The following letter was sent by Conservative Christians to President Bush on 3rd October, 2002. Are you convinced that the invasion of Iraq was a Just War?

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

In this decisive hour of our nation's history we are writing to express our deep appreciation for your bold, courageous, and visionary leadership. Americans everywhere have been inspired by your eloquent and clear articulation of our nation's highest ideals of freedom and of our resolve to defend that freedom both here and across the globe.

We believe that your policies concerning the ongoing international terrorist campaign against America are both right and just. Specifically, we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.

First, your stated policy concerning using military force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction is a just cause. In just war theory only defensive war is defensible; and if military force is used against Saddam Hussein it will be because he has attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001. As you stated in your address to the U.N. September 12th:

"We can harbor no illusions. . . . Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and forty Iraqi villages."

Disarming and neutralizing Saddam Hussein is to defend freedom and freedom-loving people from state-sponsored terror and death.

Second, just war must have just intent. Our nation does not intend to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq. As you declared forthrightly in your speech to the U.N. General Assembly:

"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. . . . Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."

This is clearly a just and noble intent.

Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort. As you so clearly enumerated before the U.N., Saddam Hussein has for more than a decade ignored Security Council resolutions or defied them while breaking virtually every agreement into which he has entered. He stands convicted by his own record as a brutal dictator who cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement he makes. And while he prevaricates and obfuscates, he continues to obtain and develop the weapons of mass destruction which he will use to terrorize the world community of nations.

The world has been waiting for more than a decade for the Iraqi regime to fulfill its agreement to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction, to cease producing them or the long-range missiles to deliver them in the future, and to allow thorough and rigorous inspections to verify their compliance. They have not, and will not, do so and any further delay in forcing the regime's compliance would be reckless irresponsibility in the face of grave and growing danger.

Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority. We believe it was wise and prudent for you to go before the U.N. General Assembly and ask the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own resolutions. However, as American citizens we believe that, however helpful a U.N. Security Council vote might be, the legitimate authority to authorize the use of U.S. military force is the government of the United States and that the authorizing vehicle is a declaration of war or a joint resolution of the Congress.

When the threat of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba presented a grave threat to America's security, President Kennedy asked for the support of the U.N. and the Organization of American States, but made it clear, with or without their support, those missiles would either be removed by the Soviets, or we would neutralize them ourselves. The American people expected no less from their president and their government.

Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force must have a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, "total war" is unacceptable and the war's goals must be achievable. We believe your stated policies for disarming the murderous Iraqi dictator and destroying his weapons of mass destruction, while liberating the Iraqi people for his cruel and barbarous grip, more than meet those criteria.

Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity. We are confident that our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties.

Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals? Does the good gained by resort to armed conflict justify the cost of lives lost and bodies maimed? We believe that the cost of not dealing with this threat now will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives and suffering when an even more heavily armed and dangerous Saddam Hussein must be confronted at some date in the not too distant future. We believe that every day of delay significantly increases the risk of far greater human suffering in the future than acting now would entail.

How different and how much safer would the history of the twentieth century have been had the allies confronted Hitler when he illegally reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936 in clear violation of Germany's treaty agreements? It is at least possible that tens of millions of the lives lost in World War II might not have been lost if the Allies had enforced treaty compliance then instead of appeasing a murderous dictator.

We are extremely grateful that we have a president who has learned the costly lessons of the twentieth century and who is determined to lead America and the world to a far different and better future in the twenty first century. As you told the world's leaders at the U.N.:

"We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand."

Mr. President, we make that stand with you. In so doing, while we cannot speak for all of our constituents, we are supremely confident that we are voicing the convictions and concerns of the great preponderance of those we are privileged to serve.

Please know that we join tens of millions of our fellow Americans in praying for you and your family daily.
Sincerely Yours,

Richard D. Land, D.Phil.
President
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

Dr. Chuck Colson
Chairman
Prison Fellowship Ministries

Dr. Bill Bright
Founder and Chairman
Campus Crusade for Christ International

D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
President
Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc.

Dr. Carl D. Herbster
President
American Association of Christian Schools

John, I think the letter authors properly enunciated the generally accepted principles of a "just war".

Query I have is whether our "secret war" against Cuba met these standards?

As you know, the vast majority of Church leaders condemned the invasion of Iraq as an illegal war. However, it does not surprise me that evangelical supporters of Bush were able to come to this judgement. After all, Charles Colson is a bit of an expert in defining illegal activities. We all know what he got up to when he had power under Richard Nixon.

Let’s take a look at the reasons they give for the invasion of Iraq War:

“We believe that your policies concerning the ongoing international terrorist campaign against America are both right and just. Specifically, we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.”

We now know that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. This was based on a lie manufactured by the CIA and MI6. Colson could of course argue that he believed Bush when he told the American public that he had WMD. If that is the case, has he now changed his mind about the morality of the war?

“In just war theory only defensive war is defensible; and if military force is used against Saddam Hussein it will be because he has attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001.”

It is true that Iraq attacked its neighbours (Iran and Kuwait). They don’t point out that the US government gave considerable help to Iraq in the invasion of Iran. I suppose at that time Republicans thought that was a “Just War” as well. Kuwait was dealt with at the time by the UN. George Bush senior rightly stated at the time that this only gave him permission to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Although he was much criticised at the time he was in fact right to obey international law by not invading Iraq.

Under international law it is not legal to invade a sovereign nation that is waging war on its own people. Nor does it come into the concept of a Just War that is primarily concerned with defending yourself when attacked. The Far Right Christians are aware of this and so add the passage that Iraq “harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001.” The problem with this argument is that it is untrue. There was never any Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. There is now of course. What is more, they have good reason to argue that they are fighting a Just War as they are fighting back against occupying troops.

“Second, just war must have just intent. Our nation does not intend to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq.”

