OPEN THREAD: "The timidity of present-day antiwar movement is

... what worries me. It's not apathy- it's a feeling of "It doesn't matter what I do." It's fear and hopelessness; which is what feeds fascism." ~ Walt Crowley

Comments

[Joanie]

Michael, I don't sense fear. I think it is apathy.

Hopelessness? Well, any hopelessness I feel is at the indecision and lack of courage shown by the Democrats. I suppose with their narrow majority, many things aren't possible. Still, the Dems should be making more decisive moves whether they win them or not.

I wonder if Walt isn't projecting just a bit.

[howieinseattle]

Walt isn't talking about them (the Dems) he's talking about us (you and me). The lack of widespread moral outrage is very troubling. I think fear is part of it. If we were kicking ass the donkies would be kicking it too.

[Andrew]

I'm probably mistaken, but the last time I recall there being a formidable anti-war movement was when there was also a draft in effect.

[Pugetsound]

"I'm probably mistaken, but the last time I recall there being a formidable anti-war movement was when there was also a draft in effect."

Ding ding ding ding ding....Bingo we got a winner!
No draft-no real protest.

[Stephen Colbert]

There could be 5 million people out in the streets and Bush and Cheney would still say " We are going to do what we want anyway." That is what Walt is referring to. Congress has to get over their adolescent fear of not being liked and impeach both of them- until someone else is calling the shots, nothing is going to change.

[logo]

The Republicans stifling debate on the war in the U.S.Senate is truly amazing. They will live to regret that.

[misty]

the Democrats will trade us out- history will show president Bush and the congressional Republicans to be prescient and heroic. God help us if we're ever attacked when these cowards are in power.

[joanie]

Except for Misty who is truly fogged in, I agree with everybody and what I said doesn't disagree with anybody - except Howie who thinks we're fearful. I'm not fearful . . . besides marching, supporting peace candidates, writing my Congressman, what else can one do?

We are apathetic. It will take a draft to get people roused. Totally agree with Andrew. The Dems probably can't do much without the public more rallied. Yes, they can. They can follow Feingold's lead and Boxer's lead and Kucinich's and Conyer's lead . . .

Colbert and Logo - both absolutely right on. Temerity in the Democratic Party - so afraid of losing they are unable to strike a blow for anything.

If only they would show some courage, the last nail would finally be put in the coffin of Misty and her ilk. But the Dems keep breathing life into the Right by their temerity. '08 would be a landslide for the left if the Dems would really show some fire and passion.

[joanie]

Anybody home and interested in this thread should be listening now to Chalmers Johnson on CSpan - a life interview. He's sees the only outcome as bankruptcy and eventual resurrection. He says the people of the US cast our lot in stone when we reelected Bush by 3 million votes ignoring the writing on the wall of his kind of leadership.

We are getting what our ignorance deserves.

[Andrew]

There's no longer need for an anti-war movement anyway. Enough Americans were complicit with getting us into it and now it's too late to simply leave because our security would be more threatened by leaving Iraq the way it is. A civil war could break Iraq into several smaller, less manageable theocracies.

Only now is sufficient public opinion is leaning away from war. Boo hoo! Sorry stupids, you got us into it and now were stuck.

To have the now irrelevant anti-war movement call for things like no-escalation and withdraw is like replacing the generals with cowards and hoping for good outcome.

History won't remember Bush and current Republicans as heroes of any sort, they'll be remembered as founding a short lived and failed off-shoot of conservatism known as Neo-Conservatism, who's extreme aim of world domination after the fall of the Soviet Union was momentarily entertained as a jerk reaction to 9-11, but who's strategy proved unable to compete against ordinary guerilla warfare.

[Stephen Colbert]

"A civil war could break Iraq into several smaller, less manageable theocracies."

That's right mister, it is not a civil war, just blowing off some steam for the much anticipated 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver where Iraq will enter their "Freedom Luge" and show those surrender monkey Canadians who's the boss!

[Steve]

"extreme aim of world domination"

Somebody is playing to much Risk. Anyone who lives in this country knows the U.S. is not in the business of conquering the world.

And Joanie, and everyone else, if you would take your cause seriously you would have been in D.C. with the rest of the protesters instead of playing solitaire on your computers last month. Your cause doesn't need the draft to make it go, I've been telling you since before the Big March that you need to make sacrifices. Soliders are sacrificing their lives for this country of ours, like your right to protest this War, and you people can't even sacrifice a simple paycheck for your cause. What wimps. Are you waiting for another Kent State fiasco to
happen before joining the bandwagon.

