The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

IUSB Students go to Washington DC to Protest War

Posted by iusbvision on February 18, 2007

On January 27, under and supported by the IUSB club Students for Common Sense, five students joined in the “March for Peace” in Washington to voice a protest against the war in Iraq. IUSB students Andres Paz, Jennifer Hlawacz, Matthew Lopez, Erkki KochKetola, and Kevin Fuchs spent almost 12 hours on buses, a weekend of time and their own funds to join in the event.

Andres Paz, in speaking with the Vision, noted that participants at the March included celebrities, veterans and members of Congress.   According to Paz, the event began with representatives of various faiths including Islam, Christianity and Judaism praying for peace. The March also included various speakers including Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Jane Fonda.

“I participated to make my voice heard,” said Andres Paz. “In my opinion, this war has to stop and I wanted congress to hear that message.”

He also noted that the cost of travel was a considerable amount for full-time students. “The bus ride cost was $100 per passenger,” he said, ”but we were still willing to go.”

Andrew Filmer

62 Responses to “IUSB Students go to Washington DC to Protest War”

  1. Bret Matrix said

    I am surprised by the editorial staff, the headline should have read, “IUSB students go to Washington to embolden our enemy”.

  2. Erkki KochKetola said

    All we get is a couple paragraphs? Jeez.

  3. Anbrew Filmer said


    1. The article was sent past the original deadline; it was scheduled for the previous issue. It thus lacks recency in this issue.

    2. The word length is low, but two graphics were included in the printed form, and the overall printed area is nonetheless significant.

    Erkki and Bret Matrix,

    The point of the article was to indicate a significant student activity, not to take sides in the debate on the war. The headline and the length of the article sufficiently covered the news in that respect.

  4. Rachel Custer said

    Also, one of the things that makes our country great is that we can speak out if we disagree. Part of what those soldiers are fighting for is the right of anti-war activists to march and speak. And we shouldn’t forget that.

  5. Jarrod Brigham said

    The article was given an entire page, on page 3 no less. It was also covered in the Preface.

  6. Rashida Vindic said

    Its was like 5 students. Common Erkki, don’t get greedy!

  7. Chuck Norton said

    You guys will NOT want to miss my next article, as it is dedicated to you. :-)

  8. Erkki KochKetola said

    The soldiers are not fighting for our “right…to march and speak.” They’re fighting to prevent the Iraqi people from exercising their right to self-government by propping up a puppet regime that was installed by the United States for the sole purpose of carrying out US foreign policy, which in Iraq usually involves oil.

  9. Angrybear said

    Your right, this war was always about oil. Everyone knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we are all begining to wake up to the fact. These islamofacists, as right wingers like to call them, are nothing more than freedom fighters themselves, trying to kick an imperialists nation out of Iraq. These people dont hate us because, as some right wingers say, “we have freedoms and rights” they hate us because of 60 years of bad foreign policy, of supporting dictators who oppressed their people, of doing anything to get cheap oil at all costs, they are rebelling against imperialism.

    Angry Bear

  10. Rashida Vindic said

    Yeah, Get out imperials and come back Sadam, kill 100’s of thousands more. Its all cool because its about peace. I wonder how peaceful the Kurds felt. Why weren’t you out marching when they were being slaughter?

  11. Rachel Custer said


    How’d I know you guys would pick that sentence out and make it into an issue? I guess I should clarify; I was defending people’s right to disagree with the war, and I was referring to soldiers and wars in general, not specifically Iraq. There is no issue here.

  12. Chuck Norton said

    Dear moonbats,

    If all we wanted was cheap Iraqi oil we would have done what France, Germany, Russia and France did, and that was exploit the oil for food program to get cheap Iraq oil and than use the excessive profits for kickbacks. These countries were also exporting weapons material to Iraq in violation of the cease fire agreement and UN Resolutions.

    Kofi Anon’s son got money this way and Benan Sevan was Kofi’s hand picked guy to run the program, he was indicted and I will have to check to see if the trial has taken place yet.

