counter protesters needed M29

I agree that we need to counter protest the prowar rally but we need to be very careful about it. I mean we need to be peaceful and not confrontational (as they might be). We must be dignified and sure...we must not bicker and fight with these people...we must show that a peaceful choice is a better choice.

Good signs would be: Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home:US Out of The Middle East

US Invasion of Iraq:Will Spawn Terrorism

Going is a bad idea.

This will become a media circus..and our message will be diluted.

Lets leave them to thier little protest and meet somewhere else (Dolores Park?) and show what numbers we can generate, and not have a pro-war/anti-war demonstration clash.

Let's not let the Freepers drag us in. Thats what they want boys and girls.

As far as I know the Supporters of our Troops and of President Bush have not launch much of any disruption of the anti-war protest. To come and basically attack their rally will be perceived as an attack on them personally. The problem is they feel as strongly about their position as the anti-war does about theirs and are in know mood to put up with the anti-war movement coming in to upset their event.

You will just encourage a bloody confrontation on the streets, what will that say about the anti-war movement?

As far as I know the Supporters of our Troops and of President Bush have not launch much of any disruption of the anti-war protest. To come and basically attack their rally will be perceived as an attack on them personally. The problem is they feel as strongly about their position as the anti-war does about theirs and are in know mood to put up with the anti-war movement coming in to upset their event.

You will just encourage a bloody confrontation on the streets, what will that say about the anti-war movement?

As much as I would like to confront these folks, we absolutely should not do so. They are the people of violence and aggression and imperialism.

Any anti-war presence there should be of the silent vigil sort, mourning the dead whether soldier or civilian, US or Iraqi. (Of course, a couple of spokepeople to debunk pro-war myths for the press might be good.)

Better yet to be doing something constructive in another part of the city, as others have suggested.

Is ClearChannel sponsoring this event? If so, we do need to make sure that local media does not ignore that side of the story. (Radio would, of course, but print might still care.)

Just my thoughts, hope they're helpful.

The biggest thing against the US is that fact that we've lost the support of virtually the ENTIRE world. This is one argument that the right-wing cannot respond well to - all they can do is become more isolationist with each thing that comes out of their mouth.

I'd make a list of countries that do NOT support the US, and have it out there clearly.

Whatreallyhappened.com has been doing a good job of showing the hypocrisy of the US by showing the naked American Taliban picture, as well as the Guantanamo pictures of kneeling orange-clad prisoners (also featured on the COVER of the Daily Mirror, in London). They'll have no rational response for this. This is what happens when International Laws are ignored.

Similarly, a list of the violations of international laws by the US, and broken treaties.

It would be good if some protesters who know they are verbally excellent were to come and simply stand and argue peacefully and continuously, not shouting or with screaming groups, but wearing yuppie clothes or whatever, and standing calmly, for example, with one's hands clasped behind their back. This has worked well at pro-Palestinian demos I've been too, all over the city, especially wtih the excellent ISM people.

My suggestion would be to have several people be key orators while others simply hold as many signs as possible.

They will try to show peace protesters are out of control - we can show them we aren't.

Also, having info on the radio station that called on drivers to run people down who were protesting would be good. No one is hearing about this.

If someone can find any connection to Clear Channel with this rally, the NYT just did an article about how the CEO is linked to Bush, that could be used.

Numbers of UNLIBERATED, NOW MURDERED IRAQIs would be good - done graphically, with figures lined up across a map or something.

And all the rest.

The media will go wild, so this will need some well-considered control.

Also, someone needs to add up the police overtime costs of the patriot rally . . . .

There is no way that they will bring in as many people as some of the larger peace protests with hundreds of thousands. It is clear that the majority of the Bay Area is very anti-war. They have the right of free speech just as we do... don't fuck with them. Critical Mass and rallies throughout the week will be much stronger. If you can't help yourself and feel you must go there- bring signs, but don't argue with them, and speak only to the media. A silent protest or a theatrecal presentation will be much more frustrating to them. Dress in black as if you are at a funeral. Or all white as if you are a ghost...

