The United States of whatever ?

venezuela perhaps you're thinking of?

anyhow; good thing there's no oil in canada, ..... that's right, no oil here. hu? alberta? never heard of it.

on to a more serious point; it's obvious you know george w. has obviously picked a fight he knows he can win for dubious reasons; and your adutude towards it is alarming - "oh well". this is why americans are hated all over the place; do something about it. pressure your government, something for chirstsakes.

although, not like it would do much good. there have already been some substantial protests, i realize, that barely make any news, canadian news more than american.

Also keep in mind that anti-war demonstration doesn't invoke pleasant memories over here. Hippies, killer national guard, Joe Fish. . .

Honestly I don't know what to do other than vocalize my dissent. Even then you are like a minnow swimming against a tidal wave. If not suspected of being a secret pledger of Al Queda. And the government really doesn't care what a few dissenters think.

Or if it is publicized, it is usually in the context of: "Shame on these radical communist/leftists who hate America! How dare they criticize our brave president?"

Meanwhile, North Korea has gone crazy, accelerating its production of weapons-grade plutonium. And yet Bush has said that only diplomatic, not military, pressure will be brought to bear on North Korea.

Iraq, meanwhile, is not sheltering Al Queda operatives. Iraq does not possess operative nuclear weapons. Iraq has not gone crazy, and is co-operating with the UN. And yet Bush is going to invade anyway.

For oil. To protect Israel from 'the Muslim Bomb'. And to protect the Bush clan from assassination attempts by Saddam's agents.

Do we need reminding again that no country has ever used nuclear weapons in war except the US? The US is a fundamentalist state run by religious zealots armed with weapons of mass destruction, which has already proved it has no problem with the concept and practise of using them.

There is, however, another US, an enlightened and rational US, the one represented by the Constitution. It's up to everybody with voting rights in the US to use their votes to get the current administration OUT in 2004. Do it will all the vigour you can muster. Do it on your own behalf, and on behalf of those of us outside the US, who can't vote but will inevitably be affected by the disastrously misguided policies of the current regime.

I think he said we'll play diplomatically for now. There's a difference.

Iraq, meanwhile, is not sheltering Al Queda operatives.

You must get some pretty sweet intelligence from your Momus operatives to know the location of Al Queda.

Iraq does not possess operative nuclear weapons.

Not yet.

Iraq has not gone crazy, and is co-operating with the UN. And yet Bush is going to invade anyway.

Co-operating? Weren't they conealing massive amounts of weapons from their reports?

What I find odd is when opposition for Bush starts to sound like support for Saddam. One hole in the "see it's the oil!" argument for why we won't press North Korea like we press Iraq, is that the body count in North Korea will be much greater. That seems a reason to stay the hell out as long as possible. I mean just because there are other unstable countries with nuclear weapons, does that mean we shouldn't stop another from erupting?

Not trying to get ugly (I do realize I see things through Matrix-colored glasses lately), I just didn't see anything there to justify the insinuations of spin.

But don't you think that that sort of thing only contributes to apathy over the situation?

Not that I care or anything.

That and the recycled vietnam war era slogans.

But don't you think that that sort of thing only contributes to apathy over the situation?

I don't think that the problem is apathy so much as (perhaps justified) feelings of powerlessness. The result may be the same, but the cause is very different. Many people are simply unwilling to take the time to vote for which flavor of politician will be pretending to represent their interests. Or to peacefully march in the streets when their opponents are the only ones allowed to use weapons.

the latest from Bush himself is that Iraq could "cripple our economy"; true?

It seems a short step from cripple the economy to it's the oil, stupid. So it sounds like Bush may have been doing what you and Friedman were hoping?

Saying an attack on Iraq is being pushed on purely humanitarian reasons is ignoring the obvious, but that doesn't mean some humanitarian good couldn't come of it.

And not to pick on Momus again but: "For oil. To protect Israel from 'the Muslim Bomb'. And to protect the Bush clan from assassination attempts by Saddam's agents." Scratch "Muslim" and put nuclear or chemical, add in Saddam hording the wealth of his country while people starve, murdering all those oppose him, and those all sound like decent reasons to me.

besides his suggestion that he's aware of numerous weapons that Iraq's hiding (that's some sweet intelligence operation you've got going on there bnw! :P)

I thought both Iraq's attempts to get nuclear materials and their leaving out considerable information in their weapons disclosure were pretty well documented. I mean, when you can't even fool the U.N., you must be in the wrong. But I suppose we could give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. He has proven oh so trustworthy in the past.

Except for "The United States of SUCK"

And I'd wager that spotting things like anti-aircraft guns and missile silos is easier then spotting individual people using satellite photos. But you're right, that's all conjecture.

My feeling is that whether it is being falsely tied to 9/11 or not, I really don't care. If the end result is a dead Saddam, I think the world will be a better place.

Pretty strange of them to do that when the UN forms are still being observed -- Blix's report to the Security Council is the end of January. I suspect nothing will happen before then, if anything does.

