Mr Larkin, let me make this real clear: Yes, I support cracking down however hard is necessary to stop the insurgents from continuing to kill people. I would support doing it NOW.

Of course, you are willfully disregarding reality to call it "inflicting mass civilian casualties." No, we're trying to STOP people who are now inflicting mass civilian casualties. We've tried very hard to minimize civilian casualties.

You don't seem to register or to care that besides following our own security interests, we've stopped a lot of killing there. It's unfortunate that sometimes the bad guys use their women and children for hostages, but then the blood is on THEIR hands not ours.

It's quite easy and no doubt very morally satsifying to kvetch about even one single innocent Iraqi being killed by US forces, but you don't have any other plan to stop people from killing us.

You don't seem to care about Saddam's mass graves that we have stopped him from filling. If you were so wrought up about the poor innocent Iraqis, you'd be thanking W and the US military for stopping him.

There's still some killing going on, but we're doing our best to try to stop it. That would be exactly the point of striking down the insurgents.

Neither Eric nor Glenn nor I savor killing. I feel no blood lust, nor taste for revenge. However, there are people trying to KILL us. No amount of cheap moral posturing will address this problem. They must be stopped by any means necessary.

What exactly is YOUR plan for what we should do in Iraq to get it down the right road, Mr Larkin? Should we cut and run, leaving the people to the tender mercies of the Ba'athists and Islamist killers who are causing the problems? Should we just sit tight, and let them continue massacring people?

What's YOUR plan, Mike?

Iraq wasn't particularly trying to kill us before the war. I'm sure they didn't mind others trying to kill us or have much concern about it, but there's no legitimate evidence for that point of view.

Yes, the insurgents want to kill us now that we are occupying Iraq. There's no question about that.

And yes, we should stay in Iraq and try our best to stabilize the nation. You can "thank W and the US military" all you want but their plan hasn't and probably won't work. That's the conclusion of a lot of folks, even those within the administration and the Pentagon, who are now looking for the least painful exit strategy possible after our elections and Iraq's.

Again, I would respect those who support the war in Iraq more if they had the balls to take the position that Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and others have taken: even if Iraq wasn't a threat to us, we despise their way of life and their beliefs, and more specifically, the general trend of Islam as a whole. As disturbing a statement as this is, it's a more accurate reflection of people's motivations for war and makes your silly posturing about "being tough and killing them before they kill us" more supportable within an ideology that isn't self-contradictory. Don't bother wasting your time talking about military strategy and ex post facto humanitarian ethics, things you clearly know little and care little about (along with most supporters of the war and most traditional conservative analysts of foreign policy). If the war's merit is debated solely on the basis of ethics toward civilians and pure military strategy, the war is largely indefensible, whether you're conservative or liberal. It's only defensible within something like a larger "we need to mess with the whole Middle East and all Muslim civilization because it's all dangerous," something akin to the Cold War's domino theory view of communism, as something cancerous. While I could never understand such a position, it's the only intellectually consistent one I've seen on that side of the debate.

Vote for Bush already. Stop being so afraid, Al. The "tough guy" act has no credibility coming from you, especially when you can't even get your party affiliation straight. "Thank W and the US military" by voting Republican, as I'm sure you probably will.

That is all.

Oh, and another thing ...

I take it as a measure of the skill of the Bush campaign, but those of you who argue for the war should really try very hard to use language OTHER than recycled Bush stump slogans like "mass graves" and "by any means necessary."

I'm rarely sure how to take you Mike, beyond pure provocation, but you are welcome to emerge periodically from radio silence to toss a bomb or two when the mood strikes you - just spell the name right.

I DO subscribe to the theory that Iraq is part of a critically necessary larger effort to retool the Middle East, and the thinking and behavior of millions of Muslims, who are stuck in a destructive atavistic mindset that is anti-modern, anti-democratic, theocratic, totalitarian, exceptionalist, resentful, and gravely dangerous to themselves and those who don't accept their worldview.

We have done all we can reasonably do to minimize civilian casualties to the point of undermining military strategy - when the Iraqis are fully in charge they will not be so delicate.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention: how diabolically clever of you, Mike, to figure out that my real motivation for supporting the war is my desire to see as many civilian deaths and mutilations as possible. I thought my veneer foolproof, but I was mistaken.

