The 90% Turkish poll is exactly what I'm talking about. 90% WHAT? 90% against war. But of course - the Turks had a pretty rough time of it last time. If war is inevitable, what then? A whole new set of numbers, of course, with a whole new set of meanings and a whole new set of spin.

If pollsters are honest they'll report the numbers today and tomorrow, which will change enormously. If not, you'll know they were just after spin.

Polls spin left, polls spin right ... pick your favorite (and by that I mean "aligned with you politically") news source and you'll get the results you want ...

e.g., http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/f...sp?POLL_ID=778

This war is unjust and you know it. A bad move.
Yeah, Yeah, list the twisted partial rationalizations, the chess of global politics, your polls, lame attempts to frame it as forced "liberation"- try to put a moral face on it. It still doesnt quite float. The arguement is that its too complex, I should just shut up and trust that the President knows whats right. We'll wrap it up nicely in a flag, condemn anyone who dares to question or cares to disagree as "not supporting our troops", "traitor!" when the most effective support would be to make sure our military lives, your friends and family and mine, are not wasted. WASTED. We'll bomb the shit out of civies, kill, (make cool TV footage) risk and lose the lives of our expendable kids, all for control of fucking oil- So the US can occupy the oil fields. (you better not burn them!)
I really want to be wrong. But nothing I have read, seen, or heard has convinced me yet. Keep trying.

Like warch, I haven't been convinced yet (perhaps the first political issue we agree on?) - but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's all for oil.

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, and I'm hoping that the "Coalition of the Willing" is right in what it is doing. I can't pretend to know about everything that's going on. There certainly <b>are</b> a lot of complications and issues that the public simply doesn't know about. Whether or not they are sufficient to justify the invasion on another nation is really yet to be seen. Perhaps I am more cautious than I should be. There is no doubt that Saddam is, at very best, an inappropriate choice to lead a country. But I can't say what he is at worst because I simply don't know.

A victory in the war is assured; we have, by far, the strongest military in the world. I'm not concerned about winning or losing. I am concerned that they won't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that innocent Iraqi civilians and our troops will die for the freedom of a people in a far away land but, in the process, will turn moderates around the world into extremists against us. At the end of this, will we be able to say that it needed to be done, that it was worth it?

Compelling cases can be made for why the United States must lead a coalition to disarm Iraq. Compelling cases can be made for why we must not. I am still on the fence, and I must admit, I am uncomfortable here. I want to be behind this, to know that it is right. But I don't. And I hate that.

Dave, that might quite possibly be the best post you have ever written on the Cellar (in terms of construction and writing).

As I've mentioned previously, I do not believe that war is the proper solution. I also do not believe that this is just about oil...truth be told, I wonder whether oil is truly an issue at all.

I said a prayer last night when the first strikes were made. I prayed for as few casualties as possible, for this war to end quickly, and for our troops to be safe.

I don't know what ramifications or consequences lie ahead because of this. Will the US be forever ostracized? Will we snub the French and Russians? Nah...as I see it, everyone in the world is guilty of being fuckheads at one time or another. This is just our turn to be on the crackpipe. Will the UN still be viable and necessary? Sure. This isn't the first time someone has gone "against" the UN, and it won't be the last.

The actions that go on in the world all balance out in the end, IMO.

As outrageous as it may seem, that's my advice. Because:

There's your moral face, and it's very very very likely that it's only the tip of the iceberg. Over the next few weeks we're going to actually find out what's been going on. The stories will out. And that's what I fear, more than any amount of US grunt casualties. The grunts know the risks; the people were just people, and we are about to find out how many wound up with their ears nailed to the wall with rusty nails.

I'm appalled at the left's ability to shut these stories out and say they don't matter. The honorable left I once knew and even participated in was all about ending torture, executions, brutality and nuclear proliferation, and all about returning power to the people. Now we're the oppressors if we stop these things. So you say that it's just a rationalization? It's not part of the administration's thinking? Well who really gives a shit?

Not the people in the plastic shredder, that's for sure.

Somehow I think we're going to need to uncover lots moral justification after the facts, or Indict will continue their tally on us.

And it still is.

If you point them out, the left either says you made them up or exaggerated them, or they point to a whole bunch of other countries where torture goes on and ask why the US isn't going after them. If I go into Imperialist mode, smile, and say "one at a time", they get irritated :-)

Then I say, "And that brings us back to oil..." How irritating.

"In the U.S." doesn't count :)

Ok Tony boy. xxoo :)

Let me add a tad to this.

The 3 actions that I think would balance the current situation:

--WMDs are found in Iraq, and those against war begin to see things the same way as the Bush administration.

--Everybody gets a "piece of the pie."

--George W. Bush is voted out of office next year, uses up his 2 terms, or makes a sudden shift in foreign policy.

That's not going to happen for a large number of people under any circumstances, they hate Bush. That will not change even if 534,968,345 suitcase nukes are discovered in Baghdad addressed to OBL

There is an old expression that I may misquote. "God cursed Mexico. It gave them oil."

Oil is the wild card. But oil is not the objective nor the need for solution in Iraq. Question one is how much this war will cost Americans. Question two is about nation building. Nation building is another concept that George Jr so adamently campaigned against and now must address. Nation building, regardless of you opinions on this war, is really the current topic. The war itself is now moot and irrelevant.

Do we install a MacArther and dictate that Iraq become a democratic nation? Probably. But that is not where it gets sticky. Sticky are things such as the Kurds and Turkey's relations. Iran and how strong should this goverment be permitted to be as a result. How much do we charge Iraq for nation building? How much do third party nations participate? And how adversarial will the Iraqis be. Apparently we intend to protect and maintain everyone in Iraqi government except top leadership.

Who gets all the contracts in Iraq? Does Russia get paid their $8billion?

Oil and religion are the incendary devices in this country. How to deal with same is really a question that no one has been asking. What was the George Sr's major mistake? Politicians did not plan to take over from the military. Instead those politicians were too busy celebrating with campaign. Have they asked these and the so many additional questions? Clearly the press has not 'pressed' for those answers.