One wonders how much of the protests are really about 12/12/2000. As Mr. Beale would say, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Mr. Pepper wants to imply that anti-war protesters are pro-Hussein. In a less simplistic world it would be possible to be anti-war, anti-Hussein, pro-Bush, pro-democracy, pro-France, pro-U.S., pro-U.N., all at the same time. This world doesn't fit the simplistic "Old Europe/New Europe", "With Us/With the Terrorists", "Axis of Weasels/Coalition of Willing" rhetoric some would rather have us parrot.

Thanks for an interesting link..
What I am worried about concerning the war is that
1) It won't stop with Iraq. That would at least surprise me a lot
2) What regime will rule Iraq when Saddam is removed? Will it be another hated man?
3) That the US has a lot of motives to this. Will they exploit it when they get the chance?

I never really had a doubt that Saddam was an asshole, I'm just wondering what Bush is.

I think the point is that, whatever the motives behind the US/UK invasion of Iraq, one has to hope for a positive outcome for the people of Iraq. I just hope the war is over sooner rather than later, and that control of Iraq goes to her people.

my god, how did you come across this? as i started to read this article, i quickly came to the realization that this guy is my friend from college. outrageous...

I've had the most trouble understanding the moral/ethical equations. If the estimates are true that 400,000 Iraqis have died from sanctions - mostly children, elderly and the poor - then a vote to continue sanctions is as much a condemnation to death as war, with the added problem that sanctions go on indefinitely and their effect is to a degree cumulative. We enforce sanctions with soldiers, just as we make war with soldiers. War kills, but the killing stops when the war ends. That's been my trouble with the whole "containment" argument. I wonder: is war worse?

While I have to say that this is a good article, and one that is convincing in it's point. That point is irrelevant to war. While it is all well and good that several of the people want him gone, it is also well and good hat several don't, as the protests of the Red Crescent handouts/aid have shown.

The point to this war is that SH has weapons of mass destruction, and those weapons must go. If we allow this war to be about regime change, then we must not stop with Iraq. If we allow this war to be about our patience having worn thin with his noncompliance to the UN, then we must also (and first) attack Israel, who we give the most, and who is the country that receives the most foreign aid in the world. None of these would be tolerated, nor should they be reasons for going in and trying to change a nation. The only acceptable reason for war is that of an eminent danger, because of the weapons of mass destruction that he allegedly has.
If you listen to Robin Cook's resignation speech, you'll see that UN weapons inspections were far more effective than war, and is conceivably a better way to go about this. These are the things that we SHOULD focus on. If you are for the war, you believe he is an eminent danger, worthy of us attacking and being the aggressor to provoke the use of those weapons. However, if we go in like we have, under the assumption that this will be such an easy battle, and thus it will be over very quickly...how can we state that he's such a threat? Are other countries not more so?
The war is truly about the alleged weapons of mass destruction, anything else is PR...and most people are buying the PR and forgetting about the real issues when they talk about the war.

My 2¢ on the matter. For the record, I am not for the war, but I also don't believe that we can stop at this point. The US can't afford to be wrong, or not to win, or will be painted the biggest target in the world for a LONG time to come. As for Weapons of Mass destruction...any random Joe that gets pissed off and finds the black market for bio or nuclear material (or makes a bunch of explosives), can be just as effective, if not more so, than a chemical warhead in battle.

Yes, my thoughts are somewhat random and not put together at this point, I'll stop rambling now.

i hear from dan pepper himself, that he didn't actually write that, but the telegraph interviewed him and then just put what they wanted to keep in the article.

The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.