[coiler]

Steve, still waiting to dial that army recruiters number in your Rolodex or is that dialing digit 4-F?

[blathering michael]

U.S. political and military leadership can't dominate Bagdad, let alone the world. The prez can huff and puff at Iraq, but it's just bluff 'n' fluff 'n' stuff.
We're pinned down in a stinking war we can't win or even withdraw from. And everyone knows it.
Bush should be impeached for putting our military limitations on display for all our enemies to see.

[Andrew]

The Neo-Cons are most definately bent on World Domination, but they use euphemisms like "global leadership" to keep people like Steve from getting too smart.

The Neo-Cons' rational is that since we've become the "world's preeminent power" after defeating the Soviet Union, we must therefor use this oppurtunity to make our position of power permanent. It sounds very similar to Carl Rove's wish for a "permanent Republican majority."

The bizar thing about that objective, and the words that came out of Rove's mouth, is that "democracy" is opposed to anything being permanent by definition (except that nothing be permanent).

History also won't forget that the first unprovoked war in our history was waged and lost by Republicans.

[joanie]

We absolutely can withdraw. It is those of you who get stuck in the mire that cause all this trouble. Have to play with the big boys . . have to play by the rules.

Screw the rules. Withdraw. Get out. Go back to Afghanistan and finish the job there.

Iran and others in the region will fix as as well as we can. We may not like their fix, but who are we to complain.

It is our presence in Iraq that keeps the insurgency going. We are now the problem. Get us out.

Next February, remember the words I said two Novembers ago: what will we have gained by staying another year?

Should have listened to Chalmers Johnson today. He said it well. Most Americans are ignorant. Even on the so-called left.

[sparky at the beach]

hey Stevearino...what sacrifice have you made for the war?? hmmm?????

[Steve]

Our Military Leadership is the finest out there in the world today Michael, not sure why you keep bashing our military, but I agree with you on the Democratic controlled House and Senate bit. I don't think they can even dominate Joanie's 1st grade class in a game of chess.

[coiler]

Chalmers spent 8th grade in Hoquiam, true story. I know a class mate of his who was in his school at the time. His nick name was "soup eye" but its more of a geographical reference.

[joanie]

He does have a bit of a soupy eye. Wonder what his fam was doing in Hoquiam? That's a nowhere sort of place.

He's a smart cookie.

Steve . . . does that include all the generals that have been fired, demoted or otherwise turned coat?

[Steve]

Peasant, when will you ever understand.

[coiler]

His parents were missionary workers I believe and they had come from the Supai Reservation in Ariz. From what my friend said, Chalmers ran among only the brightest in school and didn't suffer fools gladly.

[joanie]

He took callers today.

He was perfectly pleasant and straight-faced but you could tell he simply tolerated those callers who were telling him something he already knew. How do you get people to watch and learn?

[Andrew]

joanie says "Iran and others in the region will fix as as well as we can. We may not like their fix, but who are we to complain."

You have no idea how disasterous that fix might be, but yet you advocate it? Millions could die as a result for all you know, but in your mind we have to withdraw only because you never thought we should have been there in the first place?

Non-arguments like yours give rudimentary thinkers like Steve the impression that this is the best logic the anti-war team can come up with, and you make them look worse for it.

[joanie]

non-arguments? What the hell are you talking about, Andrew? Grow up.

you haven't made any arguments yourself so who are you to post such a stupid statement?

Millions could die? Spoken by a truly ignorant, uninformed and unsourced novice.

If you are the best the young left has to offer, we are in trouble indeed. You sound like you are pulling it out of your ass as much as he did.

[Andrew]

joanie says "Millions could die? Spoken by a truly ignorant, uninformed and unsourced novice."

You can't deny how reckless and simplistic your argument is: end the war no matter what, or: drop Iraq on its ass without regard for the consequences. I expect that kind of emotional reactionism from conservatives, and we have heard it in mass quantities, but not a liberal like you.

What if Iran invades and conquers ill-prepared Iraq after we leave and then uses their new found resources to more quickly build a nuclear weapon and bomb Israel? Do you think about these things?

