At least nude protesting does not send American soldiers to their deaths to sacrifice on behalf of non-Americans.

Whoever supported this war based on "Iraqi Liberation" will clearly be supportive of sending American soldiers to Cuba, Africa and Asia to free others huh?

The altruists are in control and Americans cry tears for the loved ones they will never see again as a result. It is the usual immorality on an old theme.

"We are not colonists" and yet four military bases are now sought to be established in Iraq. The lessons of Lebanon and Saudi Arabia are so easily forgotten.

America has no right to a single acre of Iraqi land. Israel has right, biblical and historical, with archeological evidence as well, to every dunam of Judeah and Samaria. Yet America seeks to impose a "roadmap".

All who sought to impose their will on the middle-east have been thrown out defeated. The hubris, and frighteningly the religous zeal driving the Bush Administration thinks it will be different for them.

Thats what all thought, from the Romans to the British. It was not.

The middle-east is home to only Jew and Arab. It is these two offspring of Abraham who will endure only in that region of the world. If America seeks to learn this lesson the hard way then it is setting itself up well.

I wonder who Mr. Bush sees himself as? Ozymandias or Lawrence?

Heh, man, I'm in favour of Klotz's suggestion if it means more nudist anti-war protests!

As for the statement, "the middle-east is home to only Jew and Arab", what about Iran? You're not trying to wipe them out are you, you imperialistic war-monger. They ain't Jews and the ain't no Arabs neether. What about Assyrians? What about the Yazdis? What about the Circassians? Don't tell me you're in favour of ethnic cleaning?

I would consider Iran to be the Near East.

Would you kindly maintain a civil tongue.

"Ain't"?!! What is that? Something out of the Blue Ridge Mountains?

If the Arab world is the Middle East, Iran cannot be the Near East. The terms are vague in some ways, but they are clearly defined with reference to Europe. If the Far East is the farthest away, the Near East can't be further away from Europe than the Middle East, and Iran is further away than just about the entire Arab world. Try again, DK.

It is immaterial where you consider Iran to be. My point is that if the United States is set on ambitious courses that will, regardless how it is presented, make them de facto colonialists, they will be cruising for an inevitable bruising.

History is littered with "great nations" that have tried to tame the Middle-East.

get in, knock out the enemy, but do not plan for a long stay. Time is never on the side of a colonial power. And most importantly of all, the American voter will not like it.

Mark my words well:
if the Bush Administration still has the United States wrspped up in Iraq [and the casualities will mount] by the time electioneering is underway, this will be a one-term president. Historical precedent is on my side.

Even Churchill did not escape that one. Democratic countries tend to not relect leaders that have lead through wars.

I am glad to see that Don Rumsfeldt has put the kabosh on the four Iraqi military bases.

Either the New York Times had bad information; it was being naughty; the Administration was flying a trial balloon; the intention was leaked and the Administration quickly backtracked.

AINT is a useful hammer to drive a glimmer of the real world into the cloistered mind of the Urban Intellectual.

And if colonialists cruise for bruisings, howzit that Syria has sat on top of Lebanon since the 80s - exiling most of its Christians - without a peep from the International Community? How izzit that ibn Saud is sitting on top of Mecca with no regrets for his bloody conquest of 1925? Where's the reaction against the Wahabis putting up huge concrete mosques all over Bosnia? Let's hear some reflections.

>AINT is a useful hammer to drive a glimmer of the real world into the cloistered mind of the Urban Intellectual.>

What is an "urban intellectual? Is that an entity thought up by those who use "aint" in words other than paint or taint?

>And if colonialists cruise for bruisings, howzit that Syria has sat on top of Lebanon since the 80s - exiling most of its Christians - without a peep from the International Community? How izzit that ibn Saud is sitting on top of Mecca with no regrets for his bloody conquest of 1925? Where's the reaction against the Wahabis putting up huge concrete mosques all over Bosnia? Let's hear some reflections.>

Simple. They are not considered colonists by the Arabs. Hence, no "peep" from the "international community" [whatever that might be].

As for the Mosque thing - why would anyone complain? It is not America's business. And as for the European governments...: if you want to see massive mosque building I direct you to visit Southern France or The Netherlands for example.

Sorry, I thought that everyone knew that an urban intellectual was a purveyor of second-hand ideas. Eventually you'll learn, there's still hope.

And you see no parallel between Arabs sitting on Arabs as colonists, and the Brits sitting on the original 13? Or the Bolsheviks sitting on Ukraine? If race A conquers and exploits another country of race A, that's OK by DK?

And the Mosque thing - the Bosnian Muslims have been worlds apart from the fascist Wahabis for centuries, and those garish concrete thug mosques are a form of colonization in themselves. But you're unconcerned. Maybe it's you who's insufficiently sensitive.