Clearly the US does not want to “destroy” Iraq. However, it has clearly done a great deal to destroy its infrastructure. It is not having much success at conquering Iraq, though no doubt it wishes to do that. The overwhelming number of people in the world do indeed think that the US wishes to “exploit” Iraq. Does anyone really think that the US would have invaded Iraq if it did not have such large supplies of oil?

“Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort.”

This was of course one of the main arguments put forward by Christian leaders why the invasion of Iraq was a “Just War”. Critics of Bush and Blair constantly asked the question: “Why now?” It is a question they have never been able to answer.

“Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority. We believe it was wise and prudent for you to go before the U.N. General Assembly and ask the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own resolutions.”

It was clear to all concerned that despite US attempts to bribe and bully nations into agreeing to invade Iraq, the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Security Council were unwilling to sanction the war. Therefore, Bush and Blair went ahead with fighting an illegal war.

“Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force must have a reasonable expectation of success.”

Bush clearly did not have limited goals. In fact, it is still not clear when Bush plans to withdraw his troops. If Bush’s goal is to obtain a stable and democratic Iraq, then it is highly unlikely that US troops will ever be withdrawn while he is president.

“Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity. We are confident that our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties.”

Any use of long-range weapons will obviously kill large numbers of civilians. Medical organizations working in Iraq have estimated that so far over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the war.

“Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals?”

That is a question that will eventually be answered by the electorate. However, given the corrupt political systems that have been established in the UK and US, it is likely to be some time (if at all) when Bush and Blair are punished for their war crimes. However, I have every confidence that historians will make the judgements that will destroy their political reputations.

Hear hear, Ive just cast my vote, & for the first time I have voted for a party other than Labour.(Greens) I will not return to the Labour Party whilst its leader is an unrepentant war criminal.

John, bottom line is: Are the people of Iraq better off, and is the world better off, with the brutal dictator and murderer Hussein gone and the Iraquis working toward a constitutional democracy despite the factionalism and religious differences that exist within that country?

I think history will say "Yes".

If your prediction that Iraq will revert to a theocracy of fundamental Moslems, then the judgment of history may be different.

But if democracy prevails in Iraq, it may very well spead to ther Middle Eastern countries, with great results for years to come. Consider for instance how women are repressed in the strict Moslem states. This would be like a democratic domino theory I guess.

We were right to fight Hitler. We were right to fight the Cold War. Look at Germany now. Look at Japan. The former countries of the Soviet Union are having difficulties, to be sure, but progress is being made.

I think history has already judged that the isolationists of the thirties like Joe Kennedy (and many Republicans) were wrong in opposing the war against Hitler. If democracy does prevail in the Mid-east (as I am sure we all hope it does) I think history will record the same judgment with respect to those who opposed the war against Hussein.

So, while you I am sure sincerely believe that history will prove Bush and Blair wrong, I must assume that you hope that history will prove them right.

John wrote:

Under international law it is not legal to invade a sovereign nation that is waging war on its own people.

But should this be the case where a dictator is waging genocide against an thnic group solely within the boundaries of his own country? What about Hitler and the holocaust? What if the madman has no extraterrortorial ambitions so that, strictly speaking, the national interest of the US (or GB) is not at stake? There are some difficult questions here, to be sure.

Agreed. But it is completely false to suggest that Saddam Hussein is in anyway similar to Adolf Hitler. The UK went to war with Hitler because Nazi Germany invaded our allies. The US went to war with Hitler because his ally (Japan) attacked Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not invade us or our allies. We invaded Iraq. That is a very different situation to the one that existed in the 1930s.



This is a matter of opinion. Is it really correct to say that the people of Iraq are better off since the removal of Saddam Hussein. Tell that to the relatives of the 100,000 Iraqis that have been killed as a result of US action.

It is true that elections have taken place in Iraq. However, it is far from a democracy. A large number of people are so opposed to this enforced democracy that they are willing to die for the cause. As you know, the rate of people dying in Iraq has increased since elections took place. Once the US removes its troops from Iraq the government will collapse and a full out civil war will take place. The situation is very similar to the one in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. The US backed government can only survive while its troops remain in place. Eventually, the US government will have to accept defeat and withdraw its troops. Let us hope the US will not take as long to realize this as it did in Vietnam.




No I cannot go along with that idea either. If Bush is successful in obtaining a pro-American front government in Iraq he will be tempted to repeat the process in other countries.

The idea is based on a false premise that Bush wants a democratic government established in Iraq. What Bush wants is a government that runs Iraq in the interests of American capitalism. You have to ask the question why Bush is less keen to bring democracy to other countries. For example, Uzbekistan. Elections took place in this country in December, 2004. However, opposition parties were not allowed to take part and President Karimov was allowed to maintain his control of Uzbekistan. Not one member of the US administration criticised these elections. On the surface this may seem surprising as Karimov is a former member of the Communist Party. However, Bush does not mind communists when they are his communists.

Uzbekistan is a country with a government that wages war on its citizens. According to the UN report published in 2002 torture in Uzbekistan is “widespread and systemic”. Last year Human Rights Watch produced a book with more than 300 pages of case studies. This included the boiling to death of Muzafar Avazov and Husnidin Alimov.

Over the last couple of days an estimated 700 civilians have been killed while peacefully protesting against Karimov’s government. However, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, announced to the press that Karimov’s troops had opened fire on “Islamic terrorists”. He also urged them to seek democratic government “through peaceful means, not through violence”. Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary did indeed condemn these attacks on peaceful demonstrators but insisted that: “It’s for the people to decide on a change of regime, not outsiders”. This is the same Jack Straw who helped facilitate regime change in Iraq.

Bush has not been interested in human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. In fact, when the British ambassador in Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, complained about these human rights abuses, Bush put pressure on Blair to sack Murray. This he did and as a result Murray stood against Jack Straw in the recent general election.

Bush not only refuses to condemn Karimov, he helps to prop up his regime. For example, in 2002 the US gave Uzbekistan over $500m in aid, including $120m in military aid and $80 in security aid.