[chucks]

Andrew,
Be careful, your last post makes it sound as if you are on my side. But that said, you are correct. If we were to walk away from Iraq leaving it vulnerable, we will pay for years to come. Our children and grands will continue to pay on our behalf.
It is way too early to surrender and walk away. This thing really is winnable. Our soldiers are committed and capable of winning. I know that not many here believe in our military. I will take my beatings like a man.
I suspect that some of the dems in power are the same age as I and remember what happened in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos after we abandoned them in the seventies. The millions who were murdered and the "boat people" blindly crossing the seas just to live.
We are in Iraq. Get behind the troops and lets win this thing. You can beat the crap out of me and our President after the war.

[Andrew]

I can't imagine a solution because I don't realy understand who the enemy is. I looked up "Iraqi Insurgency" on wikipedia and there's like fifty different factions each sniping at us for a differet reason. There are people who's job it is to know all this figure out how to deal with it.

Maybe the solution is to improve the incentives for the Iraqi police and the "New Iraqi Army" to stand their ground and dedicate the U.S. troops to support roles many miles away so that the sense of occupation in Baghdad is diminished.

That solutions might be hair brained and it might only quash on one of the many insurgent groups, however the point is that solutions must be carefuly devised and that immediate withdraw is an un-thought out and retarded plan.

[mercifurious]

Chuck urps:
We are in Iraq. Get behind the troops and lets win this thing. You can beat the crap out of me and our President after the war.

Define: "Win this thing". Not one single admin. official, leader, spinner, or commentator has specificaly defined what "victory" in Iraq means in detail. Democracy/Theocracy? Turkish invasion? Iran/Syria/Saudi alliance/non-alliance? Permanent bases? or Parking Lot?
Give us the details, and then criticize the detailed redeployment plan

Additionally, if you are referring to the overall "War on Terror", please define victory in this vector. Remember that Rumsfeld has said that the "War on Terror" never ends and is not something we will ever win. War that never ends? Oceania
vs. Eurasia anyone?

Our soldiers are committed and capable of winning.

I don't doubt that for a moment. Unfortunatly, this is all-for-not due to their LEADERS' miscarriage of a gameplan (ie, the central problem that all the neocons are trying to avoid).

Face facts Chucks. No one is buying the "Support Bush or you don't support the troops" red-herring bullshit line anymore. That wolf call has been made one too many times.

Unfortunatly for Bush et al, they must now set-aside the rhetorical machinations and actually provide a pragmatic realistic policy. Kind of makes you wish he would have had one in the first place, no?

[Andrew]

Also chucks, this still bothers me three years later: how does leaving the troops in to get shot at equate with "supporting the troops" and "getting behind the troops"?

Also notice how you said "get behind the troops" and then in the same short sentance "lets win this thing". Shouldn't you correct your English to read "lets get behind the troops and let them win this thing"?

[mercifurious]

...and since all the neocons and repugs are into using sports analogies, here's one:

I can list at least 6 sports teams that had a winning players (troops), but losing coaching staff. Were fans that blamed the coaching staffs accused of being anti-player? No. What happens to
the coaches? Pink-slip.

Does this cut through any layers of thick-skull?

[joanie]

Wikiepedia is your source, Andrew? Well, at least you are naive enough to admit it.

First of all, I didn't make any argument. I gave an opinion. I have given several times over on this blog the reasons why I believe we should get out. And I certainly didn't base it on anything in Wikipedia, FCS.

You and chucks are the reason we are in a war . . . because you don't bother to get informed. You've had five years to listen to experts on the middle east and to get informed about the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds etc.

Yet you go to Wikipedia?

Watch Chalmers Johnson when he's repeated tonight on CSpan . . . you might actually learn something.

Absolutely unacceptable that you should be so ignorant on the middle east. Don't you listen to Air America? Scott Ritter was on just today with Rhodes - he would have given you the best tutorial on Iran you could get anywhere.

I am totally awed by your lack of knowledge here.

And chucks, you are about as informed on the war as you were about teaching your kids about birth control.

I took a genetics class when I was 21. Early in the quarter, the professor discussed ways to prevent pregnancy - he had a class of eighteen to twenty-two year olds mainly. After listing several, he got to the last one: abstention.

"People who practice this form of birth control are call PARENTS."

Guess he knew what he was talking about.

[Andrew]

All I needed wikipedia to tell me was that there are lots and lots of different insurgent groups with differing agendas. Was it not sufficient for that purpose?

You come off silly telling me how uninformed I am when you are the one writing off your position as one big personal opinion. At least I have the guts to claim my viewpoint has a footing in reality.