We are the real patriots... fighting to preserve what this country was founded on. These people remind me of the Confederates in the Civil War- only looking to regress and oppress.

One of the most emotionally moving parts of the demonstrations last Thursday was the somber procession of the women who wore large papier mache heads and carried "dead children" (actually cloth rolled and tied to look like a child), marching slowly to the somber beat of a single drum, then stopping to symbolically "bury" their dead children on a white sheet laid on the pavement. As I recall, there were only 6 or 7 women dressed this way...yet the overall effect was enormous. Even the cops who were arresting people at Bechtel did so quietly, for a few minutes at least. Imagine if we could get a few hundred or a few thousand folks to stage such a funeral as a counterdemonstration. I think this would really drive the point across.

As far as I know the Supporters of our Troops and of President Bush have not launch much of any disruption of the anti-war protest. To come and basically attack their rally will be perceived as an attack on them personally. The problem is they feel as strongly about their position as the anti-war does about theirs and are in know mood to put up with the anti-war movement coming in to upset their event.

You will just encourage a bloody confrontation on the streets, what will that say about the anti-war movement?

Ok, maybe I worded this the wrong way. I'm not looking to stop their protest, I want them to know that San Francisco is not a pro war city. I would just love to see a large group of counter protesters across the street. I'm not looking for violence. I just don't want them to declare a victory without a single voice of dissent being there.

Don't mingle with them, just gather at one of the corners in front of City Hall with signs.

Wouldn't it be great if the anti-war protesters had more flags then the pro-war rally monkies ? Some signs supporting the troops (Bring Them Home, etc) would also help.
This would help to upset the media paradigm where anti-war=anti-troop, and confuse the reporters looking for simplifications.
It is imperitive that we do not allow the antiwar movement to be labeled as unpatriotic, pro-Saddam, etc., as they are trying to do. this is a great opportunity to recapture some of the "mainstream" 's support.

i attended a peace demonstration in los angeles last week and was struck by the numbers of different peace groups, each voicing their passionate opinions. our differences are beautiful and one of the ideals we hold so dear is our belief that we have the right to voice those differences. however, it's plain to see that the folks who would take over the world (read: PAX AMERICANA) not only don't care what we think, they would take that right away and relish the idea that our differences may drive a wedge in the growing revolt against them. so, although it flies in the face of the spirit of independent thought and action, i can only conclude that we must truly unionize and organize. forget about the minutia for now and remember that what we want is someone to lead this country out of this horror and back to a course that reflects our basic values and principles. please, if you are involved with an organization for peace, see the canadian peace alliance website for ideas on how to harness this incredible energy before it implodes. please, let those that support the war have their moment...peacefully. they do not threaten my beliefs as we have threatened theirs. the truth will always out.

I think its a bad idea to take their flags. Let them have their little rally, maybe tons of anti-war buffs should bring tons of flags and try to burn it out. I don't see a reason to have a pro-war rally whatsoever, the people they support won't see it, they're too busy getting shot at, or killing themselves. I see no reason to support them, and yes I do feel sorry about the ones who are injured or killed, but they did join to "protect" this country. Keep fighting fire with fire, someday it's all gonna burn.

Why should we go, and then add to their tally of body counts? Wouldn't it be portrayed by the media as "mass numbers gather for PRO-WAR demonstration"?
I say, anti-war protesters, "STAY HOME!"

Why should we go, and then add to their tally of body counts? Wouldn't it be portrayed by the media as "mass numbers gather for PRO-WAR demonstration"?
I say, anti-war protesters, "STAY HOME!"

if you go burn more flags than the prowar sheep carry. nationalism spawns fascism. nationalism sucks.

someone is allways listening
usally the police!

