Eric,

This is exactly why the U.N. was created. To deal with growing threats in a responsible way.

The notion that Saddam Hussein is powerful enough to launch World War III is ludicrous. Before this war started, we were not coddling him. We were not listening to his claims and considerering them reasonable--by that I mean not even a signficant fraction of the leftiest of the left was doing that.

The comparison of the Palestinians to Nazi Germany is equally strained.

Militant Islamic fundamentalism is very dangerous, no doubt. And ignoring the threat of totalitarian systems' growing to a critical mass would be foolish. And widespread liberal democracy is the only hope for peace on this planet, given every system that has presented itself so far.

But this is hardly the same thing as saying, "Therefore, the United States should declare itself the military ruler of the world and force compliance with its desires using guns and bombs."

Telling scary stories about the Muslim world is not the same thing as defending present United States policy.

One is easy. The other is almost impossible. And that's why so few pro-war people do it. I noticed that you falied to mention how devastatingly critical Berman is about the way Bush has executed his policy:

"And although the U.S. is proposing to act in the interest of the world, Bush has managed to terrify the entire world and to turn the world against him and us and to make our situation infinitely more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. It's a display of diplomatic and political incompetence on a colossal scale. We're going to pay for this."


But Berman does make a very good point that opponents of the "United States Shall Rule The World Even As It Cries Out Against Us" policy of the present federal government need to articulate strategies that would work better. It's not enough to point out the moral vacuum at the center of unilateral preventive war.

That's a hard job, and we've got to do it. We're fighting against the notion that the world should be ruled by fear. And here at home, the federal government takes every opportunity to keep all U.S. citizens in a state of fear. (Evidence: I think you and I both know that if a poll were taken of Americans, asking, "Does Saddam Hussein pose a clear and present danger to the United States?" most would answer "Yes." Yet very very few people acquainted with the facts believe in this extreme view. Americans believe it because the White House wants them to believe it, not because it's true.)

History does show what a potential threat to world peace Islamic totalitarianism poses. But it shows what a threat the present unilateral, violent, civil-rights-squelching, rule-by-fear policy of the United States federal government poses, too. It's not a one-or-the-other question.

And I haven't even discussed the question about whether it could work--could military domination of the world against global resistance work as a policy to keep our nation safe?

Best response I heard at the protest yesterday: "There is no better candidate for a terrorist than a war orphan."

Ahh, Brian Flemming a few points: Is Saddam's military in and of itself a direct threat? Obviously not. Do the weapons they posses pose a threat? In the hands of terrorists- well yeah. I'm sure you will spout off with the old "well there is no proof and blah freakin blah," but really now, deep down, in your heart of hearts, do you honestly think that our government just made up some crap to launch a war of aggression? I'll give you more credit for intelligence then that. This whole 'rule the world cause we can and we're meanies' crap you left wingers mouth off with makes anything on the X Files look downright plausible. And, FYI, I just heard on the news that some of your fellow lefties, the idiotic human shields, are coming out of Iraq with stories of how Iraq citizens are telling them that they've been praying for the bombs to fall, hoping for the U.S. will come and kill Hussein, becouse the all hate him. But your right, this is all just naked aggresion on our part.

(1)Thanks for your site: excellent; and myyyyy haven't you got a long one. Link side panel that is....

(2)Islamism and Ba'ath:
I was always taught to use dictionary. So I did.
Ba'ath parties formed in Iraq & Syria in 1943. Though off hand, vaguely, I remember reading that the two fellas who started it off had their thoughts in the early 30s, or was it late 20s. Please mind the stampede as people google Ba'th rather go for a relaxing bubble bath.

Vis Iraq, communist party was very strong till Ba'ath took over. But, again from vague recollection, Ba'ath were lucky in that the Officers Revolution in 1958 gave them the chance they would not have had. They had been signally inimpresive up till then. Check.

Islamism: in modern times from 1979 Iranian Rev., but resurrgences also in 18th. & 19th. C
Of course Lewis' "What Went Wrong?" is one of the great sources.

And:
Politico-sociologically speaking, Is Saddam the Ba'ath Party or (though he is a member) has he gone beyond them in the sense that he has created the sort of dictatorship/oligarchy/family-archy that is essentially at odds with Ba'ath -Pan Arab & socialist principles? And yet their organisational skills (middle class, educated) are essential to his remaining in power. And without Saddam, Would the Ba'thist be "People we could do business with", or too tainted by his excesses?

Thanks Andy, the blogroll consists of Blogcritics members, now over 230 strong. Re spelling, I am not terribly concerned about the ' in Baath - it's spelled both ways, including without the ' in the article quoted here.

As far as iraq and Baathgoes - nothing left to "work with" - time to rip it all down and start ove again.

hey another andy! uh oh

I don't care about spelling....so you know which one is which haha