Now they are supposed to shut up and send their soldiers to die – and for what? So that Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum can pump oil out of the soil of a "democratic" Iraqi? So that every country in the Middle East can be transformed into a Jeffersonian republic at gunpoint? So that Israel’s enemies are smitten, one by one, with the blunt end of American power, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians can proceed under cover of the resulting conflagration?

The whole strategy of this administration has been to scare the American people into accepting the abolition of their Constitution and a program of perpetual war. But the transparency of this attempt is what will defeat the warmongers in the end: Saddam Hussein can no more lob an intercontinental missile at us than he can put a man on the Moon – or shoot down a single one of our jet fighters as they bomb and strafe and enforce the "no fly zone" over Iraq on a daily basis.

They’ve been chanting the same mantra since 1990! That year, Dubya’s dad, in his Thanksgiving peroration to U.S. troops massed in the Saudi desert, declared "Every day that passes brings Saddam one step closer to realizing his goal of a nuclear weapons arsenal." According to Bush and American war propaganda, the Iraqis were about to nuke the Middle East. It was a lie then, and, after a decade-plus of draconian sanctions, and constant aerial surveillance, it is no less brazen a lie today.

It’s interesting, too, that the same stale images of World War II are being invoked now as they were then. Bush 41 averred that Thanksgiving in Saudi Arabia brought to mind "another group of Americans far from home" who also fought the good fight. "Once again Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful good-bye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore." Puffing out his chest, 41 roared: "Saddam is going to get his ass kicked!" to the cheers of his Praetorians. And he promised them that, this time, they would not have to fight with "one hand tied behind their backs," an obvious allusion to the myth that we lost in Vietnam because we held back (i.e. failed to nuke Hanoi). This time, he pledged, it would be different:

"This will not be another Vietnam. This will not be a protracted, drawn-out war. The forces arrayed are different. The resupply of Saddam’s military would be very different. The countries united against him in the United Nations are different. The topography of Kuwait is different. And the motivation of our all-volunteer force is superb."

Now can you see why 41 and 43 are fighting it out for control of American foreign policy? Because, this time, it will be a protracted, drawn-out war – perhaps not the act of conquest, but the prolonged military occupation that will follow.

As for the forces arrayed – this time, our Arab allies are opposing us, and our Western allies aren’t paying the bill. The topographical advantages are offset by the question of where to launch the invasion from – since only Kuwait, Turkey, and perhaps Qatar, will agree to host this particular party (in return for a good portion of party favors, I’m sure).

They key element is the motivation of our all-volunteer force – for that is precisely what is lacking. The opposition to this war within the military starts at the top, but it won’t stop there. The public stance of the generals is enormously significant, for it calls into question the legitimacy of the war-maddened clique that has seized the reins of power in Washington. We may yet succeed in stopping this war before it starts. And if that is "undemocratic," as the whiners in the War Party complain, then let them learn to live with it. If it’s "democracy" they want, both at home and abroad, then why aren’t they calling for a national referendum on the war question?

My message to the War Party is this: you want to export Democracy, capital-"D"? Well, why not start practicing it right here at home? We’re having a federal election coming up this November: how much trouble would it be to put the question on the same ballot? War with Iraq, yes or no? Let’s vote it up or down, and be done with it.
If we can guarantee a minimum of hanging chads, no foreign contributions, and a televised debate – perhaps pitting Richard Perle and Monsieur Murawiec against General Zinni and Scott Ritter – the Peace Party will win by a landslide.

I don't understand why fox hunting is a major issue when there are 14 million people dying of starvation in Africa and when a world war is about to break out. The fact that thousands of people are prepared to go and march for their right to torture and kill small animals - and thousands more are marching to stop them - just shows how morally screwed up the British are, whether left-wing or right-wing.

yeah, that's right dan, the torture and murder of small animals is irrelevant cos there are other problems in the world involving the torture and murder of larger animals !?!?!

Why is fox-hunting more wrong than slaughtering a cow for meat? Are you going to attack every meat eater as well? What about stepping on ants or swatting flies or using pesticide on your tomato plants? This "debate" is absurd. Let's deal with the realities facing the world, rather than this charade. The ecosystem is under threat from global warming and you want the whole country to be obsessed with fox hunting!

Most hunt sabs are vegetarian, they do not eat cows, sheep, etc, and they certainly do not kill for pleasure. Its not really about animals, it's about class, should the landed gentry, with their fox hunts and torture and massacre of defenceless wild life be allowed to continue their medieval backward traditions and practises, just becos mummsie and daddykins did it before them. The fight between landed snobby hoity toity gentry and a down to earth, creature of the land the fox, symbolises the struggle in our society between the haves and the have nots, the greedy/selfish bullies and the innocent/pure minded underdog fox. the fox is merely an animal who lives by his wits and instincts, the cruelty and savagery of the fox is unintentional, it knows no better, being an animal, the fox hunters on the other hand purport to be society's creme dela creme, high and mighty, upstanding citizens, what excuse do they have for their cruelty, backwardness, babarism and savagery, none. the fox hunters symbolise the greedy, the powerful and the snobby bullies, who believe they have a divine right to do as they please, to whom ever they please, just because they are rich and powerful. They believe that wild life and working class people are put on this earth, to fulfill their bloodlust and their every decadent desire. The landed gentry and the rich believe that the poor of the world and the working class, like your common and garden fox, can be squashed and crushed like flies, not so even slaves revolt.