catapult magazine

What does being anti-war at this point mean? Now that we ARE at war, are you rooting for Iraq, the “underdog?” And if you are, does that mean you endorse Iraq’s methods of attack, the torture and killing of American soldiers? Do you want America to lose?

If this is the peace movement … what’s treason?

I suppose this question is partially directed at me so I’ll clarify my position at least. I’m not against war at all times. I think war can be justified under certain circumstances—the first Gulf War for example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United Nations came together to expel Iraq.

Under current circumstances, I don’t believe the US attack is justified, so I’m hardly rooting for the Americans to win. My natural instinct is to root for the underdog, but this is complicated by the fact that Hussein is a brutal dictator. That an American government which does not represent me has sent troops into a situation where there is no turning back, does not automatically turn me into a cheering, support-the-troops type of guy.

If all it takes to get public support for a war is to plop troops down somewhere and then say, “The soldiers are already here and getting shot at, so you had better support this war or else you’re not patriotic,” then the world is a dismal place indeed. I believe my position is the most patriotic because my opposition to the war is a concern for world and American security and peace. If I’m convinced this war is making making the world a more dangerous place for Americans in the long and short run, why would I shut up about it and just support the troops? That would seem to me to be shamefully unpatriotic.

I also would consider myself to be anti-war, and i don’t think that it means at all that i am rooted for iraq, although i am certianly concerned about the Iraqi people being harmed by either side. Being anti-war does not mean at all being anti-amercian, it means being against war and death. I think hussien is a horrible person, i think the iraqi people have suffered, but not all of it is saddam’s fault. A lot of suffering has been a result of the sanctions imposed by us.
Bottom line, invading a country and waging war on a country and claiming that it’s to help them just doesn’t make sense.

I’m not saying you should support the war or you’re not patriotic. I simply wanted to know what anti-war Americans start thinking once America is actually at war. I think it’s possible to be anti-war and be patriotic, depending on what it is you hope for and what you do for or against your country.

Since no war is ever going to have 100 percent support from the populace (although this one has 76 percent support and 15 percent against by some polls), I think the anti-war movement needs to put down the signs, stop vomiting on sidewalks and find something constructive to do once their country actually goes to war. Like feed the homeless. Redirect the venom.

One of our former Senators put it well when he said that it’s always been the troops, not the protesters, who actually protect our rights and freedoms.

Well if you call what our troops were doing in Vietnam “protecting our freedom,” then one of our former Senators is right on the money. This, however, has nothing to do with protecting anyone’s freedom.

It’s certainly not about oil. Iraq only makes up 4 percent of the world’s oil supply.

You might want to check your sources there. Iraq contains 11% of the world’s proven supply, second only to Saudi Arabia. Also, the oil under Iraq is is of high quality, and cheap to extract. It is rediculous to think that if the oil were not there, the Americans and British would be there right now. Of course there are other factors, but this is the fundamental one.

Since this war cannot be financed by the highly impoverished and inconsequential coalition of the willing (Ethiopia, Solomon Islands, Albania…), the ‘liberation’ of Iraq will be paid for by Iraq’s oil wells. No one doubts that the Iraqis would be so pleased with their new freedom that they would give a good chunk of their oil revenues to their liberators, right?

Nope. This war is about American interests, energy and otherwise. I don’t see any other way of putting it.

I’ll agree that America has a tendency to talk about the good of whatever and think about themselves, but I don’t think that oil is the only, or even necessarily biggest, reason we’re over there. Yes I question Bush’s motives, but yes I also think that our rationale isn’t completely selfish. I don’t like war and I don’t like this war, but I think both pro and anti war sides need to be careful about over simplifying a very complex situation.

You might be right Norbert. But every time I see an unselfish (not directly related to US strategic interest) motive, it is fused, or tightly intertwined with the selfish motive. Which came first? Who knows, but the perception in the world is that the selfish interest came first—then the unselfish rhetoric was added like icing on a cake. Very few people outside America believe the motive is loving-kindness. I suppose Bush sees himself as a pretty good fellow who is capable of making Iraq into a liberal democracy through invasion. I don’t doubt his sincerity. But I doubt the sincerity of just about everyone else in the adminstration when they say this is about freeing Iraqis.

You can check my sources too, but it seems that it costs much more (money and lives) to go to war than it would to have let Saddam maintain control of Iraqi oil supplies. I find it hard to believe anyone would wage this kind of war merely for financial reasons. Such a war effort can only come from some deeply principled (religious) stance.

The protestors: Why do people across the world have such a hard time believing that America truly feels threatened by regimes such as Saddam’s that support terrorism and call for Jihad against the U.S.? I wouldn’t be so disappointed by the protests if they truly led to helpful dialogue, but they seem to succeed only to push people into even more over-generalized camps—the Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh tactic (though I think protestors this side of Vietnam have done a much better job supporting America and its troops while protesting the war).

Grant, do you actually think Bush, principled and religious though he may be, would rescue the North Koreans or the Zimbabweans or the Burmese from their brutal dictators? Not a chance. Please tell me what the difference is. Is this really a “crusade,” (a phrase Bush has actually used)? Against Muslims? Is it oil? Is it revenge for his father’s failure? Is Iraq a greater threat than North Korea? (no) Is it insanity? Maybe.