It's not good enough that you tell others to listen to Air America to validate your position. If you conclude that immediate withdraw is the right COA then respond to my seemingly valid concerns that Iraq will be left vulnerable to be overtaken by Iran or broken up into several theocratic countries.

[chucks]

I do not believe that we are that far from victory in Iraq. Victory being where the Iraqi Army can stand up and protect the population from all comers. Where the citizens of Iraq enjoy the same safety in their homes and neighborhoods that you and I enjoy.
Yes, I know where you are coming from. You are voicing the same protests that I and my fellow protesters screamed during Viet Nam 35 years ago. We listened to Huntley-Brinkley, Uncle Walter and all the other liberal press and believed them as well. Same crap today. We are losing. Our troops are getting killed for nothing. It is a lost cause. Those people do not deserve our help. The commies are not a threat to us. The Tet offensive was the final straw, they are killing us left and right. We believed then just like you believe today. We were wrong then and you are wrong today. We won the Tet as well as the rest. It was not until after we turned tail and ran that we learned that the North was preparing to surrender. We left the job undone. Millions were killed by the VC.
The United States Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy is winning. Taxi and bus drivers are striking in Mosul. Transport workers are striking in Azzamar. Children are playing soccer in the streets of Bahgdad. Do you really think that would be happening if the folks were in fear. Cheesy analogy perhaps, but real progress.
Walk away now and, if you are a compassionate human being, than you get to live with the guilt that comes with knowing millions died when it could have been prevented.
As for the GWOT, it will be over when the terrorist are either dead or when we inflict enough pain on them that they figure out that it is not worth the risk. No short cut available.

[joanie]

Randi Rhodes is on AA right now and she will have Ritter on - I think at 7:30 but not sure. Listen. Learn something about Iran from someone who knows. If you listen to Ritter, you may come back to blather and call me anything you want. I just want people to listen and learn something.

And AA doesn't form my opinions; the experts who appear on AA are the sources for my opinions.

So, who is giving you your information?

Your whole diatribe above about me is stupid. How can you even have an opinion when it is based on nothing.

[sparky]

Translation of Steve-speak: I have made no personal sacrifice for the war but I will continue to spew at the rest of you anyway.

I understand you quite well, Stevarino.

[joanie]

chucks: I do not believe that we are that far from victory in Iraq.

Based on what, chucks. What is your evidence?

. It was not until after we turned tail and ran that we learned that the North was preparing to surrender.

Where did you get this information? Never heard it before.

My school custodian was in the war and he became a prisoner for years after the war. His release and emigration to the US was obtained by Kerry and McCain in the 90s.

He also says that we could have won. But, he didn't say there was any surrender in the offing. When I asked him how much longer it would have taken, he said about two years . . . Doesn't jive with your information. Can you tell me more?
He was an office and pretty high up.

[joanie]

Much of Washington assumes that leaving Iraq will lead to a bigger bloodbath. It’s time to question that assumption.

By Robert Dreyfuss "To understand why it’s a mistake to assume the worst, let’s begin with the most persistent, Bush-fostered fear about post-occupation Iraq: that al-Qaeda or other Islamic extremists will seize control once America departs; or that al-Qaeda will establish a safe haven in a rump, lawless Sunnistan and use that territory as a base, much as it used Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The idea that al-Qaeda might take over Iraq is nonsensical. Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents’ forces. Most Sunni insurgents are simply what Wayne White—who led the State Department’s intelligence effort on Iraq until 2005—calls POIs, or “pissed-off Iraqis,” who are fighting because “they don’t like the occupation.” But the foreign terrorist threat is frequently advanced by the Bush administration, often with an even more alarming variant—that al-Qaeda will use Iraq as a headquarters for the establishment of a global caliphate. In December 2005, Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a briefing in which he warned that al-Qaeda hoped to “revive the caliphate,” with its capital in Baghdad. President Bush himself has warned darkly that after controlling Iraq, Islamic militants will “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

The reality is far different. Even if AQI came to dominate the Sunni resistance, it would be utterly incapable of seizing Baghdad against the combined muscle of the Kurds and the Shiites, who make up four fifths of the country. (The Shiites, in particular, would see the battle against the Sunni extremist AQI—which regards the Shiites as a heretical, non-Muslim sect—as a life-or-death struggle.)"

There's more . . . but Michael's gonna ask for another check so will stop here.