Momus you're wrong about the Constitution, whose chief purpose was to shore up the rights of wealthy landowners. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a quieter, under-reported peace-loving (and non-hippie! though I think that whole "peaceniks are stinky hippies" line is so completely played out, it wore out its humor ca. "The Young Ones") contingent within the American public, the Constitution is the enemy of said contingent & its adherent philosophies.

The romanticizing of the Constitution = an enemy of good historical inquiry/understanding of U.S. politics

Unfortunately, that seems to have died with Thomas Jefferson.

The romanticizing of marriage = an enemy of good historical inquiry/understanding of the sexual behaviour of people who are no longer single.

The romanticizing of the highway code = an enemy of good historical inquiry/understanding of driving habits.

Etc.

= a different and possibly better title than The Charm of the Highway Strip.

Oh, please. Reading Howard Zinn much?

Amateurist: well, sure, and also the Constitution.

They both have the letters 'a', 'm' and 's in their names. IT MUST BE A PLOT.

Egads. These threads! Anyone in the middle is bound to get a headache for being thwacked by the pendulum swinging from one overstatement to another.

Well?

haha, Amateurist, Momus. Momus, Amateurist.

(to self: "the gringos they crazy")

(P.S. I did go to a talk by British journalist Robert Fisk in which he reminded us every 10 minutes that he met with Bin Laden.)

Momus, isn't with those of us who actively get out and vote, it's the American people (and as with the congressional elections just passed, at times the majority) who don't. If they are not/cannot/will not vote or going to vote, then not much may happen to change things.

i go out and vote every election. i voted for propasition 215 for example.(medical marijuana in california) it won the popular vote. the government doesnt reconize this. its still illeagal here. i voted for nothing. voting doesnt work.

My dad is a quiet cynic on many things (as opposed to my mom, an open and blatant cynic), and often has noted, "Well, the American democratic system isn't perfect but it's better than most other political systems." Generally speaking I'd agree, but yer thoughts?

I call my first witness, Australia.

Here in Oz, you get a hefty fine if you don't vote, it's that simple. You can register to vote by phone, online, by fax, by post or in person, but if you don't they kick your fiscal ass. Hence, over 90% turnout every goddamn time.

(correct me if I'm wrong, proper Aussies, I'm just an impartial Pom observer!)

I take your point but Prop. 215 is perhaps not such a good example -- even a statewide referendum can't override federal law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown v. Board of Education were similarly forced on states that didn't want it.

A better example of this is the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the President to withdraw troops if Congress votes against declaring war, and who do you think was the first person to violate that?

No, it's being made to shit its collective pants cos John Howard (Prime Minister) is a scary weasel happy to gently cup Dubya's lovely balls for the forseeable future. Since the Bali bombing last year (in which toalds of Aussies snuffed it), the protestations that "nobody would bother to bomb Australia" have fallen silent and we've all been told to be "alert if not alarmed" or something. It's fucked up - get on with your lives, people!

sorry, you're right - phrase gratuitously stolen from Charlie Brooker...

That's a good point. But loyalty has never been either's strong point. (Bin Laden will attach himself to whatever cause "justifies" killing Americans and Jews and anything remotely Western.) And when it comes to most hated, America kicks ass.

Does anyone else feel that there just isn't adequate information on this? At the moment the way one looks at "new developments" seems entirely hinged on what one already thought.

Is it true that it doesn't have a transferrable vote for the local and governmental elections? We all know it doesn't in the presidential, hence all that yelling at Ralph Nader last time (and also hence most of this mess).

I certainly agree Ronan that not enough information is out there on this - its a ground for political sniping with both sides equating the peace movement with a bunch of lily-livered liberals which is no longer anywhere near the truth.

possibly, but the fact that this opinion is put out there, and re-iterated is important surely. i think its a good cover, and pete is completely right about context, in a university room or whatever it might be seen as clever-clever posturing, but, out there in the world, millions of people getting this in their news rather than the same old murdoch conservatism is surely a good thing

(in other words, yes, to me, it may or may not seem simplistic or dumbed down or whatever, but thats not the point)

this is how public opinion is changed, and if public opinion swings away from it, then this can only be good...

EXCEPT

there is quite a large and worrying proviso, and that is, that if public opinion in britain is heavily against war, and america wades in, we WILL follow...regardless of public opinion, regardless of whether the british people want this war, it is difficult not to fear that winning over the public to something would seem an irrelvancy in such a scenario.

THIS is the problem. not apathy. powerlessness

btw the media hates them/us too, when I marched in November there was a front page article , but it talked about what people were wearing, the demographics, it became soft and fuzzy

??? This is a (generally extremely rare) case where transferable votes would have clearly helped!

* shit happens
* people are morons

Which may seem a strange or even hopeless thing to say, admittedly. But as I said, one can still think this *and* not like the situation as opposed to simply shrugging it off (ie, not voting, etc.).