Yes Booklady, words do have definitions. That's very Ayn Randish of you. The reason I use these words isn't to name call, but rather to try to understand how anyone could prefer a sadistic despot over the leader of the free world. The only way I can even begin to understand it is to identify it with socialism.
And besides, what's so offensive about calling someone with socialist ideas a socialist? I'm not offended at all about being labelled as a conservative. Rather proud of it and all.
Pass the mop Wolf and NYRed. I'm not afraid to get these hands dirty.

Thank you, Gazpacho. I am honored. I agree there is absolutely nothing wrong in called a marxist a marxist. Your question: is very similar to Lonoma's comment: and I would add my previous comment to New Yor Red: It seems obvious that there are those in the movement that are using the peace movement as a pretext to criticize the United States. Because if they trully cared for the pain that the Iraqui people, and to some extent the Cuban people have undergone, tyrants like Saddam and Fidel would have been routed long ago.

All this discussion has been very interesting to read and admittedly I see more pro-war points than I ever saw before - which is difficult for me. However, I've been anti-war since the beginning and I still remain the same. Here's some thoughts I have for those of you who are pro-war...

Saddam is a terror and I realize that he has been a ruthless threat to his people and to many people in the world. However, our motivations for this war are not what Bush claims them to be. Reports of him pounding on the desk and exclaiming "god this feels good" right before a war briefing definitely creates a cause for concern. This is just not sane human behavior...

The objectives for this war have been stated as wmd, pre-emption, liberation of the Iraqi people, and regime change.

On WMD, the behavior of the administration at the U.N. was questionable. Any time objective and measurable criteria for weapons elimination in Iraq was set forth as part of a resolution, it was ignored and nixed by the U.S.

One of the justifications for this war was "pre-emption." That is, Iraq is not an immediate threat, but a potential threat in the future. While a seemingly noble cause, that is a flawed form of logic. If we applied that same standard to other countries, we would be attacking at least half the world.

And one more point to think about. Signs don't currently point to a large "welcome" on the streets of Iraq. While certainly one could say that the people of Iraq are still operating under the rule of Hussein and his cronies and therefore are not speaking honestly, I do wonder if we are truly welcome. Time will tell on this one...

Regime change is indeed another noble cause considering who we are talking about - on the surface, anyway. But there are no signs of a people desparately crying out for help. In fact, they seem to be rebelling against us. Certainly life under his regime is oppressive and certainly it limits their ability to speak out, but in the end there have been no recent reports of mass killings and genocidal moves. Not since the Gulf War. This is not the desparate situation we have been led to believe it is.

Some of my worst predictions about this situation appear to be surfacing - Syria and Iran are exhibiting questionable behavior. If the rest of my predictions ring true, this is only the beginning. I do hope I'm wrong.

One more thought: enemies. This is just my own personal estimate, but I think it's safe to say that for every one person that is killed by an American bomb, we have gained 20 enemies. This is a number that represents the family and close friends of those who died - and probably a very conservative number at that (especially in public places that are inadvertantly bombed where many witnesses are present). That means that in this first week of the war where an estimated 350 Iraqi civilians died, we have created 7,000 more enemies - all of our own doing in a part of the world where we're not favored to begin with. This, of course, does not count countless others who see this on T.V. in Iraq or in other countries. If the war goes on for mere 8 weeks - using my conservative estimates - we will have created 56,000 enemies total. While *we* may see this as a collateral loss, the families of those who died will never be able to see this as such. Would you?

For those who think we're cleaning up other people's messes, let's not forget who created this mess - way back in the Iran/Iraq war. Let's not forget who funded Osama & camp. It's utterly rediculous to say we are cleaning up other countries messes...we are cleaning up our OWN mess and doing a very poor job at that.

Finally, remember that Bush & camp have not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. While I certainly hope this not a serious threat and was mentioned in hopes of thwarting the enemy, the one decent thing I can say about Bush is the man speaks his mind. How do the pro-war people feel about this - should we use them, is this justifiable? How will the rest of the world react to an unprecendented usage of nuclear weapons?

I don't see the connection. Socialism is an economic system. What has that to do with saying the president of the United States should honor international accords signed by his predecessors, and should be honest about the reasons for this war?

My post was mostly in response to Wolf's use of the phrase "socialist progaganda." Yes, some Americans do advocate varying degrees of socialism, but their "propaganda" is not widely available to the masses except in discussions of healthcare. The million or so Americans who marched last week to protest Bush's war were not there out of a profound belief in domestic economic reform. It's far more likely they felt it was wrong to bomb people who never did anything to us.

I suspect Wolf didn't really mean Socialist: from context, it seems he was using it as a generic buzzword for "un-American," as in anyone who thinks that citizens in a democracy should speak out against a dishonest (or, at best, unwise) president.

Yes, it's possible to support this particular war from an ends-justify-the-means standpoint. However, democratic countries founded on the rule of law aren't supposed to embrace this kind of Old West vigilantism. What about the next war? Bush is clearly willing to lie and cheat to justify taking over any country whose leader he finds morally objectionable, regardless of whether it violates the U.S.'s contractual agreements and whether or not it will rally extremists to join anti-American movements. Here's hoping for a viable Democratic candidate in 2004. (Or a viable Republican with a different world view than George Junior's.)

Good point el viajero! Every war is easy to support from an "ends justify the means" standpoint. And why? Because when one uses that approach, they are basing "the ends" on a fallacy - i.e., their relative predictions on a situation when in fact the true "ends" could be something completely different than what they expect.

This is a slippery slope these "ends justify the means" people are walking (or slipping) on...where decisions are not made on the basis of facts but instead on the basis of PREDICTIONS.

Like you said - who is next? Who does Bush want next?

And another question concerning Bush's "foundation" for this war...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html

thijs,

Stop and think for a moment. If the U.S. went to war, there had to be a plan to rebuild Iraq made in advance. Waiting until after the battles were over to decide where to start would be totally stupid. Now, assuming the U.S. was wise enough to have a plan for rebuilding, which obviously they were - why in hell would we put American money up and offer it out as contracts to anyone other than Americans? What's your idea? See if the French or Germans want to bid on them? Even before the hostilities start? Just stating that it was a "good old boy" deal is grasping at straws.

What's ironic is that both the German and French governments have already "voiced their concerns" that they won't get "their fair share of contracts" in the rebuilding of Iraq. They never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.

As for the end justifies the means - really now. There's pages of text in here indicating our reasons for believing what we do. Don't jump on this phrase and ride it, it's not worthy of a response.

Wolf

The inclusion of the vice president's company on the short list of bidders doesn't smell the tiniest bit fishy?

el viajero,

From what I've seen, the anti-war group thinks everything "smells fishy." But then again, those of us who support the Iraqi issue think the comments you people make not only smell fishy, but lack substance.

So, if Halliburton isn't the right company to put out the oil well fires, and make repairs, who do you suggest? Jock Chirac and his court jesters?

If Halliburton gets the job of putting out well fires, and work in re-establishing the oil fields, they deserve it. They're the ones who went in and did it in Kuwait. By the way, the Kuwaiti government hired them "during" the Gulf War. Their reasoning was simple enough. They announced that there wasn't anyone who had a better reputation, or could do the job better.

If your intent is to show collusion as to why the war started, you've really lost it.

Wolf

Here's something worth reading. It may shed a little light on the "attitudes" & "prejudices" that some people associated with reporters.

Personally I couldn't agree more with Cavuto. He's covered the bases quite well, IMHO.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82504,00.html

Wolf (Applauding Cavuto, and people like him.)

Just out of curiosity, how many of you discuss this topic in other online forums?