Just one resource, chucks and Andrew.

[Andrew]

That article is arguing that al-Qaeda can't take over Iraq. Even I could have told you that it's seriously idiotic to even ponder that.

As the article claims, Kurds and Shiites make up four fifths of the country, so asking wether al-Qaeda can take over Iraq is like asking whether santa can deliver presents to fifty million house-holds before sunrise.

[joanie]

You didn't read the article, did you Andrew?

And instead of being a smart ass, why don't you say something intelligent and less defensive.

Do you know what you think?

[Andrew]

OK I read the article. The al-Queda argument was a joke as stated previously.

The second argument about the Sunni's and Shiites magicaly getting is a stretch of the imagination and uses a staggering amount of conjecture and guesswork, such as this:

Even if post-occupation efforts to create a new political compact among Iraqis fail, the most likely outcome is, again, a bloody Sunni-Shiite stalemate, accompanied by continued ethnic cleansing in mixed areas. But that, of course, is no worse than the path Iraq is already on under U.S. occupation.

Wow. That's what I call utopia.

Thirdly it covers the concern of a Kurdish power grab and strangely ADMITS that it would happen but says don't worry, it would only be extremely bloody, not like a full-blown slaughter or anything.

[joanie]

It faces reality . . . do you have a better alternative?

Extremely bloody? Isn't that what we've got now? Wouldn't it be nice if the violence were at least leading to a conclusion?

How many years and how many American soldiers are you willing to expend going nowhere?

BTW, Andrew, you're so concerned, why not go over and fight yourself.

Ritter is on now. Unfortunately you've missed a lot - too bad.

[Andrew]

joanie, your blood thirsty solution of immediate withdraw isn't the only new direction available, and just because a good one hasn't been presented yet doesn't mean there isn't one. Your unimaginative knee-jerk I-hate-Bush position only shows that you are willing to let other people spill blood just to deprive Rebpublicans of any kind of political victory. At the same time, your unconditional give-up-at-all-costs attitude validates conservatives who want to paint liberals as cowards and surrender monkeys.

It would also help if you apeared to give a shit about the Iraqi people who would get the short end of the stick.

[joanie]

My way is the humane way. You have offered nothing here but drivel.

So be it.

[Masculino]

i don't give a shit about the Iraqis, but i give a shit about the future of conservatives in America. That's why i want to win this war. otherwise, fuck those moslem camel jockies.

[Andrew]

joanie admits withdrawal is bloody for those left behind and yet she calls it the humane way? So by extension, she believes it's inhumane when U.S. soldiers are killed, but perfectly humane when Iraqis, or "brown people" as she likely refers to them, are killed. I'm realy disgusted by what I've read here. The liberal cause would be advanced by joanie simply not talking.

Masculino; dsakjh hfsdhfh2 s dbhkb vhab fbfg yb vkh bfhbbv bh dskfb a!

[joanie]

Go to bed, Andrew. Little boys need their sleep.

[Andrew]

You used to be thoughtful in your arguments once upon a time, but look at you now, goading me like a common troll. How did this come to be?

[joanie]

Andrew, you attacked my opinion from the start. And you ask how I came to give you a less than thoughtful response?

Let's be serious.

[Steve]

Peasant, you know the sacrifices i've made for this War, remember, or is your memory failing, the one's you libs took away from us like the data mining of my phone records, bank transactions, and finacial records to catch the bad guys. I had nothing to hide.

Maybe I have to count for you the days I spent in the middle east protecting this Country of ours from it's ememys. The hours of standing watch in 115 degrees heat (in the shade) to protect my fellow Americans. Maybe the money I spend at the Army, Air Force, and Naval Bases in this area to support their Morale, Welfare, and Recreation funds that provides our troops the means they need to relax between deployments.

And lets not forget that I'm more than willing to go where they need me if and when they call.(Coiler will do his MASH bit) Being retired from the military they know my number.

What do you do for your cause? Send money so someone else can walk and hold up a sign for you. Place a sign in your rear window about how bad Bush is. HeHeHe. Those are real sacrifices there. Remember Watada, are you will to go to prison for your cause. He is.

Do you understand now Peasant, I support our Country in its endeavors in Iraq, while you support a cause that would like to see its endeavors there fail. I did not seek the War, you seeked your cause. My country will call when they need me. Your cause has called and you are not sacrificing. The Country I support will always be there. Your cause without sacrifice will just fade away.