Why don't you people who support a war against a country (or man) who there hasn't been one shred of evidence to link him with 9/11 or terrorist attacks or should I say shown to the world evidence.
(which would make him an assassin)
Can't you see that your transference of hate has blinded your good judgement?
Thirty more days of inspections would have won us more than four allies. (the 'coalition of the willing' don't count).
Thirty more days of inspections would have meant there wouldn't be any KIA's, POW's, or MIA's today.
Before we lead ourselves into WWIII (remember the whole world is watching) maybe we should consider our children (TROOPS).
How much more support would you like me to give the troops?
Stop the war, save our troops!!!
P.S. You might also consider that not all of our soldiers are "killer's", and they may be wondering how could my country not value my life.

Speaking of personal attacks: They come to our rallies and run us down with cars. Why should we not do the same to them?

I believe there are alot of feds or pro war crazies trying to start trouble by getting us to go to the pro war rally. That would be a big mistake. Let those trailer trash wave the American flag, while we are across town protesting this insane war.

"Trailer trash" is an insult and you know it. Everyone knows it.

Why are you trying to make the anti-war movement look like we're biggots? Are you COINTELPRO?

Hi everybody,

My name is Alfredo Najera III. I am the person that is putting the Support Our Troops Family Day Rally this Saturday, at noon, which you are abviously well aware of it since some of you are calling for your folks to shut it down. Good luck!

It saddens me that most of you folks are so intolerant of others who disagree with you views, it's sad that you want freedom of speech and expression to be only for your side, it's sad that while you "claim" to be for "peace", you intimidate and assault verbally with those that have different views, it's sad that you claim to be pro diversity, but yet want to censor those of us that have different diverse views.

While some of you are misguided and have PURPOSELY labeled my rally a "Pro-War" Rally, it is important to me that I correct you, we are not "pro-war", we, I, have one 20 year old bro. serving w/ the Marines, 2 cousins with the Marines, and 1 female cousin w/ the Army. MOst of us people coming to this raaly are family members of people fighting this war. We are having children and families join us. And I hope that MOST of you can respect OUR SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH! Or are you so self-righteous that you actually beleive that you're better than others?

Most of you have already shown your true colors by the destruction you've caused on our city. By the way you've attacked innocent people riding in their cars...you acuse the media of protraying you in a negative manner...but the media only shows what you display. I don't wish to insult any of you, I simply ask that you practice what you preach.

As for shutting us down, not even if you were the french and we were in France will we be shut down, that, I guarantee you. I suggest you stay out of jail and keep your freedom so that you may enjoy your time w/ your families and friends.

May God continue to bless our democracy and our great Republic!

That is all.

By the way, I forgot to mention, in case you've noticed, we don't have to cover our faces in shame, we proudly display our faces so that EVERYONE can know excatly what our position is, Pro-Troops, Pro-America... And WE, are not the ONES w/ vioelnce in the streets, it is your side which do all this.

Thank You.

alfredo, you stupid jackass:

you're a contemptible little worm, hiding behind your blood-drenched flag as your brother and cousins get pushed into the meat-grinder.

why don't you admit that you're in support this imperialist war? it's clear that you are. it's easier to invoke your right to free speech than to argue your position, isn't it?

if I was your brother i'd be cursing you for cheering as I was herded into the slaughter-house.

fuck you alfredo.

Chill out Al. You and your ten buddies will get to wave some asswipe for the cameras. And of course you won't have to cover your faces since you've no need to fear state repression nor police brutality. In fact you'll have a five-to-one cordon of cops around you to protect your right to be a fascist. If our numbers were inversely proportionate, my side would be dead and yours would be the lynch mob it has historically been (if you don't believe me, witness Iraq). No one has been aggressed against by peace marchers, merely incovenienced in their role as a cog in the megamachine. If you feel intimidated by democracy, that's a different story, I understand you're probably not used to it. Can't see why the prospect of a little free speech bothers you so much.
Just because your relatives get to silence the voices of so many Iraquis forever, doesn't mean you won't have to listen to ours here and now.
-One of Zillions

Of logic?

Why are the first responses to the pro-whatever organizer's postings filled with the VERY KIND OF VITRIOL that he is accusing the anti-war side of?

