Jonsoniana,
Your average "non-radical" anti-war citizens don't speak out much in the US because it is considered anti-American, and even more importantly, dangerous to our troops. Patriotism has become synonymous with a pro-war stance. I think it's possible to support our armed forces but still feel we shouldn't have gone over there against the objections of so many important allies. World opinion does matter, and the opinion that the UN is irrelevant, France and Germany are irrelevant, European citizens' opinions are irrelevant, is offensive to many of us. And yes, we are patriotic Americans. Last night was the first night I heard an American on TV seriously question the wisdom of our actions in Iraq--I believe it was considered safe to do so since we at that point were clearly toppling Sadam's regime. I apologize for not remembering the person's name, but one memorable quote was that the US had "punched a hole into a giant hornet's nest." Let's see what happens in the power vacuum.

A very interesting column is Joe Klein's Time magazine piece April 14th. It seems to me to be a very fair assessment of our current foreign policy and its worldwide effect. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030414/cklein.html

The jubilation of Iraqis seen today is quite moving, and gratifying. But don't be surprised if the hatred of Americans is just as strong--can we really be trusted? And who can we trust in Iraq? Do you really think that thousands of years of tribal and religious in-fighting will be erased now that Sadam is gone? More likely we will see the break-up of Iraq into continually warring factions. There will be resentment no matter what America does. The question will be whether the middle east is better off for us having punched into the hornet's nest. Let's hope that no matter how many casualties we have taken, how many innocent civilians we have killed, how many limbs we've blown off of children, that the Iraqis decide that it was worth it. America's opinion isn't the only one that matters.

Wolf,

Totally disagree with you on the teaching thing - especially at the college level. It is impossible to not show some bias in teaching. The history of our country is one great example. In elementary school, I was taught about the "cowboys and indians" and of course the cowboys were *always* the good guys. That certainly was some bias. Now, I do think elementary school should be as factual as possible...but once you get to a certain point in mental development (hopefully around college), it's good to see all the boundaries out there that exist (or lack thereof)...from the fanatical to the middle. Nothing wrong with that...it encourages different and critical schools of thought. But I understand the right's refusal to even consider such a nasty, terrible concept!

As for Islamic fundamentalists and their teachings - there was a great article on that matter in last weekend's Wall Street Journal. But this type of fanaticism is very different from public schools - so you lost me on the point you were trying to make there. Often, the fundamentalists are taught fundamentalist views from a very early age - programmed, if you will. Last I checked, that doesn't happen in America!?! Well...maybe Bob Jones University here...should we shut that down? It's quite extreme and fundamentalist.

And it's quite contradictory of you to say we're wrong for bringing bias to the classroom and then blindly impose your religious bias on everyone else. Religion is not a bad thing but belongs in the homes and churches of it's members, not forced down other people's throats. The word God implies a single, Christian diety. So I don't want to see statements about faith in God in public places. Faith is a beautiful thing (fundamentalists excluded), but having such "public proclamations" does not acknowledge other faiths - and faith, as we all know, is one of the most passionate issues on this planet. Let everyone practice and enjoy their faith without negative pressure for their beliefs.

My argument about the current administration doesn't blame them for everything (although we appear to be heading in that direction). My argument blames them for a failure to faithfully pursue diplomacy via the U.N. before taking this action. THAT is what I blame the administration for.

And your definition of hypocrisy fits the Bush administration perfectly. Here N. Korea has been *begging* us to confront them and we haven't. Why? Is it because Iraq was a much easier target and victory? Our efforts to "send a message" to other countries is questionable. N. Korea sees *more* need to have nukes now - because of an aggressive U.S. policy. So did we accomplish that objective? I'll bet they'll pay twice as much and work twice as hard to get more nukes now. Three cheers for brilliant foreign policy (sarcasm, of course)!!! Hmmm....(so sorry...I'm on fire today, listened to some conservative show today that really irked me...they claim to be fact-based but they spent so much time name calling and citing zero facts - and yet they claim *liberals* to be the name-callers! Where was that definition of hypocrisy again?!?)

On the journalist-killing issue...see this article and consider an eyewitness account - or does that count as evidence anymore?

