No specifics. The war... here it is.

Pearl Jam reference?

I usually debate such positions as yours with vigor but let me just commend you for now on a well thought position. It would be better articulated without what I see as unecessary language (a few here and there help set a tone, overuse imply undesireable notions).

****, I have no idea where I even should begin in this matter, but ignorance seems to be no deterrent for numerous americans, so here goes.

Nice beginning. You gotta love a post that begins this way. I always liked the beginning of "Four (or is it three?) Weddings and a Funeral.

I suppose I should preface my little rant by declaring no allegiance to any particular party, which comes in handy during those times when I try to resist being a dogmatic little sheepish slave to whatever party line is currently in vogue. Perhaps some of you should seek to employ this tidy little Jedi mind-trick as well. I apologize in advance, as this post will no doubt be a rambler, which is not to say I won?t clearly state my points.

You sure have stated your points clearly. Nice to know you are not a sheep. Dogmatism ain't so hot, either. Good on you.

The only thing more sickening than the holy-roller zeal of the right is the knee-jerk sanctimonious piety of the left. I can?t believe I've been subject to questioning of the ?civilian targets? of opportunity that were first struck during this campaign. Are you kidding me? Do you actually think that the allied forces would choose a friggin' cul-de-sac as their penultimate precursor to their main initiative? Gee, that would make a lot of sense. Why, with all the rampant pro-American sentiment abounding throughout the world, nothing would be more intelligent than targeting some nice Iraqi civilians right off the bat.

Yep - the extreme positions in this debate annoy me, too. Yes, I agree that the US et al are not gonna be targeting any Iraqi civilians on purpose. In fact, at times it seems safer to be an Iraqi civilian than a British troop - no - just kidding - and nasty, black humour it is, too. The other problem with the extreme conspiracy theories, too, is that they make any sensible critique of the motives for this little war seem tarred with the same brush.

Jebus Cliest, no one loved the X-Files more than I, but if you?re seriously sweating the evil right wing conspiracy more than ridiculously insane weapons-stockpiling evil dictators, your priorities are a bit out of whack.

But what about the Iraqi people? What the **** about them? Do you mean the ones who are celebrating wildly in the streets of several now-liberated cities? Do you mean the ones who were thrown down tree-shredders for daring to disagree with Hussein?s tyranny? Perhaps you?re referencing the numerous women who were raped by Hussein?s sons and their Republican Army cohorts before being thrown over the balconies of the penthouse suite/rape rooms while their husbands/fathers/brothers were killed. And let?s not forget the Kurds, who, if they hadn?t been gassed and otherwise exterminated, would probably want to know why some of you have such a problem with deposing Hussein. I know, I know, this isn?t Tibet, so why should we care? I certainly don?t look to expel evil unless I get the go-ahead from Richard Gere or some other vacuous limousine liberal.

I hope, with you, that the Iraqi people in general do end up far better off after this war than they are now. A lot of them will have died - but, as you say, it seems that a lot of them have died and suffered under Hussein.

I think, though, that if you are setting up opponents to the war as pro-Hussein, then you are erecting a straw person to knock down.

I take your point about the trendiness of Tibet as an issue for some people - but other than saying that, what is your point when you mention it? Nobody is going to war to liberate Tibet, as far as I know. Ar ethey?

Hmmm, this brings me to my next point. I consider myself to have a healthy respect for human life, especially innocent civilian life, but pray tell, how do the Beastie Boys think Tibet will ever be liberated? I can assure you it won?t be via some shocking and awesome hand-holding and a wiggerized version of ?Kumbaya.? Jesus Christ Almighty, will someone send me the rulebook that explains the best way to reason and enact diplomacy with uhhhh, crazy, insane dictators? Hell, I?d love to exist in a world where we could all debate-team our way to a higher consciousness and deeper appreciation for the myriad similarities and differences that exist between us all. Hey, maybe if I get enough of Bin Laden?s opiate stash, I could find my way to such a NONEXISTENT place. I know this might go over some of your myopic heads, but sometimes you have to suffer in the present tense to avoid even worse afflictions in the future.

I don't think Tibet WILL be liberated - (unless as collateral benefit in some future huge war against China caused by other things) - nobody is gonna take China on in a war against unfair and oppressive regimes, are they? They are big and potentially very nasty. Are we not only liberating oppressed peoples when we think there is some geo-political advantage and they can't really fight back very hard? I didn't think it was gonna be a GENERAL thing. Isn't that part of the problem that anti-war people see with the pro-war arguments - that this "free the world of evil dictators" thing only seems to apply in very special circumstances indeed?