Why is Bush so keen to keep this communist dictator in power? The same reason why he removed Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Oil. The US has troops stationed in Uzbekistan. The reason for this concerns the building of a pipeline to bring central Asia’s hydrocarbons out through Afghanistan to the Arabian sea. Control of Uzbekistan is vital in order to preserve this pipeline. So, as you can see, Bush cares nothing for democracy or human rights.

Think of it as the sonofabitch school of foreign policy. Legend has it that when Franklin D Roosevelt was confronted with the multiple cruelties of his ally, the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he replied: "He may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch."

More than 60 years on, that serves as a pretty good expression of American, and therefore British, attitudes to Islam Karimov, the tyrant of Tashkent who has ruled the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.

That he is a sonofabitch is beyond dispute. Like so many despots before him, Karimov has looked to medieval times for ever more brutal methods of oppression. Hence the return of the cauldron, boiling alive two of his critics in 2002. Uzbekistan holds up to 6,000 political prisoners; independent economic activity has been crushed; religious practice is severely restricted; there is no free press; and the internet is censored. On December 26, when the world was marvelling at Ukraine's orange revolution, Karimov was hosting an election that was not nearly as close - he had banned all the opposition parties.

But, hey, what's a little human rights violation among friends? And Karimov has certainly been our friend. Shortly after 9/11, he allowed the US to locate an airbase at Khanabad - a helpful contribution to the upcoming war against Afghanistan. Since then he has been happy to act as a reliable protector of central Asian oil and gas supplies, much coveted by a US eager to reduce its reliance on the Gulf states. And he has gladly let Uzbekistan be used for what is euphemistically known as "rendition", the practice of exporting terror suspects to countries less squeamish about torture than Britain or the US. This was the matter over which the heroic Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Tashkent, fell out with his employers: he argued that Britain was "selling its soul" by using information gathered under such heinous circumstances.

Brushing Murray's qualms to one side, London and Washington remained grateful to Karimov. A procession of top Bush administration officials trekked to Tashkent to thank the dictator for his services. Donald Rumsfeld, not content with that 1983 photo of himself shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, praised Karimov for his "wonderful cooperation", while George Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, admired the autocrat's "very keen intellect and deep passion" for improving the lives of ordinary Uzbeks.

And perhaps this egregious example of sonofabitchism would have remained all but unnoticed had it not been for the past few days. For having ugly friends can only work if people don't look at your companion too closely - and this week the world saw Karimov in action. When opponents took to the streets last Friday, the dictator ordered his troops to open fire. Uzbek official figures speak of 169 dead; human rights groups estimate the toll at between 500 and 750 - most of them unarmed.

When crowds demonstrated in Lebanon, Ukraine and Georgia, the Americans welcomed it as "people power". But the brave stand in Uzbekistan brought a different response. Washington called for "restraint" from both sides, as if the unarmed civilians were just as guilty as those shooting at them. In the past couple of days, the tune has changed slightly. Now the state department wants Tashkent to "institute real reforms" and address its "human rights problems". It is at least possible that Washington may soon decide Karimov has become an embarrassment and that he should be replaced by a new, friendlier face - but one just as reliable. Less of a sonofabitch, but still ours.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1486339,00.html

I wrote:

We were right to fight Hitler.

John replied:

Agreed. (John ands I agree that: 1. the earth is round; 2. we were right to fight Hitler; 3. This Forum is a great teaching tool that deserves far greater exposure; and 4, Probably at least one other thing!

John continued:

It it is completely false to suggest that Saddam Hussein is in anyway similar to Adolf Hitler.

Talk about over-statements. We could start with they were both members of the human race; were both men; both had all their limbs; both wore moustaches, etc. I assume John would insert a qualifier there were no relevant similarities between them.

BUT--BUT-- both were vicious killers. Granted, Hussein killed tens of thousands while Hitler killed millions, but that, I would argue, is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. Call it genocide; call it ethnic cleansing; but each were cruel, murdering tyrants.

The fact that we embraced Hussein in his war with Iran is unfortunate in retrospect but then war makes even stranger bed-fellows than politics. If one takes the position that foreign policy should never allow alliances with tyrants even in war-time, then both the US and GB were wrong to become partners with Stalin against Hitler. Perhaps there is some merit to this since Stalin himself was a brutal tyrant, of course. However, it is certainly probable that John's countrymen would be now be forced to salute fascists and there would be no Jews in Europe had we not entered this unholy alliance.

I don't think I will have time tonight to adequately respond to all of John's post tonight but I do want to comment that I am stunned, just stunned, that John would assert that Iraquis were better off under the murderous rule of a tyrant than under an emerging democracy. Nevermind the fact that millions of Iraquis risked their life to vote in the election. What counts, according to the post, that there are a few thousand (hundred thousand?) idiots willing to commit terrorism in Iraq to prevent democracy.

Democracy is precious. Tony Blair knows that! I hope John does not kick me off the Forum for this comment but there was a time not so long ago that Americans had to fight Britons to obtain democratic rule. I wonder what John's answer back then would have been to the question: Are Americans better off under George Washington than they were under King George III? Democracy, not despotism, not aristocracy, not totalitarianism, is the hope and future of men everywhere. Unfortunately, history has proven that it sometimes takes the shedding of blood to create democracy. It did in 1776; it did in the 1940s; and it is in the twentieth century in the fight against terrorism.

To seriously argue that Iraquis were better off under Hussein than under an emerging democracy is, I submit, to be on the wrong side of freedom.

And I gotta say this too: it was democracy and capitalism in the United States that created the economic enterprise in the United States that built the planes and ships and military leaders who defeated Adolf Hitler. Winston Churchill knew that GB needed the US if it stood any chance of defeating Hitler.

Society is better now because the Americans fought against the tyranny of King George III (of course I am not comparing George III to either Hitler or Hussein--there there is in fact a difference in kind!!) and society will be better off because Americans (and Britons) were willing to fight tyranny in Iraq.

