A peaceful demonstration is one thing. No problem. The vomit-ins, the human chains, the "gumming up" of downtown cities, is disruptive civil
disobedience and should be met with fire hoses, rubber bullets and a night stick or two upside the head.
Since when do vomit-ins, human chains and "gumming up" of downtown cities represent acts of violence or non-peaceful demonstration ? Do people
taking part in "disruptive civil disobedience" actually deserve "fire hoses, rubber bullets and a night stick or two upside the head" ?
The tone of most posts here is amazingly violent. Many "arguments" exposed here are so plainly emotional and biased, that they could have been the
products of their natural counterparts, the islamic fundamentalists. One must conclude that many seem to have been in irrational moods at the time of
writing. Even Augusto Pinochet would hardly have dared to use such terms in his assignments to DINA torturers about how to deal with "disruptive
civil disobedience"... while the "gruesome tyrant"'s (Saddam Hussein's) propaganda surely portrayed the Kurdish and Shia uprisings of 1991 as
"disruptive civil disobedience" as well, in order to justify the bloody massacres of civilians who dared to stand up against the Ba'athist
Today, we see the same tragic events of 1991 paradoxically being instrumentalized as an argument against Saddam by the imperialist warmongers in their
laughable if not amateurish propaganda. Let's not forget, the US government promised assistance to the Kurds and Shia of Iraq shortly after the
so-called second Gulf war, but then watched most passively as their deceived allies fell prey to the regime's slaughtering Republican Guards units.
The military core of Saddam's regime was left intact probably on purpose by the attacking imperialist forces in Operation Desert Storm and during the
previous bombing campaign, so to prevent regional disorder... as a result, many people inside Iraq are suspicious about the US governments true aims
and priorities : is this war fought to liberate Iraq from Saddam's regime and replace it with a democratic government, or, as in past imperialist
conflicts, because of a mixture of economic, financial and corporatist interests, as well as the megalomaniac ideology of a proto-fascistoid governing
Even more than the regime of Bush sr., the current US administration seems unable to base its actions on a functional analysis of the complexity of
political and social issues at stake in the region, and of the undeniable threats they pose to international security. Yet Iraqi opposition groups
have not forgotten this act of "betrayal", so their current alliance with the US can at best be interpreted as purely tactical and set to fit
short-term interests (destruction of Saddam's regime). This is also why "coalition" troops are not exactly being acclaimed as liberators, contrary
to what many analysts were expecting. Added to the devastating experience of a decade of economic embargo and hundreds of thousands of dead and
deformed children due to plutonium infested ammunition used by the US army or lack of food due to the embargo, it becomes evident that the reserve of
the brave and enduring Iraqi masses in the course of the current imperialist offensive is a logical consequence of past US policies, despite massive
distribution of propaganda leaflets (or because of them, as they were also distributed in 1991...)
Finally, statements like the above significantly strengthen the idea outside of the USA and particularly in Europe, that the US is no longer a state
governed by the rule of law, therefore it fails to meet one of the most basic requirements of a democracy. Let alone that such a behaviour stands in
sharp contradiction to the basic values of democracy and Western modern political culture, which extremists within the US government pretend to defend
against "terrorism" or "fundamentalism".
To an unprecedented extent, laborious masses around the globe are now realizing that the current US policies are substantially similar to the other
side's policies, and that their only justification lies in the non-ethical and unlawful argument following which today's international system should
be governed according to the exclusive will of the most powerful. If the haters maintain that their stance is based on morality, which would be
characteristic of the growing Christian fundamentalism in US politics, then the morality upon which it is founded is nothing short of a dangerous
racist doctrine that would grant Americans (preferably White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant ?) superior rights to others, because of their essence as
"the good guys", the rest of the world being "the bad ones".
No moral consideration can justify this dirty war, so it is pointless trying to argue along ethical lines ! I do not favor violence, so any outcries
of hate, supporting a butchery that is being performed at this very moment, although far from our internet-terminal equipped safe havens in the
Western hemisphere, is objectionable in my view. But still, I would like to give all haters the possibly useful advice that their arguments are and
will always be counterproductive : they only serve those who actively spread extremist interpretations of Islam, just as they perfectly feed the
anti-American ressentment in the public opinions of the Middle East and all developing countries subject to imperialist assaults of various forms
(including Mexico and Venezuela). The result will be the inevitable decline of catipatlist imperialism, as predicted by Marx and Engels. According to
official military propaganda, 70 % of the American people support the unjust war on Iraq. If these supposed 70 % at the same time shared such hateful
thoughts about a particular group of people defined only through their religion (believers or not), then your country would probably be much more
dangerous to world stability and peace than Saddam Hussein's. If the above hypothesis was accurate, then the US would rather be comparable to Nazi
Germany, when a similar percentage of Germans probably favored the genocidal NSDAP policies towards the Jewish people ("round them up" etc.).
However, this hideous hypothesis is far from true : to our knowledge, the American masses are luckily also starting to decrypt the dialectics of the
situation, beyond official propaganda and superstructural interests, and soon people favoring the imperialist war will be a small minority. Further,
as soon as economic dissent appears between the Texas-based oil industry, which backs the government's radicals and their simplistic plans for global
hegemony, and the rest of the US capitalist economy, "the game will be over" for Mr. Bush and his extremist team, as they will be invited to pursue
their wargames on a Nintendo console in a peaceful mansion for retireds.
Wouldn't it be a wise and popular decision to first send UN peacekeeping troops to the US, in order to stop a dangerous racist ideology from spilling
over to the political institutions, and offer free psychotherapy for all those who wish to extinguish innocent lives while enjoying the fallacious
comfort of their consumerist environment ? Thousands of innocent prisoners in the USA, victims of the capitalist society, many of whom await execution
in inhumane death rows partly because of the color of their skin (in the sense that a Black American has a much higher probability to be sentenced to
capital punishment than a White for a similar crime - all statistics speak for themselves), deserve legal assistance from the international community.
An international court should be created in order to judge possible and alleged war crimes and other violations of international and federal US laws
by the armed forces and intelligence agencies of the United States, during all relevant conflicts and crises since World War II. The involvement of
Iraqi humanitarian organizations in the distribution of much needed material help to the American subproletariat massed in the countless slums and
ghettos of virtually every American city, would also be a fair and balanced global governance initiative.