    If all we wanted was oil we could have looked the other way on the sanctions and Saddam would have sold us all the cheap oil we wanted.

    What is ironic is that those who opposed the Iraq invasion at the last minute in the Security Council were the same ones getting cheap oil and kickbacks from Saddam.

    The moonbats said that the first Gulf War was only about taking Kuwait’s oil, but success has many fathers and no most of the moonbats who were saying that are saying now that they were on board with it from the beginning.

    So as usual, the moonbats are 180 degrees apart from reality. You are dupes or frauds, who could care less about peace, that are standing on your heads, screaming to the world that THEY are upside down.

    BUT on the other hand…..

    But anyways, why would it be bad to fight a war for oil? I would like to see how well some of your grandmothers get through a winter without heating oil. What will your flower colored VW busses run on? What will make the electricity to make the lamps in the closet go?

    Of course if the moonbats and eco-nut jobs would let us get our own oil and our own energy, we would be far less dependent on foreign energy. Instead Cuba and Mexico and China are building oil wells just off US Shores…

  13. Erkki KochKetola said


    Wars are never fought over abstractions such as freedom of speech and assembly. When the United States goes to war, it’s to secure American foreign policy objectives, which always include ensuring that capital is able to circulate, whether this means securing new markets or sources of raw materials or simply ensuring that old markets and sources of raw materials continue to be available. When the United States encourages war, it’s to secure American foreign policy objectives. When the United States prevents wars from stopping, it’s to secure American foreign policy objectives. When the United States prevents wars from happening, it’s to secure American foreign policy objectives.

    We are not altruists.

  14. Chuck Norton said


    You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    While it is true that we usually do not to into military action for purely altruistic reasons, it doesnt have to be in order for military force to be justified. However the way that we fight wars and the way that we nurse countries back to health contains several elements of altruism.

    Altruism alone is usually not a good enough reason to take military action, and neither are selfish reasons only, but rather it is a practical decision by making weigh of many different factors and making a political decision on a case by case basis.

  15. Erkki KochKetola said


    If the United States had been invited by a legitimate democratic opposition group, I would have had far less of a problem with this war. Indeed, I have never argued that Saddam was anything other than a brutal dictator, but arguing that the United States should remove brutal dictators wherever they occur is to hamper the United States government’s ability to secure its foreign policy objectives as noted above; we often put brutal dictators into power and prop up their regimes in order to ensure that national economies are run for the benefit of foreign elites. It would be hypocritical, therefore, to advocate going after Saddam Hussein without first insisting that people like Augusto Pinochet be put on trial for their crimes (which I have), or advocating toppling Pervez Musharraf or Hosni Mubarak (both US allies).

    Once the WMD and moral arguments for war are dispensed with, one is left with the fact that Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves of oil in the world, and over half the country has not been explored. The world would cease functioning without oil; petroleum products are ubiquitous. The United States realizes this, and wishes American and friendly oil companies to have preferred (if not exclusive) access to this oil such that American capital will benefit most from the profits generated from its exploitation. This is why we went to war in Iraq.

    Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated.

    Dunning, T.J., “Trades Unions and Strikes” (London, 1860), 35-36.

  16. Erkki KochKetola said


    While it is true that we usually do not to into military action for purely altruistic reasons, it doesnt have to be in order for military force to be justified. However the way that we fight wars and the way that we nurse countries back to health contains several elements of altruism.

    Is that why we’ve been systmatically reducing much if Iraq to rubble? Oh, I know, if those pesky Iraqis would just accept their lot, we wouldn’t have to blow the place up…

  17. Angry Bear said

    There has been many substantiated cases to prove that Hussein did not kill those people he is accused of killing, but rather it was Iran. If you like, I can show you evidence. Next, try this readers, start a unrising against your government, and see what their response is. Do you think they(the government) will use force, of course they will. Lee, even though he lost the civil war, was responsible for killing thousands of Americans, but do we call him a brutal dictator, no. Lastly, no matter what they amount is, the U.S gave him those weapons he used to kill kurds. The U.S has blood on its hands as well

    Angry Bear

  18. Rashida Vindic said

    Wow, you should have been his lawyer. What’s your defense for Hitler? I am sure he was justified as well.