Please don't interpret this post as anti-British in any way. It is pro-democratic. Great Britain and the United States share a common heritage and many of the thoughts of the American revolutionaries indeed came from great Great Britons e.g. Locke and Paine. And Great Britain has been Anerica's strongest friend in World War II, the Cold War, and now the war against terrorism.

I just think it is incredible to suggest that ANY people could be better off under a tyranny than in a free democracy.

Unfortunately we have had hundreds of dictators who have murdered their own people. We still have them. Are you advocating that we invade all these countries? Did you advocate sending US troops to Argentina and Chile when their military governments were murdering their citizens? Are you advocating an invasion of Uzbekistan (I have noticed you have not replied to this part of my post)?

You write about Hitler as if the US invaded Germany to stop him from committing genocide. The truth is very different. The US declared war on Japan because they bombed Pearl Harbor. As a result Hitler declared war on the US. This was a serious mistake as it led to the US taking part in invading Germany.

In fact, the US attitude towards Hitler’s treatment of Jews and political prisoners was appalling. It did all it could to prevent German Jews from entering the US. Even when the Jews got information to the West about what was going on in the extermination camps, the US government refused to take action, claiming it was Jewish propaganda. It is true that Roosevelt wanted to help but said that if he did he would be voted out in the next election. He knew that the Americans did not want to get involved in any “European” wars. I know Bush is very keen to rewrite history but it only works with the historically illiterate.



I also want Iraq to be a democracy. However, this system of government cannot be imposed on a people. In Iraq they understandably see the situation as a powerful country trying to set up a puppet government. A considerable number feel so strongly about this that they are willing to fight the occupying forces. As a result thousands of innocent people are being killed. Those left alive are in a constant state of terror. This situation is different from the one they experienced under Saddam Hussein. However, it is no better, in fact, I believe it is far worse.

John wrote:

I also want Iraq to be a democracy. However, this system of government cannot be imposed on a people. In Iraq they understandably see the situation as a powerful country trying to set up a puppet government. A considerable number feel so strongly about this that they are willing to fight the occupying forces. As a result thousands of innocent people are being killed. Those left alive are in a constant state of terror. This situation is different from the one they experienced under Saddam Hussein. However, it is no better, in fact, I believe it is far worse.

John, you may feel that way (and so may many left-wing members of the Forum) but, respectfully, you are not an Iraqui citizen and I submit it is the opinions of the Iraquis that really count. Millions of them demonstrated they were willing to die to exercise their right to vote. It's called freedom. Same reason thousands of people have died trying to escape Fidel's paradise.

I hope that if the situation ever became that way in my country (God forbid!) I would be so brave.

I think Iraq should create a monument listing the names of those brave Iraquis who were butchered by the anti-American thugs (similar to the Vietnam War Memorial in DC perhaps). The fact that you have a thousand ignorant Iraquis blinded by anti-US propoganda, mostly young men probably thrilled at the opportunity to spill blood, and motivated as much by blood lust as by politics, in my opinion, means nothing other than the price of freedom is sometimes high.

The problem is that leftists often seem unwilling to fight for freedom. You will cave in to terrorists. Even if what is going on in Iraq now could have or should have been foreseen, it was still worthwhile to get rid of Hussein. In my opinion, he and his sons should receive the same fate he imposed on thousands of his innocent countrymen.

And a democratic Iraq will not be a US puppet but it will certainly be friendlier to Western democracies than Hussein's Iraq was. And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. A good thing for the United States--and a good thing for Great Britain, too!

BTW, I checked in four of your countrymen a few hours ago. Actually they were from Wales (home of my friend Mark). Hardly ever have I met a discourteous or obnoxious Brit--better than I can say for many Americans I have checked in. (They were frustrated, however, because they could hardly get through the Miami airport because they did not speak Spanish!)

Many of the other points you raise are thought-provoking. Should the Western democracies be "the policeman of the world" as the phrase used to be? Or should we allow vicious dictators to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their countrymen? And does it make a difference if the slaughter is genocidal or merely for purposes of political repression? These are difficult questions indeed.

You know, one of my favorite songs from the Sixties perhaps best illustrates the point.

By "The Young Rascals":

All the world over, people got to be free.

You see, John, I agree with Tom Jefferson, that ALL men, and that includes women, and it includes Iraquis, are endowed by their Creator with certain rights that OUGHT NOT be taken away from them by ANY government or theocracy!

And that's what "The Young Rascals" meant!

Tim
It is a logical nonsense to claim that a country under a foreign army of illegal occupation can by be described as a "democracy".

Andy:

Respectfully (for I have the greatest respect for your work and John's on the Forum),

did the allied forces encourage the participation of all factions and religious groups in the election; and did the allied forces encourage groups that had been fighting each other for years to form a coalition government (granted it remains to be seen whether it wll work); did the allied forces encourage and do their best to maintain a fair election?

were any Iraquis forced to vote?

were any Iraquis forced to vote for any particular candidate;

was the election in Iraq less crooked than the 1960 presidential election in Illinois and Texas? (So substitute Florida in 2000 if you want to).

was the election turn-out in Iraq higher (per centage wise) in Iraq than it was in the US presidential election?

did the UN ever condemn the war as illegal?

(and again please remember that I while I shall make my point as dramatically as I can but I do respect you and John morev than I can adequately articulate)

do you think that any ONE SINGLE Iraqui (of the MILLIONS) who risked his or her life (and risked making his or her children fatherless or motherless (as the case may be) care one [expletive deleted] that you and John think the war was "illegal"?

The millions who risked death to vote make the point, as does the shed blood of the martyrs who died to establish a democracy in their country, far, far better than my words. It may be "logical nonsense" to you; it is FREEDOM to the Iraquis. As Felix sang in 1967: "All the world over, people got to be free!!

I am sympathetic to Tim's point of view. I joined the Marines to fight in Vietnam because I believed that we were fighting for their freedom. When Ronald Reagan referred to the war in Vietnam as a "noble cause" he was exactly right - as far as those of us who fought in it were willing to sacrifice our lives for the freedom of people we had never even heard of before.