"I DO subscribe to the theory that Iraq is part of a critically necessary larger effort to retool the Middle East, and the thinking and behavior of millions of Muslims, who are stuck in a destructive atavistic mindset"

Almost without exception throughout history, violence against innocents by imperialist powers is justified by the notion that we are civilizing ungrateful savages.

How did the stories of torture by U.S. troops of Iraqis help with your crusade? You never discuss that when you're cutting and pasting neocon boilerplate about spreading democracy, except to peddle the "few bad apples" line.

The appalling extent of civilian casualties is well documented. You can't wish it away with discredited statements that we are "being careful."


The United States government is a failing democracy governed by a terrorist clique. It has no moral authority to spread democracy.

Since i'm not a named defendant here, I hesitate to greatly involve myself in this discussion. However, I think it is unfair to characterize Eric's 'milions of muslims' comment as 'civilizing ungrateful savages'. The Iraqi people are anything but savage, and I believe that, as a majority they (and most muslims and most people for that matter) desire nothing more than to live peacably and enjoy God's creation with their families. Additionally, I personally care very much about the well-being of individual Iraqis, to the point where people criticize me for not caring enough about American lives. The fact of the matter is that Iraqis were dying in great numbers due to our multi-lateral, diplomatic solution to the problem of Saddam Hussain. Unicef, and others estimate that somewhere around a half a million children died as a result of these sanctions. This angers me to no end. Clearly, Saddam was somewhat contained, but to me, sanctions were a very poor solution. Given the tyranny he inflicted on his people and the threat that so much of the world agreed that he represented, a 'nice' solution is certainly hard to find.

I'm not attempting to justify the war here, just to point out that blood can be shed with ink and paper just as it can be with guns and bombs.

Mike, just to address one samll portion of your frothy fantasia, vastly more Iraqi innocents are be killed by Iraqi and foreign "insurgents" than are so by American forces; and rather painfully obvious is the fact that mistreatment of prisoners IS an unacceptable aberration. Very strong action is being taken against the perpetrators.

Eric, you state "vastly more Iraqi innocents are be killed by Iraqi and foreign "insurgents" than are so by American forces;" but there is evidence to the contrary.

You might read this article 'Knight Ridder Scoop: Iraqi Civilian Casualties' http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000642386

This information comes from the sovereign Iraq government, from people who are living in Iraq. It may be tempting to assume that most of the casualties are caused by the "insurgents", but perhaps bombing in the middle of cities (no matter now 'precise') may be a guarantee of civilian casualties.

yes, you will, and that is regrettable

A true Larkin classic. Although I can't help feeling a bit disappointed that there was no Bush-will-stage-a-coup-if-he-loses accusation tossed in. Maybe next time.

Well, the proof will come in the offensive Bush launches in Iraq after he is elected. I predict massive denial/apologetics for the slaughter.

who are stuck in a destructive atavistic mindset that is anti-modern, anti-democratic, theocratic, totalitarian, exceptionalist, resentful, and gravely dangerous to themselves and those who don't accept their worldview.

Sounds much like the American Religious Right to me.

perhaps, with the slight difference of large-scale terrorism

What about Timothy McVeigh?

The agenda of parts of the Religious Right is actually worse than the Islamists. The latter 'only' want to create a worldwide theocracy. The fundies literally want to blow up the world to trigger the Second Coming.

Islamism may represent the more immediate short term danger, but I wouldn't rule out fundie terrorism in the long term if and when they become seriously policially and economically marginalised.

I think the scale and scope of what we are talking about here is off by quite a few quanta. I thought McVeigh had it in for the federal government, not that he was trying to bring about the apocalypse.

Tim McVeigh was not religious, nor did he have any kind of significant organization behind him.

This stuff about American fundamentalists in these comments is just nonsense. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not trying to blow up the world. Y'all are just making that foolishness up wholecloth.

Not that no one in history has done bad things in the name of Jesus Christ, but certainly for the last couple hundred years, the Christian religion has been pretty well housebroken.