Any worthwhile struggle, especially on a global scale, will unfortunately necessitate the tragic loss of innocent life. In some cases, however, the lack of a willingness to struggle will result in even greater losses. Any decent human being feels for the innocent civilians Hussein has cowardly attempted to defray his just due with, but to suggest that those same citizens (not to mention their future generations; again, sometimes we have to look ahead) would be better off without his termination is patently ridiculous and disrespectful towards the plight of all who suffer under a tyrant?s thumb.

Yes - I guess the trick is in determining what is "worthwhile" and to whom. Again, I think you set up a straw opponent here. Perhaps someone IS arguing that the Iraqis are better off under Hussein - but i haven't met them, yet - and I do not think that most anti-war people ar esaying they are.

But it?s all about oil?.Um, suppose it is for a second. Exactly how is the world worse off for being rid of a destabilizing Middle East dictator who sits atop his 7 Billion dollar fortune while his subjects live in squalor? I don?t happen to believe that this is all about oil, yet I?m certainly not naïve enough to suggest that it doesn?t play some part. Again, someone please explain to me how not having Hussein?s influence over such a matter of global importance is a bad thing. Of course, I guess we should just turn a deaf ear to any rumblings from the Middle East no matter how seemingly global their potential repercussions may be, as we certainly don?t want to be accused of being motivated by ?the oil.? Guess what, people. It just so happens that the place with all the oil, the Middle East, is an assortment of nutbag dictators and ultra-ultra-ultra-delicate political ?affiliations? who really can?t seem to agree on anything except that they should occasionally try to rid the world of each other in increasingly cowardly and barbaric ways. If one of the effects of our supposed capitalistic imperialism is the removal of one highly volatile animalistically insane piece from the Middle East powder keg puzzle, then I say ?faster, pussycat, kill, kill.? And I don?t for one second doubt the monumental task that lies ahead insofar as attempting to establish a stable political environment in what will be a decimated Iraq, but there are plenty of people both within Iraq and abroad who would argue that, once again, inaction is the greater mistake in this case. Do you honestly think whatever is put in place will turn out worse than what went before it? I can assure you that anyone who has borne witness to what is going on now will themselves adopt a mightily more diplomatic stance when dealing with the American/U.N. forces that will guide their ascent. The ?cradle of civilization? has long since failed to live up to its name, and any efforts to eradicate those who stand as a middle finger to democracy/civilization are inherently noble so long as they are carried to fruition properly.

Hmmmm - a lot in one paragraph here! I guess one argument I have with you here is about America's right (with the help of Britain and wee little Australia, of course) to decide for the Middle East, or anywhere else, who shall rule and what sort of rule it shall be, by force of arms.

I think that "whatever is put in place" is a much broader thing than the Middle East. MY major objection to what is happening is about the damage done to the delicate fabric of international civilization and inyernational relations and law by the almost unilateral action of the world's one remaining super-power choosing to invade another country, against the majority of world opinion (right or wrong) - with the flimsiest of justifications about a current threat.

I choose to completely ignore claims about freeing the Iraqi people - if that occurs, it is a happy result of an invasion undertaken for quite other reasons - we need only look at America's (and other countries, including my own) SUPPORT for many brutal dictatorships, if it suits their perceived geo-political interests, to make a laughing stock of THAT one, I believe.

I think that seeing the USA move down the path of using her power in despite of world opinion with flimsy excuses is a frightening one for the world.