However, the South Vietnamese did not regard us a liberators, but as invaders. So, in reality we were not fighting for their freedom but for our own self-interest - at least as it was perceived then. And so, we lost.

Iraq is not the same as Vietnam, but one disturbing similarity is the insurgency. It forces allied troops to be suspicous of every single Iraqi, which in turn leads to the killing or injuring of innocent civilians, which in turn leads to an increase in insurgency, which in turn leads to greater suspicion.... "My name is Jon Johnson, I live in Wisconsin...."

According to my understanding of "Just War", neither Iraq nor Vietnam qualify as Just Wars. The point may be irrelevant, because we are, in fact, at war and at that point all bets are off. Unlike John, I hope the situation in Iraq does turn out well, despite the boost it may give to clowns like Bush and Rove.

This phrase is meaningless. I don’t think it is a good idea to base your political philosophy on the words of a pop song.



As you probably know, the vast majority of people in Iraq voted for candidates who are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops. However, the Iraqi government do not have the freedom to do that. It is not a democracy when the government can only take decisions that are approved by the occupation forces.

You still have not explained why Bush is so selective about the countries he decides to invade and introduce “democracy”. Why does he pour financial aid into Uzbekistan rather than remove a dictator who tortures and kills his political opponents? You might want to fool yourself that Bush is on some moral crusade to introduce democracy but no one outside of America believes it (although a few corrupt political leaders in Europe are willing to pretend that they do).

According to the Today Program this morning they are preparing to privatise Iraq's Oil industry so clearly a just war to make Iraq safe for democracy ....and Shell and Esso.

The chart published in the June 3, 2005 New York Times (see link below) shows both the increasing number of insurgent attacks and casualties in Iraq, but also the growing improvements in Iraq. I will list some of the progress below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/opinion/...agewanted=print

Percentage of public believing country is headed in right direction:
May 2003 65
June 2004 50
May 2005 65

Independent Newspapers and Magazines
May 2003 8
June 2004 150
May 2005 170

Trained Iraqui Judges
May 2003 0
June 2004 175
May 2005 351

Trained Iraqui Securiry Forces
May 2003 0
June 2004 0
May 2005 50,000

Telephone Users
May 2003 800,000
June 2004 1,200,000
May 2005 3,300,000

Internet Subscribers
May 2003 1,000
June 2004 59,000
May 2005 160,000

John and Andy in particular should like the last statistic. Much progress needs to be made here, however. I assume in most industrialized nations the percentage of internet use to telephone users is higher than 4%. John or Andy do you have any statistics re this?

The generalization to be made is that definite verifiable progress is being toward liberal democracy (eg independent papers) and civilization but the insurgents are also on the increase. Obviously the objective of the insurgents is to defeat the democrats. All members of this Forum ought to be rooting for the democrats!

The number of independent newspapers and magazines is not 170, that figure is an exaggeration. The actual figure is 0. By law news outlets in Iraq are instructed on what they can and cannot say about the Iraqi resistance by the Higher Media Commission. In fact they are forbidden to use the word "resistance". The restrictions on press freedom are among the greatest in the world. It makes you wonder about the rest of the statistics

Ibrahim Janabi, a former Iraqi intelligence agenc and longtime Allawi ally, is the head of the Higher Media Commission. He has never worked as a journalist. The media committee which, for example banned news outlets from repeating criticisms of Iayd Allawi is located in the same building that housed Iraq's old information ministry which controlled media outlets under Saddam Hussein.

WHY EFFECTING REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ IN ITSELF JUSTIFIED THE WAR


From Sunday's New York Times:


June 19, 2005
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.

The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.

In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.

"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."

From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]

As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.

The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."

Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.

This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.

He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.

The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.

The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.

But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.

The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."

Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.

The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.

When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.

The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.

But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.

The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.

Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.

When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.

He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.

His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.

"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."

Nope. The WMD threat was a potential threat that was contained. Had a real intelligence assessment been launched, meticulously and carefully, this should have been revealed or at least strongly intimated.

This is too much of a stretch to make a case for defensive war. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who opposed instead of support religious fundamentalism. Saddam Hussein clung to his bluster to impress his people with his power. His goal was to die the dictator of Iraq. Launching any attacks against the United States would have only guaranteed his removal from power.




I agree that our nation largely did not intend to destroy and conquer Iraq. I further partially agree that our privatized civilian occupiers did not intend to exploit Iraq too much beyond expecting to receive high prfits from the war. Unfortunately the capitalist zeal for profits for American companies did not place enough emphasis on



Here is something I agree with entirely. Also, when one considers what a last resort is and truly thinks about it, the United States had a truckload of "resorts" left in March 2003. So this was not a just war based on this criteria.



I disagree with this. If a war is just it is just. That is its own legitimate authority. Additionally, the UN vote was not the same thing as a UN declaration of war. We failed to piece together any meanignful coalition a la the Gulf War and we have paid the price for it.



Um, do you mean trying to bring not just peace but democracy to the Middle East not inspired by liberal reform but imposed through imperial-style diplomtic-military pressure. Is this what is meant by a negative example of limited means and a reasonable expectation of success?



Okay. But shouldn't some type of due process be introduced to those detained by the US military to determine whether there is harassment of non-combatants are legal detention of combatants?



How much is enough. Great Britain lost 2K lives the first time around in this quagmire, will that be the US's number or should we count on four thousand?

My biggest concern is that democracy, the new and improved goal of the war, does not have a strong history in nations that are not fully industrialized, and our reconstruction, unlike in Germany and Japan, has not focused on developing an industrial economy.




Prison Ministries after corrupting the government and now you can accuse Felt of violating his responsibilities. Dr. Colson you have big, amoral, brass ones.

Hi Tim

Well that is all very noble isn't it?

Although born in Great Britain, I am now a United States citizen and a concerned voter. I think, Tim, you need to consider the effects of the Iraq war on this nation, and not just consider the long-shot that democracy might be able to be established in Iraq, an eventuality that must, after all, be left to the Iraqis.

