Ciao!

If opposing a war makes one a murderer, not intervening in a conflict does so too. By this line of reasoning, all countries in the world (including Europe and the USA) are guilty of murder during all the years they left Saddam Hussein in power. Also we are all still murderers when all those other still existing dictatorial regimes are concerned, as long as we take no action to overthrow those regimes. Especially since you argue that we need not concern ourselves with international law or treaty that prevents us from attacking sovereign states that are not attacking or otherwise threatning us.

While I don't say that I am opposed to the war in Iraq, I find this attitude a dangerous one because it is very difficult to draw the line. Sure, there are outspoken 'evil' regimes like Saddam Husseins to be overthrown. But the line of reasoning I gave would also apply to cases of 'murder' that are less clear. For instance, one could argue that a regime that applies the death penalty to minors is murderous and by that line of reasoning find justification to invade the USA to force a regime change. Or one could consider a liberal (pro-choice) abortion or euthanasia law to be murderous and therefore justify an invasion of the Netherlands to overthrow its regime.

Jan:

Point taken. No argument here. My point was only to highlight that much of the anti-war movement led by ANSWER was a very dangerous marriage of leftists and other groups that genuinely support those regimes. I take principled positions very seriously. If someone opposes a political position, that's fine. But it should not blind them to alliances w/ "questionable" people.

For example: Many Americans might oppose Israeli policy. Marching to demonstrate this is fine. But if I were organizing a protest against Israel, I would certainly distance myself from other opponents of Israeli policy (e.g. Neo-Nazis or the KKK). I wouldn't accept them for their "organizational expertise" or assume that we can all march together because it swells our ranks.

And I think this is what much of the ANSWER-led protests amounted to. I have friends who attended ANSWER-organized rallies at which anti-Semites marched or in which militant Islamic fundamentalists railed on w/ speeches about destroying "the Zionist entity".

I didn't support the war, but at the same time I didn't support ANSWER either. What bothered me the most was that if you even thought of protesting the war, you automatically became linked with the extremists, as if you couldn't have an opinion of your own.

I was against the war for the reasons why we're now having trouble in Iraq right now. ANSWER never influenced my opinions, and it used to peeve me to no end to always be linked with extremists by those who found it much easier than debating me head-on.

The anti-war protesters undermined their credibility by uniting with extremists... it made their arguments seem shrill lost in the deluge of hate speech... there's lots of good reasons against any war but if you find yourself marching next to Jew-haters and a street person just issued with a 'Free Mumia' ( the cop-killer ) sign then you've just tossed your message to the street.

I agree that it is very unfortunate the more moderate anti-war protestors in the USA apparently were drowned out by a group of extremists. This is very frustrating for people with a more moderate opinion, who find themselves constantly explaining they're not a part of that bunch of idiots singing "we all live in a terrorist regime" to the tune of the Beatles song "we all live in a yellow submarine".

I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq too. Although I am happy the Iraqi people were liberated from a cruel dictator, I have serious reservations about the legitimacy of the war especially because I have always had serious doubts about the WMD story. I think this is a quite wide-spread feeling amongst Europeans. Here in Europe we have our left-winged extremist, anti-globalization, anti-war, anti-everything groups as well but similar to the USA they don't represent the sentiments of the average European either.

Having read the Michael Waltzer interview, I find his arguments against the war in Iraq unpersuasive. Throughout the entire interview he talks about what SHOULD have been done, what SHOULD have happened, how the UN SHOULD have contained Iraq without allowing the Americans to go to war. Always he dwells on what SHOULD have been done, giving no account to what actually COULD have been done.

Like all too many liberals, he prefers to work only in a perfect world, one where left-led democracies always do the right thing, and always run rings around the clownish cowboy-led democracies. All his arguments are predicated on there being an international governing body that is more moral, more powerful, and smarter than the leadership on any other nation. Unfortunately, every effort made to create one has failed, and if he has made any backup plans for how we should cope with the lack of one, he certainly didn't reveal them in his interview.

Uzbekistan tortures political dissidents by boiling them.

google uzbekistan and boiling or read:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/uzbek.htm

I don't support governments that would have me believe that they are fighting for human rights while supporting terrorist regimes. The USA's military was able to bomb Afghanistan thanks to the use of military bases in Uzbekistan. In 2002 the USA gave 500 Million dollars to Uzbekistan.

In ten years we'll probably attack Uzebekistan in the name of human rights. They will retaliate with 500 Million dollars worth of weapons bought from the US and Britain.

Point taken. But. How does this change the fact that Iraq was a brutal regime and that those who opposed toppling Hussein were (wittingly or no) supporting the continuation of that regime. I oppose all dictatorial regimes and think US foreign policy should also. When my government finally decides to act against one of them, I support that act, even if I hope it will soon act on the others and stop supporting questionable regimes.