quoted:
===

Asked "Do you support or oppose the U.S.' taking military action in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power," 63 percent said they favor and 32 percent said they oppose, a result that surprised even the pollsters.

"The stereotype that one would have of the Bay Area would be that it is one of the hotbeds of the anti-war movement," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, based in San Francisco. "For a poll to show strong support of the war here -- that's major news."

FIELD POLL: 63% in Bay Area support war to remove dictator

quoted:
===

Easy to blame the war on those who love war; I blame it also on those who opposed it. They should have done a better job – produced arguments that smacked less of ancient ideology, found subtler people to express them, put language to better use than sloganising, sought the support of less obviously biased or hysterical groups, kept one issue separate from another, not turned the cause of peace into a ragbag of associated or not-at-all associated grievances, jeered less, cheered less, put their minds, every inch of the way, to the fears no less than the ambitions that fuelled the war, and why others, who were not all Bush's poodles, did not always think as they did.

...

Any decent peace movement could have picked me up and made me theirs in seconds.

As it was, they put a wall up, forbidding if you weren't already camped on the other side of it, if you didn't take it as a given that Americans were hyenas, or that the world's stockpiles of poisons would go away by wishing them away, or if you believe that only those capable of listening are capable of answering. And thus they left me out there, where I didn't want to be.

...

But if they couldn't address the concerns of a man in my condition – a nobody loitering by the banks of the River Indecision with his finger fluttering to his lips – how were they ever going to get through to the hard men, to Blair or Bush or Saddam Hussein, or to those who could get through to Blair or Bush or Saddam Hussein, or to those who could get through to those who could get through? The slow drip drip drip of mind-changing. And don't tell me that those who organised for peace never entertained such grandiose ambitions, because in that case who were they trying to reach?

I know the answer to that – one another.

If you want peace, preach to the unconverted - Howard Jacobson - from Argument

Christopher Hitchens is a liberal and a dedicated critic of Henry Kissinger and US foreign policy in general..

quoted:
===

Now hear this. Ever since [September 11th], the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence? Or perhaps you will let me restate it for emphasis. The government and people of these United States are now at war with the forces of reaction.

This outcome was clearly not willed, at least on the American side. And everybody with half an education seems to know how to glibly dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst? (I am exempting the frantic and discredited few who think or suggest that George W. Bush fixed up the attacks to inflate the military budget and abolish the Constitution.) But however compromised and shameful the American starting point was--and I believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence than most people can muster--the above point remains untouched. The United States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction.

Do I have to demonstrate this? The Taliban's annihilation of music and culture? The enslavement of women? The massacre of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan? Or what about the latest boast of al Qaeda--that the bomb in Bali, massacring so many Australian holidaymakers, was a deliberate revenge for Australia's belated help in securing independence for East Timor? (Never forget that the Muslim fundamentalists are not against "empire." They fight proudly for the restoration of their own lost caliphate.) To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is meaningless if the civilian is an unbeliever or a heretic.

Confronted with such a foe--which gladly murders Algerians and Egyptians and Palestinians if they have any doubts about the true faith, or if they happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if they happen to be female--exactly what role does a "peace movement" have to play? A year or so ago, the "peace movement" was saying that Afghanistan could not even be approached without risking the undying enmity of the Muslim world; that the Taliban could not be bombed during Ramadan; that a humanitarian disaster would occur if the Islamic ultra- fanatics were confronted in their own lairs. Now we have an imperfect but recovering Afghanistan, with its population increased by almost two million returned refugees. Have you ever seen or heard any of those smart-ass critics and cynics make a self-criticism? Or recant?

Chew on This : Saddam's crimes, al Qaeda massacres, Kurdish freedom, oil worth fighting for... and a few other things Seattle's potlucking peaceniks might want to think about this weekend., by Christopher Hitchens

From the pictures I saw of the market, plus the eyewitness accounts, it didn't look like it could possibly have been caused by a Tomahawk or a bomb, as the media were speculating. It seemed to have been a relatively small blast with a lot of fragmentation. My initial suspicion was Iraqi artillery - not AAA, but a deliberate artillery attack to pin the blame on the US. But Fisk's find has given me reason to revisit this. I now believe the cause was probably a US High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) fired from a USAF F-16. How do I know? Thanks to reporting from the blast site, with a lot of help from Mr Google. Let me run you through it briefly.

The serial number found by Fisk is almost identical to the serial number of a LAU- 118 underwing missile launcher, as described here.