    I guess your idea makes sense if you count giving your opinion and speaking publicy against the government as the attempt to overthrow it. These people were not running tanks through Bagdad and with poor Sadam left defending himself. They were nothing, political opposition speaking out against him, just as you would be considered to Bush, but lucky for you, you don’t have to worry about our government responding in sort.

    I am so tired of watching “peace groups” sit back and do nothing when people all over the world die in hords but when the US acts, its always for money or oil. What hippocrits. I love academia where every one sits back in their comfy seats and they tell us all how the world should work. They will never understand the complexities of modern intelligence, foreign policy and war fighting.

    Also, we gave him those weapons to fight Iran. What he did after that is on him!

  19. Angry Bear said

    My Friend,

    Those of you who supported this war have always said it was to stop he killing of people, oh wait, it was Weapons of Mass Destruction, no I am sorry, it was because Iraq harbored terrorists, well whatever reason our men and women are dying in a civil war in Iraq this week. Iraq is not the only nation that has the government killing its own people. What about North Korea, what about the tragedy in Darfur, and numerous other place to many to count. What about for the last 60 years, when we supported dictators who killed their own people, when we supported Iraq, even though we knew he was killing his own people. How do you justify that.

    Angy Bear

  20. Rachel Custer said

    Is there a perfect “moral argument” for war? War is, in its very character, a case of determining the greater good and compromising for that greater good; I don’t think there is any purely moral war. War is not about what is moral and what is not, but rather what is more moral and what is less. Of course, the greater good is considered different for different countries and peoples; thus, we have war. Even World War II, which I think most of us agree needed to be fought, was not fought for completely moral reasons. War is never good, and it’s a shame that we can’t find a better way to solve our problems.

    So here’s a question, Angry Bear – when the government decides its time to go to war with Iran, I will assume you will be for toppling that regime that you say killed hundreds of thousands? Or will you, more probably, decry that war for other reasons, despite what you’ve said here?

  21. Angry Bear said

    The bottom line is we invaded a sovereign nation and toppled its legitimate government. We cannot solve all the world’s problems, especially when we have so many here at home (think social and economic justice). If the Iranians want to overthrow their government, let them do it. The U.S has the largest military in the world, and this is why some third world nations refuse to dimantle their dangerous nuclear weapons programs and draw down their military. The U.S is the one who is keeping the world on the verge of war, not Iran, North Korea, or anyone else. If they didnt feel threatend by our arogance, they would be peacefull as well.

    Angry Bear

  22. Angry Bear said

    Anyone who wants to read the real facts about Hussein, I have left a URL. Please note, this is not my original work.

    Angry Bear

  23. Angry Bear said

  24. Rachel Custer said

    “If they didn’t feel threatend [sic] by our arogance [sic], they would be peacefull [sic] as well.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha….thanks for the belly laugh, Angry Bear.

    Yes, you’re right…if it wasn’t for the U.S. and our imperialist ways, there would be world peace. We are the source of all war, and before we existed, there was no war among these peoples. Your naivete would be cute, if it wasn’t so sad.

  25. Matthew Lopez said

    I went to Washington based on my own personal moral beliefs. I did not go to DC in order to have my name published in any campus publication. When it was, I never expected everyone to agree with my beliefs nor did I try to persuade anyone to change theirs.

    I have worked in government for twenty years, with both Democrats and Republicans, as Congressional Staff and in state and local government. One of the first things elected officials and new staffers learn quickly is respect for differing opinions and people. Without it, you have no voice, no matter your stance is. I have never been called a “moonbot” or any other slur by Conservatives or Liberals, Republican or Democrat at any time while I worked in government. As I read the comments on this blog; the personal beliefs that took me to Washington have completely lost in political spin.