Does anyone else smell J. Edgar Hoover's decaying, but very well DRESSED, corpse around here?

And on top of that: why do the Direct Action organizers seem to be allergic to clearly defined objectives?

And no, "Stopping the War" is not an objective, its a goal. Shutting down Bechtel is not an objective, its a tactic. An objective would be controlling the media portrayal of the protests, having more Congresspeople openly question the justness of the war, and making sure that every news report on the shutdown of the Caryle Group made reference to that company and that it is HQ'd at the TransAmerica building.

I don't offer these criticisms to boost my ego (I remain anonymous in these postings for a reason), but out of real concern for the effectiveness of the movement now and IN THE FUTURE. If the REAL GOALS of the peace movement are long term change of the way we do business and politics here in the States then we need to start seeing some real planning. Long term change is only possible if there are clear short term objectives the movement can achieve and point to as progress. Not only in a P.R. sense, but as an honest self-evaluation.

If the movement isn’t accomplishing something tangible, then accusations that it is merely masturbatory are hard to fight. Do we really want to add a few more lines to the chant offered up on Sunday night at St. Boniface whose refrain was "But it didn’t work"?

Affinity Groups! Start thinking "strategericaly" for Buddah’s sake. Don’t confuse tactics with goals, goals with objectives. Yes, we must "keep our eyes on the prize", but it is just as important to move this "army" forward and check progress against real and no less difficult obstacles. If this is not done, well, I’ll see you all in 20 years at the reunions, assuming we’re allowed out of jail by then.

I'll admit to being a bit vitriolic last night. There's something about Alfredo's vapid peities that rubbed me the wrong way.

In America, we have a formal right to speech and assemble, but, as anyone who's studied the struggles against exploitation and imperialism in this country knows, these hallowed rights come hard up against the power of the capitalist state when they threaten the established order in any way.

gotta go, but will leave with this:

In 1933, United States Major General, Smedley Butler, had this to say about his many years “fighting for freedom”:



“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, it’s “muscle men” to destroy enemies, it’s “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “big boss” super-nationalistic-capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such comparisons. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty three years and four months in active military service as a member of this countries most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from 2nd Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated in three continents.”

I read Houston's Indymedia all the time, but I'm new to Indybay. Is there a way to view *all* posts on a thread? The reason I ask is because I don't see my reply to Aaron.

Click the <view hidden posts> button on the front page. It's in the lower left hand corner.

Your reaction to Alfredo was just another nail in your public relations coffin. Why would I want to be associated with the side that so easily slips into personal baseless attacks? I don't necessarily agree with Alfredo but he is a far better person than those who could only muster up crap in response.

Alfredo didn't make an argument: all he did was complacently reiterate crapola he's read in T.V. Digest.

Since Alfredo didn't argue the pro-war position, but instead simply asserted it, I'll post something I wrote a few days ago:

The arguments forwarded by the pro-war crowd are so stupid it's tempting to just ignore them. But since the conglomerate mass media only feeds the lies and disinformation that support the pro-war view, it's necessary to refute their arguments over and over again.

It came out the other day that the "evidence" and "proof" of Iraq's nuclear weapons program that Powell gave shortly before the commencement of full-scale war was FORGED. Little was made of it but when Powell was asked to explain his lying-ass self he didn't deny the documents were forged but insisted that the White House wasn't to blame.

Powell's "compelling" testimony that purported to prove a link between the US' former allies, Bin Laden and Hussein, was based upon the existence of ONE MAN alleged to live in Baghdad who allegedly belongs to a terrorist group that operates in Iraq. Powell forgot to mention that this terrorist group works out of the northern section of Iraq which has been under de facto control of the US for the past twelve years.

Those who claim a link between 911 and the Iraqi regime have NO evidence to support the claim.

When the US' former ally, Bin Laden, issued his communique last month, the US corporate media was careful to de-emphasize, or excise altogether, the fact that he denounced the US' former ally, Saddam Hussein, as an infidel and apostate. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the rest of the well-coiffed lackey's of the capitalist state didn't want to make much hay of something as "off-message" as this, so they didn't.