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395412

Oh that's right, it's not on Fox or Rush. Don't believe it.

Jonsonia, not many people are speaking against this war for several reasons. First, the right in America has seen a great insurgence since Bush came to be - a once silent minority has suddenly found a voice and they don't know how to shut up (yet). Second, I think a lot of people are afraid - with the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, there is a perceived crackdown on civil liberties - be it true or false. Finally, since two days before the war, public opinion has indeed shifted here. Most Americans agree with this war - and numbers have increased as success became apparent. The "fair-weather" supporter - that is, those who support it so long as it is going good - has turned this war into a very popular action stateside.

In closing - I am *so* glad to see the pictures we saw today. At least we are welcome by some. As usual though, the media clipped out some of the Iraqi's protesting against our presence (saw 'em live, but they disappeared from the evening news). Once again the right-wing censorship movement is running in high gear. Regardless, hopefully the rest of the world will take the good out of this situation...but I do share aidance's concerns...

Booklady: I'm so heart-broken!

This will be news to my rabbi. I must inform her at once!

It's hard to know what Americans think of this war. As you know, there's a strong belief among many Americans that it's okay to criticize a war before and after it occurs, but not during. I'd hold off on evaluating public opinion till after this thing is over and more people feel comfortable telling pollsters what they really think.

A lot will depend on whether any evidence of weapons of mass destruction turns up in Iraq. If there's nothing there, American credibility will be severely damaged (more than it already has been by the 2000 elections and Bush's apparent violation of the U.N. charter and other international accords signed -- and often coauthored -- by the U.S.).

Gazpacho wrote,

"After that last administration I would have voted for Adolph Hitler himself if he ran against Gore."

WOW.

The one thing that's clearly coming across for me upon reading the posts in this thread from the start is:
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT GETTING THE SAME INFORMATION IN THE STATES THAN IN EUROPE*.

Gazpacho, all the US government has been saying about the “Palestine hotel” is contradictory; at one point they said it had been a “mistake”; and yes, they have stated that they had informed the journalists 48 hours prior to the attack that the hotel was considered a possible war target. Well then, why none of the about 100 journalists that stay there had gotten that piece of news, and they all claim that's a blatant lie? Or you consider them so stupid that you actually believe they were told to leave two weeks in advance but they all decided to stay to risk their lives?

Fernando, I also feel shame, but for the exact opposite reasons.
Out of five million people, the estimate population of Iraq's capital city, several hundreds were demonstrating their "pro-Bush" sentiments yesterday; I guess the ones that feel what's going on in their country is really a fraud, were probably at what's left of their homes crying and feeling just a little humiliated, in other words, we couldn't see them.
I so fear what's to come, Sadam has not been eliminated yet, so I guess we'll continue to see absurdities such as the bombing of a restaurant because Sadam is supposedly dining there….right! All that accomplishes is the killing of innocent civilians. Talk about "matar mosquitos a cañonazos' and "entrar como un elefante en una cacharreria'.
But I always try to look on the bright side, and keep saying to myself that out of this madness, comes, at least, something positive, the embargo, or blockage, as I think you call it, that's hurt so many Iraqi people's lives is finished. **

Hasn't anyone read Mr. Blix's latest statements?

Pim, (crossing her fingers so that she doesn't get misinterpreted again.)

*I say Europe and not Spain, since I've been following the TV news in SkyNews.

**Oops! Sorry about these comments, I forgot I'm anti-war so that means I do not care about the people really, for a second.
.