Look at the current situation. The United States is stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. American forces are stretched, at the breaking point, not in a position to protect this country or to prevent violence in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The toll of dead and wounded among American and coalition ground forces in Iraq continues to grow, as it does at a much higher rate among Iraqi civilians.

The insurgency is evil but the US is not able to prevent it, in fact US presence in Iraq is just fueling the insurgency by drawing in foreign fighters and financial support under the pretence of jihad -- if the US withdrew that impetus likely would be weakened.

Meanwhile, the cost of the Iraq venture is $230 billion and climbing. No wonder even Republican senators and representatives are now calling for withdrawal.

Best regards

Chris George

If so keen on democracy in Iraq, it is hard to explain the US government's support for a military coup against Chavez in Venezuela.

"They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Till somebody we like can be elected."
(Tom Lehrer - "Send the Marines")

I would encourage you to consider the opinions represented on this web-site:

http://untoldiraq.org


Thanks!

Hi Tim

I am sorry if I came across as harsh yesterday. Yes, of course, the promotion of democracy is a noble pursuit and the ideal of democracy is to be cherished. However, as I stated in my last post, can the United States realistically achieve democracy for Iraq? You and I both know it is up to the Iraqis ultimately to do it for themselves. And the URL you posted, "Untold Iraq" eloquently tells of the hopes of Iraqis.

We both know as well that the United States cannot be forever committed to shoring up the present Iraqi government. Unfortunately I don't think past historical precedents look hopeful. I am thinking of Russia with the weak provisional government after the fall of the Tsar and the Weimar republic after WWI, and how both gave way to a strong man.

Iraq looks to either be on that path or on the way, perhaps, to breaking up into sectarian territories perhaps after a civil war... and where then will Mr Bush's noble experiment be after the U.S. lives and resources have been squandered in getting this nation into a situation that leveler heads than Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld might have predicted would deteriorate as it has? And again, Tim, I think we need to look at what Iraq has done to this nation not just at Iraq. We will be paying for this neo-Con adventure for years to come.

Best regards

Chris

This is a tale of one war, two anniversaries, three different demonstrations - and inconsistencies, contradictions and civilian deaths that are too numerous to count.
On April 18 2003, tens of thousands of Sunni and Shia protesters took to the streets of Baghdad to call for the Americans to leave Iraq. "You are the masters today," Ahmed al-Kubeisy, the prayer leader, told the Americans as he addressed the men emerging from Friday prayers. "But I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we kick you out."

Two years later, the US is still there. The anti-American protest was hailed in the White House as a vindication for the US strategy of bombing and then occupying the country. "In Iraq, there's discussion, debate, protest - all the hallmarks of liberty," said President George Bush that week. "The path to freedom may not always be neat and orderly, but it is the right of every person and every nation."
On February 22 2005, tens of thousands of Lebanese protesters took to the streets of Beirut to call for the Syrians to leave the country. Within a week the Syrians announced indefinite plans to leave. Front covers of magazines carried pictures of pretty young Lebanese women waving flags (at last, some Arabs editors could fancy) proclaiming a "cedar revolution" and "people power". The protest was hailed in the White House as a vindication for the US strategy of bombing and occupying Iraq. "By now it should be clear that authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future," said Bush. "We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power."

On March 8 2005, 500,000 pro-Syrian protesters took to the streets of Beirut to oppose US and European interference. The demonstration was backed by Hizbullah, which the US has branded a terrorist organisation. People carried banners saying "Death to America". It was several times bigger than the first anti-Syrian protest. They too waved Lebanese flags. But editors didn't find them pretty. They did not appear on the front pages of the news magazines. Their protest was not hailed in the White House. In fact, its existence was barely acknowledged.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side," George Orwell once wrote. "He has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

So it is on the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, where the occupying powers are still so desperate to create a moral framework to justify the war that embracing the irrelevant and ignoring the inconvenient has become the only viable strategy left to them.

We have entered a world where reality - like the photographs of torture or the absence of weapons of mass destruction - is just a minor blockage in a flood of official, upbeat declarations and statements. Each new dispatch from the departments of irony on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that truth can be created by assertion, principle can be established by deception and democracy can be imposed through aggression. These people would claim credit for the good weather and deny responsibility for their own signature if they thought they could get away with it.

Two years on, the death toll keeps rising, the size of the "coalition" keeps shrinking and global public support for this reckless occupation has maintained its downward spiral from a low base. Indeed, the only thing that changes is the rationale for starting the war, where the sophistry of the occupying powers keeps plumbing new depths and selective amnesia has attained new highs.

We are supposed to believe that there is no link between the American shooting of an Italian intelligence agent on a rescue mission and Rome's decision to withdraw its troops 10 days later. "I don't see a connection there," says the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan. We are supposed to remember Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds 17 years ago in graphic detail and forget everything that happened in Abu Ghraib 16 months ago.

"If our guys want to poke somebody in the chest to get the name of a bomb maker so they can save the lives of Americans, I'm for it," said Republican senator Jim Talent at a recent hearing on torture. How about ramming someone who does not have the name of a bomb maker in the anus with a truncheon, Mr Talent. Are you for that too?

Most recently, we have been told to believe that the limited and as yet untested moves towards democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the thawing in Palestinian-Israeli relations (largely the result of Yasser Arafat's death) and the proposed withdrawal of Syrian troops (prompted by an outcry over the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri) all justify the bombing.

As further proof they point to January's elections in Iraq. This was a vote that the Americans wanted to postpone, in which many people could not participate, that produced a victory for Islamists with close ties to Iran who want the US troops out as soon as possible. If all of this amounts to victory, I would hate to see what their idea of defeat looks like.

