[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

The London Times published this thoughtful discussion of reasons to be anti-war; it sums up a lot of what I've thought and said, but better, cause they're the Times and I am not. (The epitome of blogging, here: all I'm really doing is pointing to an article that agrees with me. But damn, it's a good article. Oh, and yeah: via The Volokh Conspiracy. Now it's a real blog post...)

Comments

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

That is pretty much the heart of my own issue with it all, in that I think that attacking Iraq just means we're feeling justified in all the worst of Imperialism by making it morally OK with the thought of "we're doing it for their people!"

Unfortunately, this isn't an argument that makes sense to many people, particularly Americans.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

It's an old argument, a recasting of the 'civilizing the savages' argument in favor of colonialism.

As an aside, I'm not sure that Shrub, Jr. is a "good man running [a] good government" though I don't dispute that Saddam is the reverse. Would a good man really be as eager as Dubya is to suspend civil rights (only for people who disagree with him, of course) and put lying sneaks like Poindexter in charge of national security?

[bryant]

I think Bush is a well-meaning man running a bad government. I think he sincerely thinks he's doing the best thing for the US, although he occasionally slips into self-gratification.

This isn't in any way an excuse, but it's something that's important to keep in mind; if you don't understand how the opposition thinks, there's no hope of progress.