Here's a nice anti-war poem I just wrote:

"One, two, three, four/
We don't want your f*cking war"

It rhymes and it'll inspire me as I pummel right wing jocks into the ground at the "Support Our Troops" weep-a-thons put on by the Yellow Ribbon Sob Sisters.

As Henry Rollins once said, violence is wrong, unless you're beating up Republicans and jocks.

Cheers! See you at the Dead Kennedys' reunion concert!

Why don't you move to Afghanistan or Kuwait so we can "accidentally" shoot you instead? I think it's much more fun to beat up Democrats & wimps like you who are to afraid to fight for their own country!! That's right, the ground you're standing on, without the fears you would have walking down a street in Afghanistan or other constantly-fighting country! If America doesn't act now, someone else will take that as a sign of weakness (like you) and surprise us with an attack. You know kinda like what happened on 9/11? Duh!!

Well you guys pretty well encapsulated both sides of the debate. Mike, "violently anti-war" would appear to be an oxymoron to some. I will say seeing our own military as the enemy went out about 30 years ago, but don't let that stop you.

Oh, & just in case you thought I was a jock, I'm not. This is coming from a Republican woman from Texas & proud of it!
FULL SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH!!!
ALL WHO ARE NOT, NEED TO MOVE!!!

In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

No, not a reply to Laura Bush, George Orwell writing in 1946 on "Politics and the English Language".

So what time does the One Minute Hate start?

will say seeing our own military as the enemy went out about 30 years ago, but don't let that stop you.

I won't. All things are cyclical, O Eric of Blog: turn, turn, turn, i always say. Nowadays Nelson Mandela and even the Vatican, for heaven's sake, are sounding the "U.S. as pariah state" alarm. It's the cutting edge, the new new thing, the hip line that all the cool people at Starbucks and the Libertarian Party Conventions are spouting, as au courant and up to the minute as the latest French fashion, which, as you'll note, is also decidedly anti-war.

As for my being "anti-military," well, hyperbole aside, it is not the fighting forces who are the enemy, it is the moral degenerates like Rumsfeld and W and Perle who merit our contempt, and receive mine in abundance. The military brass are generally opposed to the Iraq invasion; they tend to be among the most honorable people around because they're one of the few groups in society that actually swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, instead of indulging in all this Pledge of Allegiance crap.

If it was up to the military, we wouldn't be fighting this war.

By the way, Sam I Am, I spend time considerable time doing civil disobediences at military recruiting offices, and over the last six months have personally dissuaded at least six kids from signing up for this criminal war. So that's six working class people I've spared from the clutches of your draft dodging, coke-dealing, election-stealing, cheeseball of a President. He's not my President, by the way. I voted with the majority.

Cheers! See you all at the War Criminals Trial, George W. Bush, defendant, case no. pending.

You guys need to stop all your crying and start supporting the president. He ran for office, he won it. Where were you ? why didnt you run for president since you know it all. The only thing you've won is: THE JUST SHUT--UP AWARD.

This is America, we don't shut up when we disagree with government policy. Some people forget thatt was how this country started.

And poets are even less likely to keep quiet. While Emily Dickinson wasn't political, Langston Hughes was.

Thanks, geral. I know i speak for all of us here in the Third Reich when i say that your call for absolute obedience to the Great Leader is the obligation of every citizen.

We have job openings available in our Auschwitz, er, Processing Center. Yeah, that's what it's called. The hours are long but given your philosophical views, I'm sure you'll find a job there very rewarding. Do call for an application

Achtung, baby!

look, there is one thing here that ya:ll must remember to ask yourself...WHY? why are we on devastation's murderous doorstep? is it because sadaam is a tyrannical ruler beginning his irrational, completely ludicrous attempt at global conquest? or is it because the US government is unwavering in it:s decision to set up yet another puppet government outside the western world? does he want to get his hands on lands concealing large oil deposits so that the proceeds can be put directly into his pocket? the american public must always ask WHY? and so often we do not. scrutinize the stories you are told by those who lead us secretly. look deeper into the reality you open your eyes to every day. you cannot create your ideas of reality from mass media. take some initiative. democracy depends upon information flowing freely. Our democracy is failing. This is not an argument. It is a fact. Open your eyes and your minds to truly see the world that you refuse to acknowledge. Disease, poverty, pollution, and violence are all on the rise. What is more pertantent to America's successful future? A man who has been in power for 40 years in a land far far away, and only invaded his neighbors' lands twice, with good, or at least vaild, reasons; who backed out of Kuwait when he realized his hopelessness, a testament to his sanity...OR...an uneducated, underprivilaged, neglected and disillusioned destitute minority that will soon be no minority at all? Should we spend billions of dollars on death and destruction and buildings designed to cage up our exponentially increasing number of criminals...OR...would that money be better spent investing in our own, their wellbeing, their minds, and their homes? Which would bring about a better, freer, more prosperous America? The answer is about as elusive as a your reflection. War is a consequence of fear. thus the prophetic words, "YOu have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Peace to all, and all to peace.