As far as the US "liberating" Iraq (the new rationale for dropping tons and tons of bombs): this is utterly contradicted by the historical record. The US doesn't want to see the people of the Middle East free to chart their own destiny. That's the last thing the scum who rule America want. That's why they've had such a cozy relationship with the House of Saud, the Shah of Iran, Hassan in Morocco, Mubarak in Egypt.... It's why the US helped the Ba’ath regime to power in the early 60's, funneling it lists of anti-capitalists and leftists who were summarily executed. It is why the US supported Hussein through the 80s, supplying his regime with advanced intelligence, weapons and agricultural credits. It is why the US resisted censoring Hussein in the UN in 1989 for his use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds....

And then of course there were the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in the 90s that were killed by US imposed sanctions, destruction of water treatment facilities, depleted uranium munitions.

Need we wonder why Iraqi's--including MANY MANY who hate the US' fomer ally (Hussein)--look upon America's "liberation" with a jaundiced eye?

Most of the people who support this war do not understand the complexities of the situation. Many really don't know that there were no Iraqi highjackers on 911. Others really do think we should kill all arabs and take their oil-but even some of these are terribly ignorant of the facts (whatever they are).
If we respect their right to express themselves and treat their opinions with respect and try to reasonably pass on some of our knowledge, we might be able to plant some questions in some of their heads. And some may join us someday. If we engage in combative dialogue with them, we drive the two sides farther apart. We need to try to pull the country together.
Let's take all our ugly energy and turn it peacefully against those who are manipulating and lying to ALL of US - not against duped fellow humans.

There are many who simply parrot what they hear on Faux News, CNN, ABC, and other professional lie machines. A good portion of such people are decent and nothing good comes from treating them as enemies.

However, fools like Alfredo that take the lead in organizing little fascist demonstrations should be called-out, undermined, and ridiculed-without-mercy.

Most people don't respond to conflict like your typical "give peace a chance/all we are saying" pacifists do. Loving thy enemy is the stupidest form of condescension, and tends to give people the willies. Fatheads that vigorously support imperialist war richly deserve to be treated poorly.

Aaron, why all the mean spirited name calling? For a pro-abortionist "peace activist," you sure know how to dish out a verbal (written) war.

Let me see if I have this correctly. Anyone is entitled to their own 1st amendment rights, as long as it matches yours. No one is entitled to their 2nd amendment rights.

Kill unborn babies who might turn out to be geniuses and solve cold fusion, but don't execute mass murder-rapists.

Leaders elected at the voting booths who agree with your point of view are held in high regard, while those voted who disagree with you "stole the election," or "consipired with the Supreme Court."

Dictators whose election rules are "vote for me or I'll shoot you between the eyes while the rest of your family watches" are good.

Factual evidence that is contrary to your beliefs is "fiction."

One Iraqi civilian accidentaly killed in war is bad, while 3000 Americans killed when a hijacked airplane flew into a building is good.

One Iraqi civilian accidentally killed in war is bad, but the leader of the country who kills 100,000 of his own people is good.

Sean Penn, Martin Sheen and Janeane Garofolo are privvy to intelligence reports from Iraq, but the President of the U.S. doesn't know anything.

Michael Moore, who dropped out of college his first year, knows everything, and George W. Bush, who received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School is an "uneducated idiot."

Did I miss anything?

Do you enjoy dueling with phantasms Mr. T?

Was that supposed to be parody? You realize parody is supposed to be funny, right?

<Did I miss anything?>

You struck out swinging, foolie.

You might want to become better educated.

If you were, you would know our country had to go to war with Iraq. Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, as well as the 1991 ceasefire agreement. It provoked retaliation by these violations, and by firing on US aircraft patroling the no-fly zones. Saddam Hussein tried to kill a former President, when he visited Kuwait. Only a day ago, supporters of Saddam Hussein shot innocent women and children in the back at Basra. Then, as if that were not enough, Iraq hit a shopping mall in Kuwait City with a missile. Yes, that's the man you and your ilk are supporting.

