Question for the antiwar protesters

That sounds more than a bit optimistic to me. Some dictatorships are so brutal they are practically impossible to overthrow from within. Uprisings will occur - and be suppressed in bloodshed. If they exist long enough and that happens often enough, entire generations will give up even trying, and accomodate as well as they can instead. I don't think the North Koreans, for example, have any chance. In Iraq, uprisings did occur, like that of the above-mentioned Shi'ites, but were bombed down, end of story.

The powerlessness can be especially great if it's a territory or country that's occupied by another. For certain only a tiny minority of Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians was ever sincerely loyal to the Soviet Union, but what were they to do? Their guerrilla fighters as well as 10% of the rest of the population had been deported to the camps. Should they rebel, only to be faced with a new period of state terror, like the Hungarians were after '56?

I wouldn't think Saddam is supported by a lot of Iraqi's. If outside of the clique deriving wealth or power from the current regime anyone will do anything to stop the US troops, it will be out of fear of the 'unknown danger', as you say.

The countries you mention threw off dictatorship as soon as there was a reasonable chance. I think it should always be our repsonsibility to create as many of such chances as possible - in so far as doing so is reasonably responsible, in that it does not incur dangers or suffering greater than the dictatorships in question pose.

again i agree. We missed some huge opportunities in the past because the US was not ready for a regime change. And because they now are ready the Iraqi have to start their resistance? That resistance bled dry after the second Gulf War, when they were abandoned by Bush Sr.

And like i stated before. The people of Iraq dont see this as a war against Saddam but against Iraq as their country.

A man interviewed at Al-Jazeera has put it this way: Yes, i hate Saddam, But that doesn't mean i will not defend my country with my life. This is not a war over Saddam, this is a war against my country.

nimh..

I do not put the former situation of Cambodia parallel with the current situation in Iraq. I am solely claiming the situation at any given epoch is complicated and the cause of anti-war does not necesarrily apply to every situation.
The current situation is a continuation of that of these twelve years, and history tells that odd-jobs in the realm of politics often caused serious results.

fully agree with you there, but i'm sure you'd noted that already.

in as much as you were making a direct comparison, though (frolic: "US troops must leave Iraq. And the UN inspections have to be reinstalled." / satt: "You must mean Vietnamese troops shoud have left Cambodia in 1970's."), i really dont think the arguments that in hindsight legitimise the vietnamese invasion apply in this case. glad to see you seem to agree on that, now. of course, its not hindsight yet on this one, so who knows who amongst us all will turn out to have been right or wrong ...

nimh..
Clearly I am referring to the former situation of Cambodia with hindsight, but I cannot assure you won't justify this war with hindsight twenty years later.

BTW, I am not necessarily justifying the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, as I am not thinking things with dualism of right and wrong.

To go back to the original question posed.........sometimes it is a matter of principle. Although that word itself lends itself to different meanings.

There were, and are, many people who think the manner and dictate of operation of this "war" is wrong, whether we are there or not. A lot of the reasons given simply do ring true, and changed direction so many times that it became suspect. I do not believe we have any right to inflict upon another nation what and whom a small group feel is right. How different is that really from any other hostile invasion?

I've noticed that many who protest the protestors call them Saddam lovers. This is an easy way out. And not true. And this is a situation that cannot and should not be compared with other situations. The protests against the idea of it started early, by large groups all over the world. Some based on envy of America, some on fear. But a large part based upon the belief that it was wrong. Instead of accepting that these protests were made out of conviction and belief, the non-protestors go into attack mode. If you expect me to accept your belief that this war is a just and justified one, than you should be prepared to accept that mine is a different conviction and belief, and just as valid.

Re: Question for the antiwar protesters

We are currently hyping terror (and losing civil liberties) because of many ongoing wars:
1) War on Drugs
2) War on Terrorism
3) Afghanistan / Al-Queda
4) Iraq

And Bush has made it clear that Iraq is only one step, part of a larger process.

I believe the protesters and much of the world are not so much accusing the United States, but rather Bush and his methods. The Gulf War will do what it does (hopefully quickly!), but I think the fear and the protest is now directed at the president.

No one really doubts Saddam is a bad guy and needs to go.
It's just the manner that Bush did it -- is tearing apart our diplomatic and social fabric, and endangering millions of lives.

Axis of Evil are awaiting.
I mean Iran and North Korea.