The truth is that you cannot even begin to make a justification for the war unless you take into account the lives of innocent Iraqis lost as a result of it. The simplest way to deal with that is to pretend that these deaths do not exist - the occupying powers simply do not count them. The only other defence is that their deaths are a price worth paying and that good things can come from bad acts - a claim every bit as offensive and wrong-headed as arguing that 9/11 was a price worth paying for waking America up to the consequences of its foreign policy.

But the Iraqis are not the only ones to have suffered these past two years. While the occupiers have been busy failing to export democracy abroad, they have been busy undermining it at home. All of them lied to their electorates about the reasons for going to war. With the exception of America, all of them went to war despite overwhelming opposition from the public. And through their anti-terrorist bills and patriot acts they have removed some of the most basic legal rights of their citizens and criminalised the most vulnerable.

The elections last year in Spain and recent events in Italy are encouraging. They show that while the anti-war movement failed to stop the war, it has maintained a sufficiently effective presence to make a crucial difference at key moments to disable and discredit it.

In the meantime, the department of irony will keep moulding its own version of reality until it is sufficiently warped to fit its own agenda. US troop withdrawal, said Bush last week, "would be done depending upon the ability of Iraqis to defend themselves". They are already defending themselves Mr Bush - from you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1442367,00.html

Gary wrote:

This is a tale of one war, two anniversaries, three different demonstrations - and inconsistencies, contradictions and civilian deaths that are too numerous to count.

On April 18 2003, tens of thousands of Sunni and Shia protesters took to the streets of Baghdad to call for the Americans to leave Iraq. "You are the masters today," Ahmed al-Kubeisy, the prayer leader, told the Americans as he addressed the men emerging from Friday prayers. "But I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we kick you out."

Sorry, Gary, but MILLIONS of Iraquis voted in the election, and risked their lives to do so. Beats out even tens of thousands of demonstrators any day!

Maybe they thought they were voting for a government that could kick out the Americans? However, the government does not have that power. That power is held by the American occupation forces. So much for democracy.

John, now come on, none of the candidates campaigned on such a pledge, to my knowledge.

So why would you say that this explains why so many Iraquis voted in the election? It is simple common sense that most people would like to participate in the election of their leaders.

You seem to be getting away from the Bible in your claims that the invasion of Iraq is a Just War. For your information, it is because of “leftists” that we have democracy in the Western World. Democracy was not fought for by those on the right. It was won by those on the “left”. At the time, those on the right were defending the system of privilege and elitism. This is of course what the right-wing do today. As you have admitted on the thread “Is America a Democracy” you are not a supporter of democracy. When I asked you why you wanted to impose something you did not believe in on Iraq you replied: “An interesting question.” You never gave me an answer. Did you try asking Karl Rove for an answer? Are you still waiting for your Republican Party handout?

I think Bush wants both. He just doesn't want people to know about American corporate imperialism. It's a side of history that I'm not proud of and one that needs to be addressed by Americans. I think it's a bit more serious issue than what Americans realize because westernizing the globe loses cultural identity.

Regarding "communists," I think another reply hinted that Bush (and administrations in the past) deal with 'the lesser of two evils' all the time. John, I see your point as well though because it obviously is best not to work with any of them if at all possible.

Any objective observor would agree that Communism, certainly under Stalin, was a very vicious dictatorship that certainly fit the defintion of "evil empire".

And yet on another thread someone (perhaps even John) pointed out that the Soviet Union played an important role in the allied victory in WWII. Sometimes realism, unfortunately, requires alliances with regimes that would not meet our definition of a perfect system.

But I think Bush sincerely wants to build regimes that are democratic. That it is not always possible in no way denigrates the existence of or the validity of the objective.

I think all of the opinions expressed are articulate and well thought out. I happen to agree mostly with Stephen Turner view. I would also point out that I believe 50 years from now the world will look back and see that the doctrine of pre-emption while sounding noble, will be viewed as the trap-gate of history which resulted in a milieu of war of which Afghanistan and Iraq were only the beginning. Some time in the next few years I think it is very realistic to see China invade Taiwan using the issue of pre-emption ala the Bush administration. I also believe if the United States is stupid enough to invade Iran the administration will discover that China and Russia will not be sitting idly by watching. Obviously none of us has a crystal ball but I feel that the current state of affairs is just the beginning of sorrows.

You would think that the groundswell of opposition in the US - indicated by the success of Cindy Sheehan and the hysterical attacks on her by Fox News - plus the demonstrable fact that the US is bogged down in Iraq would persuade any sane person to avoid a "military option" in Iran.

Incidentally Amy Goodman's broadcast from "Camp Casey" on http://democracynow.org which anyone can view on realplayer is well worth watching.

Democracy Now are dispised by many US feminists who are engaged in the anti-war movement.

That is very interesting, could you give us chapter and verse on their objections? Certainly they seemed very positive in the program which I saw.

Among those who participated in the program were:
* Mona Parsons, Son to be Deployed to Iraq
* Caron, Son to be Deployed to Iraq
* Catherine Bonney,Daughter in the Army
* Deb Hagerman,Wife of Iraq War Veteran
* Beth Lerman, Son Serving in Coast Guard
* Theresa Dawson, Son in National Guard
* Karen Merideth, Mother of Soldier Killed in Iraq
* Cindy Sheehan, Son Killed in Iraq

Gregory was going to give us chapter and verse on the American feminists who despise Democracy Now!

"Despising" is neither here nor there but I would be interested to hear their arguments.

I don't think I promised chapter and verse.

I was given a mention (unflattering) by Joe Arpaio in this broadcast. As far as I am aware I have no other connection with DN.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/024257

DN are (thought to have) the corporate view that the feminist movement allegedly collapsed because of its opposition to pornography.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

To return, briefly, to the idea of the "just war", I do believe that such a thing exists, that there are situations in which failure to fight may be considered a greater evil than fighting. I haven't expressed that well, but I am referring, for example, to the situation here in Spain in 1936. When the fascist elements in the military organized their coup, supporters of the legitimate, elected government, had several alternatives, and these were all adopted to a greater or lesser extent.

Some simply changed sides for pragmatic reasons.