This is the important bit. Note the P/N and CAGE numbers, which when put together look eerily similar to Fisk's number (30003-704ASB 7492):

NSN: 1440-01-500-8595AO
P/N: 704AS10896
NOUN: Launcher, Aircraft Guided Missile
CAGE: 30003
APPLICABLE: LAU-118 Launcher used on the F-16 Aircraft

Tim Blair - Bomb in Baghdad Market Kills 50

quoted:
===

CENTRAL IRAQ (AFP) - Iraqi civilians fleeing heavy fighting have stunned and delighted hungry US marines in central Iraq (news - web sites) by giving them food, as guerrilla attacks continue to disrupt coalition supply lines to the rear.

Sergeant Kenneth Wilson said Arabic-speaking
US troops made contact with two busloads of Iraqis fleeing south along Route Seven towards Rafit, one of the first friendly meetings with local people for the marines around here.

"They had slaughtered lambs and chickens and boiled eggs and potatoes for their journey out of the frontlines," Wilson said.

At one camp, the buses stopped and women passed out food to the troops, who have had to ration their army-issue packets of ready-to-eat meals due to disruptions to supply lines by fierce fighting further south.

Yahoo! News - Iraqi civilians feed hungry US marines

quoted:
===

Who Armed Iraq? A Ranting Screeds Special Report: It's come up often, and it's apparently becoming more common, not less, for critics, especially Our European Friends, to claim that America armed Iraq, especially in the '80s. So it falls to me, apparently, to list the facts.

For the purpose of investigating these charges, it is best to look at what Iraq had at the time of its invasion of Kuwait, because the accusations pertain to what Iraq was supplied with (passive voice deliberate here) in the decade or so preceding this invasion. Thus we need to account for whatever Iraq lost during the conflict to insure that there aren't any omissions (thus nixing possible accusations that America destroyed whatever it gave Iraq during the war to hide the evidence).

The main sources for the below are the Desert Shield Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman et al, GDW 1991) and the Gulf War Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Matt Caffrey et al, GDW 1991). Equipment will be listed by category, along with the nation of origin. For those scoring at home, items of AMERICAN origin will be highlighted thusly, and of European (FRANCE) likewise. As of 90/91, Iraq had the following:

Ranting Screeds - Who Armed Iraq?

quoted:
===

I ran across an article on the BBC News site this morning, "US peace activist killed in Gaza." I might have paid less attention, had it not been for the sentence:

The woman was identified as Rachel Corrie, aged 23, from Olympia, Washington.

Well, it's not every day someone from your town gets killed in the Gaza Strip, so I looked in the local paper, The Olympian.

...

The most plausible scenario, to my mind, is that the driver advanced slowly, expecting Ms. Corrie to chicken out in time; she lost her footing and in doing so was lost to the driver's view. Assuming she'd gotten out of the way, he continued moving forward, with fatal results. It's stretching the definition of the term "accident," but that raises the question to which extent any death that results from playing "Chicken" with a 54-metric ton bulldozer can be termed as "accidental." The point being that I don't think the driver intended to kill her.

NO CAMERAS - Weblog Entry - 03/17/2003:

The phrase "illegal war on Iraq" is being bandied about a fair bit. Greenpeace, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Canadian MP Svend Robinson (NDP) and Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett (Democrat), to name but a few from a long list, use the phrase as if there is no question about this war's legal status. Is this realistic? I think not.

For openers, where did this notion spring from that war is, by default, illegal in the first place? Possibly this is based on a narrow reading of Article 2 of the UN Charter, and especially the third principle by which the UN and its members are supposed to operate, which reads:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

If history—especially that of the Cold War—teaches us anything, it's that peace (if we take peace to simply mean "the absence of armed conflict") and justice have an annoying tendency of being mutually exclusive.

NO CAMERAS - Weblog Entry - 03/24/2003:

quoted:
===

San Francisco -- The anti-war demonstrations in San Francisco have proved to be a powerful magnet, drawing law-breaking protesters from as far south as Mexico, as far north as Washington state and as far east as Connecticut -- but only a minority from the city itself, arrest records show.

"Call them tourists with a cause," said Dewayne Tulley, a spokesman for the Police Department.

Officials provided a snapshot Monday of those arrested in the first two days of street-closing demonstrations last week following the start of the U.S.

war on Iraq.

Of the 646 processed by the Sheriff's Department Thursday and Friday, 239, or 37 percent, gave San Francisco addresses. The rest, almost two-thirds, came from out of town.

WAR ON IRAQ: The Home Front / Majority arrested don't live in S.F.

B A G H D A D, Iraq, March 21 — Three top Iraqi leaders — including Saddam Hussein's cousin, the infamous "Chemical Ali" — are believed to have been killed in what would be a major blow to the regime's defense against the U.S.-led onslaught, CIA officials told ABCNEWS.

ABCNEWS.com : Three Key Leaders Believed Killed in Baghdad