If you were more educated, you would not be a useful fool for a raping, lying, murdering, brutal, tyrannical thug.

But I guess that's just wishful thinking.

I have all of ten minutes but will say a couple of things.

The US/CIA helped Hussein's Ba'ath Party into power in the 60's, funneling lists of leftists and "subversives" who were summarily executed. The following excerpt from a piece by Mohamoud A Shaikh lays it out:

“A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite,”(1997), by Said Aburish, sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages of the coup that put the Ba'ath Party in power, but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.

The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.

The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.

The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.'

King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.'

The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence - the most critical ones in Kuwait,' he says.

At the time the Ba'ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.

According to Aburish, the Ba'ath party leaders - in return for CIA support - agreed to 'undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.

One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.
Aburish's book shows that the Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.’"


And then of course, we know that the US assisted the Ba'ath Party through the 80s--granting it advanced intelligence, weapons, and agricultural credits--and resisted censoring Hussein for human rights abuses in the UN in 1989 AFTER HUSSEIN USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON THE KURDS....

And to Mr. T: Methinks you might not want to mention the Khmer Rouge if your point is to apologize for the US. The KR were a product of conditions that the US created with massive bombings in Cambodia in the early 70s--which killed approximately 500,000 people. The Khmer Rouge filled the vacuum. The US did everything in its power to sabotage efforts by the Vietnamese to overthrow the KR, but when they did, despite US efforts, the US continued to push to have the KR represent Cambodia in the UN.

Aaron is so busy re-inventing history, he has entirely neglected current events. So, let's help him out with some real logic.

First, I don't know his sources, and I see no reason to give them the time of day.

Second, Aaron makes no mention of why the US, supported by almost 40 other nations, needed to invade Iraq now: Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, fired on US aircraft patroling the no-fly zones, broke the ceasefire agreement of 1991, and has brutalized its own people. Saddam's supporters shot innocent men, women and children in the back at Basra. They fired misslies into a shopping mall at Kuwait City (interesting choice of military targets, eh?)

Maybe Aaron--who likes to call people more informed than he names like "jackass"--can enilghten us to how the CIA forced the Iraqi's to shoot their own people in the back, or to send goon squads into the populace to rape women, or to send missiles into the shopping malls of other countries.

Blaming the CIA is a typical tactic, but quite useless.

>And then of course, we know that the US assisted the >Ba'ath Party through the 80s--granting it advanced >intelligence, weapons, and agricultural credits--and >resisted censoring Hussein for human rights >abuses in the UN in 1989 AFTER HUSSEIN USED >CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON THE KURDS....

If we knew Saddam was using chemical weapons in 1989, and we have a chance now, should we not go after him?

If you claim that he did not use them( and does not have them now), then why bring it up?

Aaron is probably a right-wing plant paid to pose as an anti-war poster, but to do it in such a repulsive, unpersuasive manner that he actually discredits the anti-war side of this argument. Does he really think he is convincing anyone? Nahh..other than the fact we are mostly convinced that he is mindlessly attacking others and spewing out what he reads in pamphlets.

He is a "plant," as they say. Or, alternatively, he has the intelligence of one.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt03.html

When I went by civic center at 11:20, there were seriously about 20 people there.

anyway, look at this quote in the Chronicle. The most elementary reading and analysis of "born in the USA" by Bruce Springsteen would indicate that it is an antimilitaristic song, yet conservatives and Republicans always listen as far as the main line of the chorus 'born in the USA' and start playing it at republican conventions and war rallies. Springsteen is not a conservative republican.

"
The audience cheered as patriotic music blared from loudspeakers, ranging from Leontyne Price singing the "Star-Spangled Banner" to Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA."