Ah, but what of the world?s loathing of American imperialism? Please spare me the ugly American routine. I?d now like to thank France and Russia for so diligently suckering liberals all around the world into thinking that their opposition in the face of the vaunted American imperialism springs from something other than economic confluences and petty geo-political posturing. Hmmm, why would Russia be opposed to an invasion of Iraq? Oh, I know, perhaps because the once-proud but now mega-broke past superpower really values the bottom-line enhancing brokerage of old military items, as both Russia?s firepower and it?s moneyclip could use some serious fluffing, even if it?s by that wacky old Iraqi dictator. France? No wait, really. France? Seriously. France? Don?t get me wrong, Chirac?s impersonation of de Gaulle is good to anyone who isn?t aware of the fact that France is merely grasping for some post-Cold War relevance on the worldstage. See kids, once upon a time, there were two dominant superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Once Russia went belly-up, most people assumed a new world order would emerge, one that featured the U.S., a unified Europe, and a somewhat unified Pacific/Asian presence. Unfortunately for some, what transpired in the post-glasnost era was the emergence of America as a latter-day Roman empire. So don?t think for one moment that France, who, by the way, has a pretty conservative leader who otherwise wouldn?t care too much for his new-found bleeding heart constituency, didn?t relish this opportunity to insert itself into its own de Gaullian grandeur in front of the entire world. By the way, would you guess that a French leader could curry favor with his countrymen by opposing the stance of Britain? For those of you who don?t know, France and Britain have never really been what we would call in Spain ?compadres?, and France really, really hates that England has thoroughly established itself as the premiere European presence during the past century (the fact that America helped with said establishment doesn?t go over too well either). NONE OF WHAT I?VE JUST WRITTEN IS TO SAY THAT THESE COUNTRIES DON?T HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE/THINK WHATEVER WAY THEY CHOOSE, however, as I?m merely pointing out that America certainly isn?t the only nation to act with occasionally less than altruistic intentions.

I agree with much of this behemoth of a paragraph - and I do enjoy your ironic tone!

Of course all the countries opposing this war have their own motives, as well as genuine opposition to the war., or at least to this move on the part of the USA! This is inevitable and natural. Of course many of these countries have an imperialistic and bloody past.

Does this make current American economic imperialism and "might is right" behaviour on this occasion any better? I can see that pots calling your kettle black would hurt - and I sympathise with your ire, though.

Which brings us back to, well, U.S... Boycott American products? Stage protests? Voice dissent? Sure, why not? Unlike a lot of places like, say, IRAQ, these types of activities are wholly legal and available for the taking. I?ve personally had enough of the protests, as well, the point has been clearly made, and the protesters, while exercising their rights, somehow remain oblivious to the fact that they are needlessly taxing precious police forces who should be attempting to safeguard the innocent civilians here from other terrorist attacks. Oh well, chalk it up to typical American vanity I guess. Say, did you ever wonder what it might be like to be the world?s only Superpower and premiere beacon of capitalistic democracy? You know, sometimes it can seem like more trouble than it?s worth. Despite the fact that you?re by far the most sought-after place to live for those seeking to determine their own various destinies, you still seem to be hated by an awful lot of people. Granted, a lot of these people live in hideously backwards cultures and are borderline savages while still others are so high-minded yet devoid of any muscle to back up their brains in an unfortunately animalistic world, but it still stings sometimes when the very world which you, as a by-product of self-protection, protect from people like Hussein and Hitler fail to grasp the myriad steps that must be executed to ensure the survival of the species.

Yes, the USA is a larger-than-life target for unreasonable hatred and vilification - a screen upon which is often unfairly projected the ills and discontents of the world.

Sometimes, though, the epithets are NOT, I think, unfair at all.

I don't think that attitudes like " Granted, a lot of these people live in hideously backwards cultures and are borderline savages while still others are so high-minded yet devoid of any muscle to back up their brains in an unfortunately animalistic world" are especially helpful in this regard, by the way. And some of the countries you are doubtless targetting would probably mutter about the late entrance by the USA into WW II, for instance - but, that is only history, isn't it? We speak, presumably, of this particular instant.

Please tell me, as we lay witness to the most impressive display of military precision in history, what would the world be like if Iraq or North Korea had our capabilities? If American imperialism is what?s necessary to prevent dictatorial imperialism, then so be it. I?m just so incredibly tired of America being expected by some to apologize for its place on the worldstage.

I agree - it would be awful if Iraq or North Korea had your might. The USA has, at least on the public stage (I have a different view of some of its covert operations) been a most restrained and often benevolent super power. Good on you. I am therefore all the sadder to see its current behaviour.

Maybe the other world powers can step up and assume some of the responsibility for shielding the world from the whims of tyrants (as opposed to the ?whims? of a democracy, for those of you who are fashionably cynical).

Oh, wait, nevermind, I forgot, there are none, which is strange considering America is merely two centuries old. Hmmmm, I think I know. That?s right; it?s evolution, baby, and as horrible as it might seem to some of you to play the lion, it is as equally lamentable to some of us to willingly assume the lamb.