    I will not debate my beliefs in blogs with faceless names. Most of you know my name and have seen my picture, along with the article about the trip. Look at my picture and stop me sometime in the hall or around campus. We can talk about why I went to DC. Then I will take the time to listen to your beliefs too….That means Respectfully Listen.

  26. Andrew Filmer said

    I just want to clarify my previous statement that the article was sent past the deadline.

    This means that the information from the students attending the event came past the deadline I provided, and not that I sent the article in late.

    I have absolutely no problems with the students… so long as they don’t pick on the reporting that was entirely dependent on their group (that means you, Erkki, in Comment No. 2).

  27. Andrew Filmer said

    Matthew Lopez,

    I agree – and I have mentioned this before – that comments on this blog could do with more civility.

    I’ll also note, though, that Chuck has been a victim of far worse.

    No doubt my fence-sitting position will one day be the end of me.

  28. Chuck Norton said


    Once again you simply have no idea what you are talking about. We are not systematically reducing Iraq to rubble. The reports are public record, more schools are open and more people have electricity in most areas than before the invasion. I could write my next 10 columns on the good news in Iraq, but because of your BS here, you just guaranteed that I will write a couple and you can rest assured that they will be filled with verifiable facts that you will find to be tremendously inconvenient.

    QUOTE Newsweek International Edition December 2006 –

    has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it’s doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to [the report]. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. – End Quote

  29. Chuck Norton said

    Erkki Part II –

    You said that once the WMD and Moral arguments are dispensed with LOL – I have already covered that but I will be happy to cover it again. The inspection teams discovered that instead of destroying most of the WMD stockpile in front of the inspectors like he was supposed to, he destroyed them in secret so that Saddam’s enemies would still believe he had the weapons.

    What the media didnt say but is in the inspection team reports and testimony is that Saddam illegally maintained several WMD programs in a state of near readiness to produce, including chemical weapons programs, long range missile programs and he was importing illegal materials to make those weapons and start up making them any time he wished. Saddam had the raw materials, people and labs just waiting and Hans Blix could not find them, but two post invasion 17,000 man inspection teams did.

    In the last 3 years here on campus I have published several articles with those inspection team reports, so if you want to have the WMD argument with me, you are going to end up on the same end of every argument you have ever had with me, the losing end.

    But dont worry, in spite of the evidence I still expect you and your fellow moonbats to keep telling the same old lies over and over and over again.

  30. Chuck Norton said

    Erkki Part 3 –

    Now let us deal with the moral and legal question as to the invasion. Fortunately I am a much better researcher and fact finder than most moonbats are liars.

    There are five actions that a government can take that give another country just cause to invade you.

    1. Mess with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. – Saddam’s pursuit of nuclear weapons since 1979 is so well documented that I am hoping that the moonbats try to deny this one so I can gloat while I am posting the evidence.

    2. Repeatedly attack your neighbors. – Ok, this one is a no brainer even for moonbats.

    3. Genocide (or the attempted genocide)of populations under your control – Marsh Arabs are GONE and he tried to wipe out the Kurds.

    4. Harbor international gangsters and thugs – Abi Nidal, Abbu Abbas, Carlos the Jackel, Zarqawi etc etc etc etc

    5. Violate a legal cease fire agreement – and what the heck lets add on 17 UN resolutions too, firing on our planes, importing illegal weapons, the oil for food program kickbacks.

    Any ONE of these is considered cause for another nation to take action and Saddam had actively engaged every single one with a special zeal that makes him almost unique among brutal killers who were heads of state….. and to think…… moonbats have often acted like they were Saddam’s apologist or defense attorney.

  31. Chuck Norton said

    But Andrew, you sit on that fence so gracefully brother :-)

  32. A Concerned Student said


    My comment was based on comparison to the full-page piece the Preface gave us.

