I find it astonishing that anyone would support the Saddam loyalists in Fallujah. Even if you think the U.S. should leave Iraq immediately, which is certainly your right, how could you support the murderers in Fallujah? These are people who supported the Saddam Hussein regime, who were the enforcers of terror against the Iraqi people, the ones who suppressed the Shi'ite rebellion in 1991, who shoveled people into the mass graves that have been found since last year -- how can you support them?

The Resistance is a Popular Uprising, "Rebecca", not at all what you claim it to be. Events on the ground shatter your weak attempts at Doubt-Casting.

The US is slaughtering civilians as we speak. Perhaps you should turn off CIA-NN and take a look around.

I guess it doesn't bother you that ANSWERS is a totalitarian Communist front organization. Big Brother loves you!

How noble of you to oppose murder, Rebecca.
Who do you think murdered this child?
And that man carrying her, is he your enemy?
Should we bomb his home? (Again?)

So I guess it's really true (much as I would prefer not to believe it), there are American citizens who regard the Sunni Saddam loyalists as leading a "popular rebellion." Can I ask you a question? When Saddam was in power, did you think he was a good ruler of Iraq? Was he good for the Iraqi people? If he was a good ruler, what did he do well? If you compared Saddam's rule in Iraq to President Bush in the U.S., who do you think comes off better in the comparison? What I am trying to get is whether your only motive is to oppose U.S. intervention (which is certainly a defensible position), or whether you are or were supporters of Saddam and Baathist rule in Iraq (and if so, why).

I do not doubt that U.S. soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians -- since in war civilians are almost inevitably killed. What I question is whether the civilians were the intended target of American attacks, rather than the Sunni or Shi'ite "rebels." And no, I do not think it is good or right for the U.S. soldiers to kill civilians.

And again, if we compare the situation of Iraqi civilians now with their situation under Saddam's rule -- is it better or worse? How would the people of Iraq (all of the people of Iraq, not just the ones now taking up arms against U.S. soldiers) compare their situation? I have read public opinion surveys taken since Saddam's fall that definitely assert that the majority of Iraqis feel that they are better off now.

Short answer: we made him. We wanted him to punish Iran for us, because it had a democratic (if also religious) revolution against the brutal dictator the USA had imposed on that country for decades: the Shah of Iran.

And punish them he did, with eight year of war. We supplied arms, money and intelligence. It is highly questionable if there ever would have been a Saddam Hussein regime, without US aid.

So why the sudden outrage about his crimes against the people, which were surely as real as, say, Gen. Augusto Pinochet's atrocities against his people in Chile, after the CIA overthrew a democratically-elected (if a bit socialist) government there and installed him, helping him tourture untold tens of thousands of people to death?

Sort of like our one-time support for Gen. Manuel Noriega.

Aren't you getting tired of your freinds and family having to go kill and die to cover up for these monsters our very own government made? You don't have to explain to us anti-war folks that people like Saddam Hussein are bad. You have to explain why you keep electing the people who created the likes of him.

Under Saddam, there was an Iraqi army. It has been disbanded. No doubt the US is trying to build an army, but if it already exists, it is small. All those Iraqis who you see firing RPG--- they are not part of any army, wear no uniforms-- they are ALL CIVILIANS!

Tch, tch, tch-- such nonsense! "Short answer: we made him." We wanted him to punish Iran for us.". Yup-- a short answer. Also inaccurate!! Who do you mean by "We"? You? me? Rebecca? Or perhaps Pres Geo. W. Bush?
I personally did not make Saddam, and I assume you didn't either! So stop the lies, stop saying "We". And, I believe he was in office before the current administration. Do you want to blame Geo. W for what Clinton did? Was Clinton respsonsible for previous Republican administration? Such nonsense!

If some previous administration supported Saddam, that is irrelevant. (And- if I didn't vote for them I don't feel responsible for what they did! Slavery was an abomination-- but its really not MY fault!))

1979 is just too far back in history for ya? That fact alone speaks volumes.

PS: Do you still worship some guy from 2000 years ago?

"We" is "US." In the geopolitical context, that would be the US Government. Presidents come and go, policy endures. Don't you know that? Democrats, Republicans, come and go, but bad policy endures. The corpses pile up, and the truth comes out in the end. Then it's time to send in the Marines to re-cover-up the problem again. You're right, it doesn't matter who was in office when it started: WE did it. US. And just in time for an election. Oh what fun!!

Another clue (take 2, they're small): representative democracy works on the premise that it represents, that's right, "we the people" (ever heard of "we the people," hmm?). Hey, that's US!!

I think you understand this very well, or else how could ask that we (that's you and me, kid) "Support *Our* Troops," hmm? "Our" is the possessive form of "we", you see.

See, wherever one turns, it's all about US. You miss so much when you drop out of grade school.....

Father Louis Vitale is a shining example of a nonviolent soldier, who has consistently put his body on the line in civil disobedience actions, stood for rights, justice and struggle consistently, and been a leader in the Catholic church. A fine example of someone with a rational nonviolent stance, a strong stance for peace and justice that is a million times more effective and powerful than any hateful speech or radical rhetoric that is so chic. People really think that solidarity with Iraqis means rationalizing their violent, regressive and destructive actions. I say true solidarity would be for people to concentrate less on finding evidence for their radical theories and more time spent on trying to gain a clearer understanding of who Iraqis are before and despite western intervention. If these coalition groups had a clue then they would put forth Father Louis Vitale and hear his message and wisdom and make a commitment to nonviolence. It is truly laughable, not to mention dangerous, stupid and irresponsible to continually state 'violence is necessary', 'violence is okay', and 'by any means necessary' from a bunch of well fed middle-class people who aren't going to lift a finger and will never suffer the effects of protracted violence in the 'third world'. Spread Mahabba, Love not Hate, Violence Leads to a Police State, Nonviolence is Real Power.

We need two, three, many Iraqs.

This is me holding up this sign- And all of us were there to give a message to the unsuspecting public- People are angry. A lot of us are angry. Our friends and brothers and fathers are needlessly dying and yet we act as if we have no voice. More need to stand up and say what they want to be heard. Socialist agendas have their importance and were highlighted throughout the rally- yet our focus was on the occupation in Iraq and showing the Iraqi people that not all Americans are behind the actions of our president. We need to center on that fact during future events.