ignoring inconvenient realities so before you start spouting off about alternative energies, let me assure you everyone, including me knows about them. However, those that have bothered to do their homework also know that the alternative energy technology and infrastructure are not there to justify the economic costs, which would disproportionately affect the poor. (Rich people can afford more easily afford higher prices than the poor, remember?). While alternative energy is our future, it is a change that will have to be made gradually, as the technology evolves and the prices are even close to being worth the costs. 1972 is a great example of how higher prices caused the US to change its dependence on other energy sources. Guess what happened (and will occur if it happens again)? The US managed to switch a large amount of consumption to a great domestic source of energy: Coal! While the economic costs will be great, I can only imagine your brethrens reaction to the environmental costs. Oh, and donÃ?t worry about the catastrophic economic effects that this will have on the middle eastern economies, which will have lost all revenue from their largest export. I am sure they will be happy to hear our newfound consciousness prevents us from funding their economies, and that they can fester in further poverty. But on the bright side, it will give you something else to complain about. That way you can appear socially conscious for a long time into the future, despite the fact that it was your inane policy recommendations that do more damage to the things you want to advance. Your line of reasoning follows many of the recommendations from the far left. They are short sited, easy answers to difficult questions. Yes yes yes, capitalism is horrible, all our leaders are greedy, no one cares for the poor, we hoard all our resources, the red sox should be the ones that win the pennant. Go home, cry about it, and come up with a better solution. In the mean time, the international capitalists will go back to work, and continue solving these problems. Who is funding the research for the aid drugs in Africa? Who is funding the research for alternative technology? Greedy capitalists. What did you do today? Scooter madgofer@yahoo.com

aaron, i refuse to argue with you. it gets us nowhere. but i can offer you my perspective, point by point.... first, if you want #'s about how many people we have killed and how many we stand to kill, i recommend a book call "killing hope". (for instance, millions are currently starving to death in afghan. due to our policies, and i see this as no different than dropping bombs.. you may, i dont) i cannot pull #'s off the top of my head like some of you can so i wont try. that is one book and there are others, obviously. but if it is bombing you want, look at iraq of the early 90's, afghan, libya, clinton did some bombing too right... second, you said, "you criticize the United States for failing to come to the aid of Europe's Jewry" i am not criticizing the US for this. merely asking them to be consistant at the very least.. if the US is gonna talk like it is the warrior savior of all oppressed peoples, then at least live up to it. as for WWII being a just war, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. i am firmly rooted in my pacifism, and it is too complex to go into here. third, you are right on... i dont like capitalism.... but that has no relation to liking/disliking freedom. they dont have to go hand in hand. economic freedom does not HAVE to equate to freedom of speech. and no economic freedom (i.e. communism socialism as they are meant to be) does not HAVE to equate to zero freedom of speech, in fact it can mean more freedoms and more meaningful freedom. and no, i dont value the lives of americans any more than i value the millions of lives lost in heiroshima and nagisaki(sp?). to value one life over another because of nationalistic/ ethnocentric pride is wrong in my book. and other nations cant give out aid as much as we do, that's cause we have ALL the money... which we generally steal in some form or another, be it in the form of sweatshop labor or whatever. fourth, plenty of countries allow for freedom of speech (even cuba). but i ask you, look at what my freedom of speech is reduced to. i speak my mind, and get blasted from every angle, i get told to move out of the country, and in a court of law, my "communist tendencies" probably get me locked up quicker than you. fifth, why cant i protest a war that hasnt begun? should i wait till after? sixth, i'll have fun over here with the leftist extremists.... there should be some rich conversations to get in on.. gandhi, mlk, jesus, (oh wait they're all dead... shot dead, shot dead and crucified... isn't violence lovely) eli eli here