  33. Erkki KochKetola said

    Oops. Guess that’s unmasked me.

  34. Erkki KochKetola said

    Chuck, you’re boring me. Come back with something new. We’ve heard these arguments time and time again.

  35. Angry Bear said


    Whatever the reason you rightwingers give for invading Iraq this week, it has been proven wrong. Our government got it wrong. Like you people on the other side like to point out, democrats said the same thing, but the difference is, even though Democrats thought Iraq has WMD, they were not in a rush to go to war like GWB was. They wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options first, unlike the greedy Republicans. Face it, Saddam was a mad man, and he wanted us to believe he had WMD, but they were probably destroyed after the first Gulf War. Do you think that if the President said our reason for going to Iraq was to free the people, that there would of been any support for this war. I DONT THINK SO. Those people who went to Washington are brave patriot Americans, and we shoudl all honor them. They understand what a mess this war is, and how it is illegal. When will you.

    Angry Bear

  36. Angry Bear said

    In addition chuck, lets look at each of your points.

    1. He was after WMD because we gave them to him, no matter how little of how much it was, it was still us who gave them to him.

    2. He invaded Kuwait in 1991, but he has been boxed in since then, did he invade anyone since then, no. But guess what, we have, so are we ripe for invasion?

    3. I have repeatedly cited sources on this weblog that dispute whether Hussein killed those people or whether it was Iran. Second, try this one at home kids, start an armed insurection against the U.S government, and see what the response will be. They will use force to put it down. Like I said in a previous entry, Lee killed hundreds of thousands during the civil war, but he was not brought up on war crimes.

    4. This point is all Bush administration hearsay, and has been proven wrong so many times. Like the story about a high level Iraq official meeting one of these people in Prague, ALL BS.

    5. What did you want the man to do, the U.S was violating Iraqi airspace on a daily basis, and the resolutions were for weapons that he didnt have, he was boxed in a corner.

  37. Rachel Custer said

    Matthew Lopez,

    I liked your comments. For the students who went to Washington, I sincerely doubt they were thinking mainly about the coverage they would or would not get in campus newspapers. I respect people who act on their beliefs; the only students who seem to have a problem with the coverage are students who were not even involved in the trip.

  38. Erkki KochKetola said


  39. Jennifer Hlawacz said

    Hi all,

    I’m glad that the article sparked some conversation among IUSB students. I just wanted to say that anyone who would like to participate in a pro-peace/anti-war event has the opportunity to do so. Students for Common Sense is organizing a bus to DC for the next march on the Pentagon in Washington DC. It is Friday, March 16 at 8pm until Sunday March 18 at 8am. Just 36 hours of your time to make a difference in this landmark event. The cost right now is $85 per person and is open to anyone, not just IUSB students. We hope to be getting some funding to bring the cost down for students.

    We will have a table in Wiekamp hall all of next week, the week of 2/26-3/1, if you want to sign up or for more info. Also, there will be an article in the South Bend Tribune in the next few days about this event.

    You can also contact me for more info,

    Jennifer Hlawacz
    President of Students for Common Sense

  40. Andres Paz said

    Anbrew Filmer: Thank you for the article… I’m happy… it was short, brief, and to the point. A picture speaks louder than words anyways.

    Erkki: I was my fault. I should have not forgotten to send the information on time. I’m just glad that an alternative message is being aired.

    To the rest of the readers:

    I went to Washington to express my discontent with the way the war effort has been handled. And please do not question my patriotism or my support for the troops. I strongly support our troops, and I want them home because I do no longer trust the in the current leadership or in the current military compentency. General Petraeus is a nice change in the military strategy, but to me, the change should have occurred over a year ago. For that reason, I cannot support this conflict anymore.

    I am a US veteran. I served in the Army until 2005. I used to be a Republican and I used to support the war… but I cannot support either anymore.

    I got tired of hearing arguments from the White House which go against common sense. I heard too many times the administration deny that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating. While my reports, and my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, were telling me that things were getting worse.