Here are the lyrics to Born in the USA:

Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

<First, I don't know his sources, and I see no reason to give them the time of day.>

Short of Fox News doing an hour long expose, you're not gonna "give the time of day" to anything that contradicts the official line. For those interested in the US/CIA's role in the coup d'etat that brought in the Ba'athists, do a google and write: "iraq" kassim "CIA".

the US' role in overthrowing Kassim is hardly exceptional. The US was involved in a coup in Syria in 1949, it engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatamala in 1954, and Allende in Chile in 1973. It also pulled similar stunts in Brazil, Indonesia, and the Congo in the 60s to name only some of the more prominent examples. There are many others.

<Aaron makes no mention of why the US, supported by almost 40 other nations>

oh geez. name these 40 nations, Patriot. this coalition is a complete farce. Whatever defenders of this war say, it is fundamentally a US/UK venture. The Spanish government has signed on but can't really participate in any significant way in the face of 91% public opposition and riots in the streets. Australia has a bit role, and also faces wide-spread opposition at home. The rest of the countries are window-dressing, brought into the "coalition" via massive arm-twisting and bribes.

<Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions>

since when do American rightists care about UN resolutions? how many UN resolutions has Israel violated?
the reality is that since at least the mid-90s the US gov't, at top levels, has telegraphed the message that no matter what its former ally Hussein does it seeks his overthrow. Hussein had no incentive to follow the UN resolutions, knowing that the US would eventually find or manufacture a pretext to attack. 911--which Hussein had no involvement in--provided just such a pretext. it's been reported that the US was using intelligence gathered by the UN to pick non-military targets for attack.

As far as Hussein targetting air-craft over the no-fly zones: it's disingenuous to act scandalized by this fact given that the US has been waging war on Iraq for years--in any event, it's hardly an argument, as you suggest, for a full-scale invasion.

<and has brutalized its own people.>

Hussein's worst human rights abuses were commited when he was an ally of the US. as I said before, in 1989 the US refused to condemn Hussein in the UN for using chemical gas against the Kurds. given this, it is cynicism of the highest order for the US to now--fifteen years after the fact--point to the gas attack as reason to bomb Iraq mercilessly.

<Saddam's supporters shot innocent men, women and children in the back at Basra.>

nobody denies that the US' former ally is brutal. The US has killed large numbers of civilians in Basra in the past couple weeks and US troops are hardly getting a hero's welcome. It should be noted as well that dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions, as the US is doing now, isn't a good way of making friends even if it is a quite an effective means of indiscrimately killing people.

<Iraq fired misslies into a shopping mall at Kuwait City (interesting choice of military targets, eh?)>

That's not so clear. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Kuwaiti officials are saying the attack had tell-tale signs of an American missle. Here's an excerpt:

"Some Kuwaiti officials who examined the fragments said they believed an errant American cruise missile had been fired from the Persian Gulf toward Iraq.

"It was an American cruise missile, we know from the markings and writing on it," said a Kuwaiti police colonel who did not give his name. "It doesn't go up, it comes in low from the sea, and that's why there was no alert."

Another uniformed Kuwaiti official said that he, too, believed the missile to have been American and said that it "came from the sea.""

<Maybe Aaron can enilghten us to how the CIA forced the Iraqi's to shoot their own people in the back, or to send goon squads into the populace to rape women>

I've already told you the many ways that the US has assisted the Ba'athists over the years.
The resistance the US is facing in the south--which the US thought would be the easy part of the "campaign"--is due to the fact that Iraqi's understand this history. They know that the US supported Hussein. They know the US massacred retreating conscripts (from Kuwait) in 91 while giving Hussein's elite forces a green-light to smash uprisings against his rule. They know that the US--through the UN--imposed crippling sanctions that strengthened Hussein while depriving average Iraqi's of medical equipment. They know that the US destroyed Iraq's water treatment facilities in 91, causing huge numbers to die of water-born illnesses. They know that the US dropped depleted uranium munitions, causing a large increase in leukemia, particularly among the young. They know that the US has linked up with the Iraq National Congress--a tiny and unpopular formation composed of ex-Ba'athists and charlatans.