****, I have no idea where I even should begin in this matter, but ignorance seems to be no deterrent for numerous americans, so here goes.

I suppose I should preface my little rant by declaring no allegiance to any particular party, which comes in handy during those times when I try to resist being a dogmatic little sheepish slave to whatever party line is currently in vogue. Perhaps some of you should seek to employ this tidy little Jedi mind-trick as well. I apologize in advance, as this post will no doubt be a rambler, which is not to say I won?t clearly state my points.

The only thing more sickening than the holy-roller zeal of the right is the knee-jerk sanctimonious piety of the left. I can?t believe I've been subject to questioning of the ?civilian targets? of opportunity that were first struck during this campaign. Are you kidding me? Do you actually think that the allied forces would choose a friggin' cul-de-sac as their penultimate precursor to their main initiative? Gee, that would make a lot of sense. Why, with all the rampant pro-American sentiment abounding throughout the world, nothing would be more intelligent than targeting some nice Iraqi civilians right off the bat.

Jebus Cliest, no one loved the X-Files more than I, but if you?re seriously sweating the evil right wing conspiracy more than ridiculously insane weapons-stockpiling evil dictators, your priorities are a bit out of whack.

But what about the Iraqi people? What the **** about them? Do you mean the ones who are celebrating wildly in the streets of several now-liberated cities? Do you mean the ones who were thrown down tree-shredders for daring to disagree with Hussein?s tyranny? Perhaps you?re referencing the numerous women who were raped by Hussein?s sons and their Republican Army cohorts before being thrown over the balconies of the penthouse suite/rape rooms while their husbands/fathers/brothers were killed. And let?s not forget the Kurds, who, if they hadn?t been gassed and otherwise exterminated, would probably want to know why some of you have such a problem with deposing Hussein. I know, I know, this isn?t Tibet, so why should we care? I certainly don?t look to expel evil unless I get the go-ahead from Richard Gere or some other vacuous limousine liberal.

Hmmm, this brings me to my next point. I consider myself to have a healthy respect for human life, especially innocent civilian life, but pray tell, how do the Beastie Boys think Tibet will ever be liberated? I can assure you it won?t be via some shocking and awesome hand-holding and a wiggerized version of ?Kumbaya.? Jesus Christ Almighty, will someone send me the rulebook that explains the best way to reason and enact diplomacy with uhhhh, crazy, insane dictators? Hell, I?d love to exist in a world where we could all debate-team our way to a higher consciousness and deeper appreciation for the myriad similarities and differences that exist between us all. Hey, maybe if I get enough of Bin Laden?s opiate stash, I could find my way to such a NONEXISTENT place. I know this might go over some of your myopic heads, but sometimes you have to suffer in the present tense to avoid even worse afflictions in the future.

Any worthwhile struggle, especially on a global scale, will unfortunately necessitate the tragic loss of innocent life. In some cases, however, the lack of a willingness to struggle will result in even greater losses. Any decent human being feels for the innocent civilians Hussein has cowardly attempted to defray his just due with, but to suggest that those same citizens (not to mention their future generations; again, sometimes we have to look ahead) would be better off without his termination is patently ridiculous and disrespectful towards the plight of all who suffer under a tyrant?s thumb.

But it?s all about oil?.Um, suppose it is for a second. Exactly how is the world worse off for being rid of a destabilizing Middle East dictator who sits atop his 7 Billion dollar fortune while his subjects live in squalor? I don?t happen to believe that this is all about oil, yet I?m certainly not naïve enough to suggest that it doesn?t play some part. Again, someone please explain to me how not having Hussein?s influence over such a matter of global importance is a bad thing. Of course, I guess we should just turn a deaf ear to any rumblings from the Middle East no matter how seemingly global their potential repercussions may be, as we certainly don?t want to be accused of being motivated by ?the oil.? Guess what, people. It just so happens that the place with all the oil, the Middle East, is an assortment of nutbag dictators and ultra-ultra-ultra-delicate political ?affiliations? who really can?t seem to agree on anything except that they should occasionally try to rid the world of each other in increasingly cowardly and barbaric ways. If one of the effects of our supposed capitalistic imperialism is the removal of one highly volatile animalistically insane piece from the Middle East powder keg puzzle, then I say ?faster, pussycat, kill, kill.? And I don?t for one second doubt the monumental task that lies ahead insofar as attempting to establish a stable political environment in what will be a decimated Iraq, but there are plenty of people both within Iraq and abroad who would argue that, once again, inaction is the greater mistake in this case. Do you honestly think whatever is put in place will turn out worse than what went before it? I can assure you that anyone who has borne witness to what is going on now will themselves adopt a mightily more diplomatic stance when dealing with the American/U.N. forces that will guide their ascent. The ?cradle of civilization? has long since failed to live up to its name, and any efforts to eradicate those who stand as a middle finger to democracy/civilization are inherently noble so long as they are carried to fruition properly.