    I did not go the Washington as a Democrat… that is not the issue… it is not about bashing Republicans. It is true… I am not comfortable with the unconditional support that has been given by Republicans to the president. And I am not comfortable because democracy is about checks and balances. I believe in accountability, and I feel that my former party, the Republican party, let me down by not holding people accountable for the errors that have been made in this conflict. I don’t care if they are Republican or Democrats, if our government officials have committed error in their judgment, and our military service members pay the price for those errors, the government officials should be punished.

    I not mentioning which official has done what… but numbers should speak for themselves…

    Number of US soldiers required to secure the peace in Iraq according to former General Shinseki (before we went to war): at least 300,000

    Number of US soldiers currently in Iraq: 132,000

    Amount of money spent in the war: $379 billion (and the situation is worse than the beginning)

    Number of daily attacks by the Iraqi insurgency in 2004: 77
    Number of daily attacks by the Iraqi insurgency in 2006: 185

    Percent of Iraqis who rate current economic conditions as poor: 59 percent
    Number of corruption cases that have been filed since the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity was established in 2004: 3,500

    Percent of Iraqi elementary-age children who attended school last year, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education: 75 percent

    Percent of Iraqi elementary-age children who are attending school now, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education: 30 percent

    I love our troops… and for their wellbeing I want them home now.

    Source for my stats:
    The Institute for Policy Studies

  41. As many of you know, I am a veteran. I served this great nation for six years, in Desert Storm, and Operation Restore Hope. Many of my fellow veterans here on campus believe it is wrong for a veteran, a true veteran; to criticize a war when men and women are dying oversees. I respectfully disagree. Soldiers who have been victimized by inept leadership, who have been sent into harm’s way because of the “faulty reasoning” and/or reckless actions of their Commander-in-Chief, are not stripped of their honor when that embarrassing truth is finally revealed. They are simply victims who deserve our sympathy as well as our respect and gratitude for their willingness to take risks for the sake of others.
    A soldier’s honor is never dependent on the sanity or the rationality of his or her commanders. Soldiers never deserve blame for the wars they fight or for the failure of their efforts to achieve the fairy tale war aims of an incompetent leader. They are completely dependent on their leaders for wise direction. Given their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way on command, they have a right to competent leadership, leadership that will not put their lives at risk unnecessarily. America’s soldiers have been deprived of that basic right by George W. Bush.
    During World War II, German soldiers regularly served with honor in spite of the fact that their nation and their personal lives were ruined by a Leader who spoke to them often about Noble Causes. One of those soldiers would even become Pope one day. Hitler may have been criminally misguided, but he was just as adept as George Bush is at defining his foolish and ultimately futile military adventures as a supremely noble cause.
    Soldiers do not need to win wars in order to serve with honor. Robert E. Lee earned great honor as a soldier—-and the respect of those whom he fought against—-not because his “country” (Virginia) was fighting for a truly noble and rational cause, but because of his performance as a soldier on the battlefield. Lee ultimately fought all of his battles in vain, but that fact did not strip him of the honor he deserved.
    We who are opponents of this war are not the enemy of those who serve their nation with noble intentions; we are in fact their friend. When we ask the President what the noble cause our sons and daughters died for, we are not dishonoring any soldier; we are simply trying to help save them from continued victimization by their inept Commander-in-Chief. Our soldiers cannot help the fact that they have been misused and misled by their President, a man who has done more to ruin America’s reputation in the world in recent years than any other.

    If our soldiers come to realize that they have been sent into battle by an incompetent fool, then they will lose no honor upon discovering that truth. Instead of losing honor, they gain the sympathy of the American people. That means that they will gain in stature when all of the truth comes out. They are our heroes, but they are also victims who need our help and support. They need our help to protect them from George Bush.
    In speaking the truth, we are helping to restore some of the honor that George Bush took from them when he ruined America’s reputation around the world with his unwise, politically-motivated war.