Cameron, I appreciate your sincerity and passion but distance means nothing anymore - the fact that Saddam is on the other side of the world is no longer any protection against him. I entirely agree that we must do a better job of taking care of our own, especially regarding health care and education, but there is also no conspiracy. I must disagree with your conclusions.

Cameron: Saddam "only" invaded his neighbors twice in 40 years? Sheesh, man, that is cold comfort. I live in California, and I would not appreciate bi-decade incursions by Nevada, although I hasten to add that its weapons of mass destruction would be no match for ours.

The truth is that Saddam's military has been decimated, and he is no longer a threat to anyone but his own people. The notion that we are invading to liberate them is laughable, as any review of the opposition lunatics we support, and our own past backing of Saddam, will promptly attest.

The only threat we need to guard against is his desire to acquire nuclear weapons, which current collective security arrangements are sufficient to prevent.

Eric: I hate to break it to you, Blogmeister, but if we go ahead with this invasion, there won't BE any money for health care or education; the proposed Bush budget, which already cuts social spending while increasing funds for the military, doesn't even include money for Iraq. This means that either a)we're not invading (I hope!) or b) the White House knows people will flip out when they see the dollars needed for Empire.

Mike, Classic comment to Cameron - you know how prickly those Nevadans are, but their populace is mesmerized by gambling, garish entertainment and prostitution - too decadent for a sustained attack.

Re the budget: big problem, I agree it doesn't add up and something has to give, the actual conflict won't last all that long and will end up being defrayed somewhat by others, as was the Gulf War. Occupation is expensive but the only moral way to finish the job of "liberating" the Iraqi masses. Some things just have to be done because they are right and worry about the money later - like credit cards.

If we go to war, we're paying for the bulk of it this time. It won't be like the Gulf War where it was mostly funded by others.

And while it may be a quick war, it isn't certain (it will probably be longer than the Gulf War and more deadly on both sides). And the occupation will be long and costly.

There are lots of things we should be doing because they are right despite the costs and aren't which don't involve a war that isn't needed.

Saddam isn't going to be attacking his neighbors or Nevada while there is a strong inspection regime. The people in the areas of Iraq he controls are suffering (and people are suffering in North Korea, China, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Burma... well just go to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International), but that didn't seem to bother the US govt. much until now.

I guess the point is that the war IS needed.

Katha Pollitt on the White House poetry symposium:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224&s=pollitt

Mike, you're a smart guy and I'm sure you are a good guy - you clearly try to argue on the facts in in good faith. What pains me and what I don't think I can get around with any fact, is the attitude behind the facts that colors your interpretation of those facts. You assume that the US government is up to nefarious schemes to achieve dishonorable goals. I don't. The government needs to be watched and a free press is key to this, but generally, the government is on our side. Why? because we basically are the government.

Thanks for the reassuring pat on the back that I am indeed "a good person." I'll try to keep that in mind as I serve out the rest of my sentence for chopping those two old ladies into pieces.

In the interest of fairness, here's an article on the White House poetry thing from the Weekly Standard, journal of the chickenhawks:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/228qjtzx.asp

As I said, the Bushies tend to paranoia regarding public opinion and I am very displeased by that. They should hae let the poets have their say, then ripped them to shreds.

Bush avoided the war because of his daddy's connetions and went AWOL without consequences. He's leading us into a war? The next generation will have a field day with that.

How do you discuss the work of Langston Hughes, Walt Whitman, and even Emily Dickinson and avoid the harrowing antiwar currents in the work of each?

For the greatest antiwar poem of all, check out http://www.xanga.com/mfinley -- peacenik named Jesus.