Some people (Fernando, Wolf) have claimed for an investigation on the Palestine hotel events.
Well, stop worrying about that. Mr. Trillo says the Spanish government trusts the official version from US army officers, so they won`t ask for a further investigation on the matter. My source? The cover from EL Pais today.
I guess I should feel shame, but thank Lord I am an anti-Spanish Asturian separatist and don`t feel represented by Aznar (ha, ha...)
I wonder how much Bush has offered Aznar so that he accepts to play such a humiliating, gruesome role. If Aznar is not a traitor, then this word has no meaning at all...
Today Tele5 offered a brief report about the Iraki opposition. The leader that is supported by the Pentagon is a certain Iraki bank manager who left the country FORTY years ago (I wonder if he still can speak the language) and then got involved in a financial scandal in Jordania. Bush and Co. apparently enjoy that sort of people, remember Enron. As to reconstruction, some American company managers have been offered a good chance to make big money, in Irak. Some of them being good friends of Cheney. Dick must be a nice guy, a one who appreciates the worth of friendship *sigh* Carry on that way, Dick!
There are economists who say world economy needs a war from time to time, or else it will collapse into crisis; WWII saved us from the 29 crack. So I guess everything is OK now...
Even better, the Iraki government had bought, short before the crisis, some 10 billion euros. Now the new brave free Iraki government will learn again the value of good, old dollars. Sheer gratitude.
See why European rulers opposed the war? See why Bush hates Saddam so much? Everything has a rational explanation...
I am currently reading a book about Algerian terrorism. It is fascinating:
-Western powers (mainly France) know what is going on in that country...and don`t care at all.
-Terror is run by fundamentalists, but ALSO by the government
-Some 150 000 people have been murdered there, in the last ten years; just two hundred km. away from Europe!!!
When will we invade Algeria? The regime is "killing their own people", aren`t they?
When will those damned 'experts' on the media mention that 'terror' is run mainly by the secret services from governments?
When will "war against terror" stop being just a slogan to justify invasions, and when will the true roots of terror begin to be researched?

By the way, what will come next? See at
http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/bush_sizes_up_spain.html

Pim,

I'll go with the second reason the journalists decided to stay.

Here's an independent media take on the toppling of the statue of Saddam yesterday (photos, very little text--a quick read!)--make of it what you will, but clearly we in the U.S. don't always get the whole story (be sure to scroll down to do your own comparison of the faces in the pictures that appear below the one of the plaza):

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1598451.php

Taravb,

I just checked out the news source you suggested. This may have "independent" on their title, but that is as far as it goes. They are not independent, if by independent you mean complete disassociation with taking sides on the pro/con war movements in particular, or free from bias in general. However, they may be independent in other ways, perhaps what they mean is that their funding comes from independent sources?

A cursory look can tell you that this is a pro-peace site, so it is as biased as a pro-war site.

Nevertheless, the question of fair and unbiased reporting: I do not believe any of us in the planet have seen this yet. News has been slanted in all directions, and has served all interests.
News agencies, on both sides of the Atlantic, seem to suffer with the dilemma.

I have found that we as informed citizens need to triangulate news information, if possible, to have a better idea of motives, and the ideas and positions of all parties involved. Research expert positions, then research the expert for bias in their positions. You have to go with your best judgement after that.

You're right, Booklady...they use "independent" not to mean "unbiased" but to mean "not dependent on media conglomerate funding." They clearly have an agenda in posting the photo I linked above...

I watched the breathless coverage of the statue-toppling effort on CNN yesterday, and got tears in my eyes at the thought of all of these thousands of oppressed people hacking at the symbols of an evil regime. Paula Zahn and Christiane Amanpour (and some reporters on the scene) made it sound like this was an impromptu gathering of regular Iraqis, not a staged media event.

So I see the photo I linked to (http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcAllies) as an important balance to that. I was (personally!) swayed into feeling that regular Iraqi civilians were rising up with passion against Saddam (and I felt a strong emotional reaction, which media researchers will tell you is a way to make you more gullible--this is why "cliffhangers," references to sex, and big humorous moments happen right before commercials!).

Those spontaneous displays against the regime may have happened in places, but THIS particular (highly-publicized--don't you think the photo of Saddam tilted over the statue base will appear in MANY newspapers and magazines?) instance was not all it was made out to be on CNN.

Yes, Taravb, I noticed today on several local papers down here that they used this photo. Its very similar to the statue of Lenin when the Soviet Union disbanded. It will be used as a symbol.

I noticed the absence of women on both this photograph and on the occassion where Saddam was walking around the bombed area. Is this a cultural phenomena? Women don't congregate with the men on political rallies type of events? I'll have to look it up.