Some assumed that they could continue their opposition to the Right through "normal" means. They ended up in jail or dead.

Some retreated into diplomatic silence, continued to live and work in Spain, but kept their heads down.

Some fled abroad, either seeking safe refuge, or to attempt to organize opposition.

Some took up arms.

I cannot find it in me to condemn those to adopted the last option.

I can also imagine a time when it would be necessary to resist Islamic fundamentalism by ALL available means, including violence. It's difficult to imagine just how inimical to Western beliefs Islamic fundamentalism is if you haven't lived in a country where it's in charge. I admit that my views are colored by the five years I spent living in Iran in the 70s. I saw fundamentalism at first hand. The decoration of road bridges with the hanged bodies of "drug addicts" and homosexuals. The vicious persecution of the Bahai and Jewish minorities. The complete absence of any sort of legal recourse for the accused. The widespread -- scarcely even denied -- use of torture. The physical elimination of "leftist" elements such as the Fadayyeene Khalq and Mojaheddin-e-Khalq.

I don't want to live in a state based upon such practices. Many fundamentalist leaders are committed to the extension and imposition of their version Islam to the West. I think resistance to such an imposition could certainly be classified as a "just war"...

Now, whether any of that justifies preemption in the case of Iraq is another question. I suspect that history will find that Iraq was the wrong war against the wrong people...

One of the problems with pornography is that the state will use laws against pornography to suppress dissent. The Czech government banned Milan Kundera not because of his mildly erotic prose but his full frontal opposition to the Soviet invasion.

And it is disingenuous mendacity to say that the antiwar movement rejects the support of Democracy Now! because of genuine and principled differences of opinion over this issue.

A war of the working class against its oppressors is a just war. And that is about it. Both the pacifism (when appropriate) and the militarism of the ruling class serve the same ends.

DN is hated by many feminists who are also opposed to the war. Pornography is as important to many feminists as any other problem.

Now the communists have gone the Czech Republic has teddy bears in the brothel windows of Cheb, how much progress is that?

Confusing two issues.

One: to oppose the Stalinist regime was seen (by them) as believing in a return to capitalism. I certainly do not believe that. I doubt Milan Kundera did either but he can speak for himself!

Two: to have a genuine difference of opinion with other people in the anti war movement does not weaken your opposition to the war. Moreover Democracy Now! is used as a platform by many of the main opponents of the war. They were virtually alone in the craven American media in giving a platform to Nader despite the vicious opposition of the Democrats.

Amy Goodman is the first to acknowledge that there are different opinions in the anti war movement but to allow that to prevent us from acting together would be to play into the hands of Bush and Blair. (and to suppress those differences of opinion would be equally undemocratic)

Democracy Now is used by pornographers and pro-prostitution fanatics. Public sex is a key indicator of a propensity to offend against children.

The definition of authentic solidarity should not require a campaign to keep the right-minded collaborating with pornographers.

The Czech state has major issues with paedophilia and its school system, a culture of toleration has contributed to the unsatisfactoriness of the problem.

I recommend anyone who believes that to watch one Democracy Now! program and make up their own mind.

I do not measure stuff as right/left or whatever, I wrecked Joe Arpaio's jailcam & COPS link-up business without blinking over the electoral college aspects.

I meet mothers who have 8 year old daughters who want to be lap-dancers or porn stars when they grown up. DN is for the pro-pornography camp.

I am often asked to find girls who are dead. I work with young girls forced by pimps to make sex films in Prague, Budapest etc. for '18' content in the USA.

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but what does any of this have to do with "just wars"?

I agree. Gregory has done the same thing in the Abortion and Nazi Germany thread. He is beginning to sound like Tim Gratz with his constant hijacking of threads to argue that Castro killed JFK. Gregory seems to have a fixation about sex criminals. If you continue with this strategy I will start deleting your posts. By all means start your own threads concerning your sexual problems, we are very tolerant on this forum and we realise that people need an outlet for their dark thoughts, however, do not try to take over those of other members.

Gregory, you still have not posted a photograph as your avatar. You are receiving your final warning, do it or your membership will be suspended.

The issue

The standing of Democracy Now within the context of anti-war feminism. It was argued that the broadcasters were popular amongst feminists.

I work with feminists from all shades of political opinion and DN are widely thought to be going tabloid and to have climbed into bed with the porn people.

End of issue

The Green Party do the darkest thoughts. They are the party of slavery in more or less every part of the world they have an office. In Germany they are connected to the biggest outbreak of forced labour since Organization Todt.

The thread issue for this particular discussion related to the diminishing feminist bona fides of the broadcaster Democracy Now and the conversation was therefore likely to focus on the legitimate feminist complaints about DN.

Respectfully submitted

Gregory Carlin

The US, UK and West have a long history of 'intervention' throughout the world and the reasons given for intervention almost never turn out to be accurate. We have toppled legitimate democratically elected governments, installed brutal dictators, created monsters, assassinated leaders, financed coups, spread lies, provoked wars, told lies(often through manufactured or 'sexed-up' intelligence) to start wars, trained, financed and protected terorists all to preserve or enhance our economic and geo-strategic interests. The idea that Iraq is or Iran will be any different is ridiculous.

Oil is just one reason amongst many for the invasion of Iraq. The others include Israeli foreign policy objectives, liberalisation of the Iraqi markets, the return in oil trading to the petrodollar, strategic military control of the middle east and US world hegemony. The introduction of 'bringing democracy' was only a diversion following the collapse of the fabricated WMD ploy.

The invasion of Afghanistan was to construct oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea area.

Every time we carry out one of these interventions we justify our actions with fabricated propaganda about our good intentions and the proposed benefits to the innocent people we are slaughtering.

We have always done this and will continue to do so out of pure self-interest.

It amazes me that people are still more than willing to view these atrocities within the fabricated pretexts which spew from the mouths of successive administrations. Viewing each 'intervention' in isolation is the only way to maintain this (d)illusion.