Ah, but what of the world?s loathing of American imperialism? Please spare me the ugly American routine. I?d now like to thank France and Russia for so diligently suckering liberals all around the world into thinking that their opposition in the face of the vaunted American imperialism springs from something other than economic confluences and petty geo-political posturing. Hmmm, why would Russia be opposed to an invasion of Iraq? Oh, I know, perhaps because the once-proud but now mega-broke past superpower really values the bottom-line enhancing brokerage of old military items, as both Russia?s firepower and it?s moneyclip could use some serious fluffing, even if it?s by that wacky old Iraqi dictator. France? No wait, really. France? Seriously. France? Don?t get me wrong, Chirac?s impersonation of de Gaulle is good to anyone who isn?t aware of the fact that France is merely grasping for some post-Cold War relevance on the worldstage. See kids, once upon a time, there were two dominant superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Once Russia went belly-up, most people assumed a new world order would emerge, one that featured the U.S., a unified Europe, and a somewhat unified Pacific/Asian presence. Unfortunately for some, what transpired in the post-glasnost era was the emergence of America as a latter-day Roman empire. So don?t think for one moment that France, who, by the way, has a pretty conservative leader who otherwise wouldn?t care too much for his new-found bleeding heart constituency, didn?t relish this opportunity to insert itself into its own de Gaullian grandeur in front of the entire world. By the way, would you guess that a French leader could curry favor with his countrymen by opposing the stance of Britain? For those of you who don?t know, France and Britain have never really been what we would call in Spain ?compadres?, and France really, really hates that England has thoroughly established itself as the premiere European presence during the past century (the fact that America helped with said establishment doesn?t go over too well either). NONE OF WHAT I?VE JUST WRITTEN IS TO SAY THAT THESE COUNTRIES DON?T HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE/THINK WHATEVER WAY THEY CHOOSE, however, as I?m merely pointing out that America certainly isn?t the only nation to act with occasionally less than altruistic intentions.

Which brings us back to, well, U.S... Boycott American products? Stage protests? Voice dissent? Sure, why not? Unlike a lot of places like, say, IRAQ, these types of activities are wholly legal and available for the taking. I?ve personally had enough of the protests, as well, the point has been clearly made, and the protesters, while exercising their rights, somehow remain oblivious to the fact that they are needlessly taxing precious police forces who should be attempting to safeguard the innocent civilians here from other terrorist attacks. Oh well, chalk it up to typical American vanity I guess. Say, did you ever wonder what it might be like to be the world?s only Superpower and premiere beacon of capitalistic democracy? You know, sometimes it can seem like more trouble than it?s worth. Despite the fact that you?re by far the most sought-after place to live for those seeking to determine their own various destinies, you still seem to be hated by an awful lot of people. Granted, a lot of these people live in hideously backwards cultures and are borderline savages while still others are so high-minded yet devoid of any muscle to back up their brains in an unfortunately animalistic world, but it still stings sometimes when the very world which you, as a by-product of self-protection, protect from people like Hussein and Hitler fail to grasp the myriad steps that must be executed to ensure the survival of the species.

Please tell me, as we lay witness to the most impressive display of military precision in history, what would the world be like if Iraq or North Korea had our capabilities? If American imperialism is what?s necessary to prevent dictatorial imperialism, then so be it. I?m just so incredibly tired of America being expected by some to apologize for its place on the worldstage.

Maybe the other world powers can step up and assume some of the responsibility for shielding the world from the whims of tyrants (as opposed to the ?whims? of a democracy, for those of you who are fashionably cynical).

Oh, wait, nevermind, I forgot, there are none, which is strange considering America is merely two centuries old. Hmmmm, I think I know. That?s right; it?s evolution, baby, and as horrible as it might seem to some of you to play the lion, it is as equally lamentable to some of us to willingly assume the lamb.