Nick Denton writes: “The problem with the anti-war movement is that most of its participants were more interested in protesting against authority figures in their own lives, and indifferent to the plight of the Iraqi people. They have no conception of what it’s like to live under a capricious totalitarian regime.” You could also say: The problem with the pro-war movement is that most of its participants are unquestioning of authority figures in their own lives, and ultimately indifferent to the plight of the Iraqi people. They have no conception of what it’s like for Arabs in the Middle East. But it is a statement that is both empty and destructive, a viral meme. It would be a sweeping generalization that would contribute to further unnecessary polarization amongst the reasonable majority. It would be manufactured dissent. nickdenton.org: Conversation with a sceptic

“I woke up beside a running sewer and did not expect the day to smell of roses.” Democracy speaks, and in Baghdad at least, the jubilation speaks volumes. Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage

Iraqi Ambassador to th UN: “It’s Game Over” Whitehouse: “Its not a game and its not over” Two months ago. Whitehouse: “It’s Game Over” French Ambassador to the UN: “It’s not a game and its not over” Oh well the French are in agreement with one thing then.

“I have in mind those men in Washington who have given a new life to the missionary impulse in American foreign relations: who believe that this nation, in this era, has received a threefold endowment that can transform the world. As they see it, that endowment is composed of, first, our unsurpassed military might; second, our clear technological supremacy; and third, our allegedly invincible benevolence (our “altruism,” our affluence, our lack of territorial aspirations). Together, it is argued, this threefold endowment provides us with the opportunity and the obligation to ease the nations of the earth toward modernization and stability: toward a fullfledged Pax Americana Technocratica. “ The Atlantic monthly whose former editor Michael Kelly was tragically killed yesterday. April 2003? – no, 35 years ago, April 1968. Then: “Who was the aggressor — and the “real enemy”? The Viet Cong? Hanoi? Peking? Moscow? International Communism? Or maybe “Asian Communism”?”…

“As a member of one family that survived a bomb, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart: Bombing will never be the solution. “ The interesting thing about the Washington Post article is that although it raises an issue that I believe in, it is completely illogical. The argument is that bombing people makes people angry and increases the risk of terrorism. This argument is being put by someone who survived an Al-Qaeda bomb, but instead of reacting angrily and being in favor of the war she is against bombing. However noble her intentions, she disproves her own argument in the very act of proposing it. Its an interesting conundrum for newspaper editors – a victim of terrorism is a more credible proponent of anti-war, much like anti-war Vietnam vets, but the argument, that bombing only creates anger and revenge can only be made by someone who…