Any of you who think that the resistance to the American invasion will come only from Hussein-lovers are in for quite a surprise.

I really love war. I've got that blood lust in my heart!

I saw your absurd pro-war demonstration. ABC news (radio, yes, KSFO) was reporting it as if it were a substantial event, so I thought I'd check it out. What a pathetic, sickeningly corny LITTLE shin-dig it was.

Nice try, "patriots".

To say that I didn't give "facts" is ridiculous. Tell me where my facts are wrong, Patriot. Like I said previously, unless it comes from Fox or some other jingoist source you're all tuned out. Only the official line for our dear "Patriot". I have little hope that someone as addled by talk radio as you obviously are is able to offer an incisive and informed response to my post, but I welcome anyone out their to refute "my facts" as delineated above.

As far as lacking logic, the logic is that of the US ruling class which cares not at all about the lives of Iraqi's, or pretty much anyone else, for that matter. Much like its former ally, Hussein (or Somoza or Mobuto or Duvalier or D'Aubisson or Suharto or Diem or The Shah or Montt or Marcos or Pinochet or....).

Anyway.

<Aaron should know that 70% of the Maerican people supposrt the war in Iraq.>

Yea, and Tariq Aziz is dead, US troops are being greeted overwhelmingly as liberators, Iraq's 51st Mechanized Division surrendered nine days ago, Iraq bombed that shopping center in Kuwait, this war is a "cakewalk," and Hussein is close buddies with al-Qaeda.
American support for this war is five inches wide and a quarter centimeter deep. At best.

<If the protests for the war are small, maybe it's because the pro-American types have jobs and family>

hey, Patriot, your demo was on Saturday. these dufus-fests are poorly attended where-ever and when-ever they occur. Period. Says something, don't you think?

<We'll leave the splashy media events to>

you mean the anti-war demos that are about 10,000 times larger (literally) than yours?

<the pony-tailed, maggot-infested San Francisco hippies>

yawn.

<and the unemployed people paid to protest by ANSWER and other communist fronts.>

please provide evidence that people are paid to attend anti-war demos, Patriot. (btw, ANSWER isn't communist, they're Stalinists with a small number of adherents--and on close terms with the SFPD.)

<For example, he has not told us why CIA support for Saddam Hussein in the 80's (assuming he was) someone makes his behavior now unworthy of a military response.>

The FACT that the US helped bring the Ba'ath Party
to power in the 60s and supported Hussein through the 80s--up until AND AFTER he gassed the Kurds-- gives the lie to the suggestion that the US ruling class gives a shit about the Iraqi people. Of course, "liberating" the Iraqi's is a recent (and desperate) rationale for invading, made with special fervor after all the other reasons were shown to be bullshit.

<Aaron seems to think the CIA somehow forced Saddam Hussein to fire on US aircraft patroling the no-fly zone, and then forced his supporters to shoot women and children in the back at Basra a few days ago.>

I've already said that Hussein is a brutal despot. I believe that he should be toppled--but not by the US, which is implicated in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Bombing the country mercilessly--killing in the process many civilians--and then becoming an occupying force isn't a great favor to anyone but the ruling elite in this country.

<I know personal responsibility is not a strong point with such people.>

yea, it takes a lot of personal responsibility to mindlessly support an imperialist military campaign in a country that you know little about.

if there's a back-and-forth going on, shouldn't that be respected at all?

censoring Patriot only makes him feel righteous.

what's the criteria here? why do some rightists get to post endlessly and others get pushed off the screen?

it's your guys' call, but for what it's worth, i'm opposed to this.

It isn't supported by 40 other nations. The escalation isn't supported by the majority of the public in even one other nation. Those 40 nations are basically countries like Spain where the ruler isn't representing the vast majority of the people, and a few low-power countries that realize that the US will eventually win, even with a high death doll, and that they will have to be in a position to curry favor with the US after that.

But when Iraq invades Kuwait, everybody gets upset?