    Scott Gorney

  42. Chuck Norton said

    Mr. Paz,

    Can you quote me a study from a group that isnt a marxist think tank.


  43. Chuck Norton said


    You say that you are bored with my arguments and facts. I am also bored with the fact that you have been unable to put a dent in them….but on the other hand, the undeniable fact that you have been running away form them all this time does provide me with a residue of amusement.

  44. Mr. Paz may not realize it, but he does speak for a lot of veterans. I too, was born and raised a staunch republican, but after examining policies and records of that party, I grew very discontent. We all believed that this war was worth the cost at first, but that was before we had incompetent leadership and no plan for the peace. How many more men and women have to die before we realize that we cannot win this war militarily, but by talking to people. What was the reason we went to war, WMD, no, to bring democracy to these people, who are we to impose our believs on them. Why did we go? I weep every time I see another soldier brought home in a body bag. Do you know why Bush 41 didnt try to topple Hussein in 1991 when we had alot more people there and alot more world support, because he knew that it would cost to much, in lives and fortune. His son is not as foresigted. We had almost 700,000 troops in Iraq in 1991, not two mention two U.S Navy battle groups (Kitty Hawk and the Constellation), and we barely sent over 100,000 in 2003 when the task would of been alot tougher, to tople a government. It just doesnt make sense.

    Scott Gorney

  45. Also, Chuck, why is it that if an organzation disagrees with you, they are automatically listed as “marxist”

  46. Erkki KochKetola said

    Chuck, I’ve defeated you plenty of times, you just refuse to admit it. That’s why you bore me. You trot out the same tired arguments over and over again, and act shocked when someone tells you they’ve already been defeated. It gets really old really quick.

    Also, do you ever have an original thought of your own? You always parrot everyone else’s talking points.

  47. Chuck Norton said

    Erkki, if you want to lie to yourself fine, but lying to me is rather pointless.

  48. Chuck Norton said

    Scott – I disagree with the Bush Administration on the border issue, have I labeled them as Marxist?

    The Institute for Policy Studies is as far to the radical left as it gets. I said that they are a Marxist think tank because that description fits them like a glove and there is decades of their history that demonstrates this.

  49. Chuck Norton said


    The post WW2 occupations were costlier than this one by far. So to say that we cannot win this militarily is pre-mature by a long shot.

    You ask how many men and women have to die??? Are you kidding? Considering the scope and size of what we have accomplished this is perhaps the least costly military operation of its kind in the history of warfare. In past wars, losing 6-10 thousand men in 1-7 days in a single battle was not uncommon.

    You said that we are imposing democracy upon them…. so please explain to me why so many millions and millions of Iraqi’s voted and showed off their purple fingers? Were each one of them compelled to vote at gunpoint by American forces? …. On the contrary Iraqi’s walked to the polls under threat of death from the enemy and voted.

    Nice try in trying to rewrite history Scott, but there are lots of vets and people who are paying serious attention to prevent such from going unchallenged.

  50. Chuck Norton said

    Angry bear, lets deconstruct your points one by one.

    Angry Bear Says Quote –

    1. He was after WMD because we gave them to him, no matter how little of how much it was, it was still us who gave them to him. End quote –

    Answer – the Stockholm Convention says that you are mistaken and the inspection team reports tell us that almost the entire Saddam WMD stockpile was domestically produced.

    Angry Bear says quote –

    2. He invaded Kuwait in 1991, but he has been boxed in since then, did he invade anyone since then, no. But guess what, we have, so are we ripe for invasion? – End Quote

    Answer – Yup he was so boxed in that international terrorists were coming to Iraq to hide, Saddam was sending money to homicide bombers and terror groups, Saddam sent his former chief of security to meet with UBL in Sudan in 1999. Saddam also had Zarqawi in Baghdad for a year before the invasion and even treated Zarqawi at Uday Hussien’s personal hospital.

    After Zarqawi’s wounds were treated he got several tons of WMD Chemical Weapons and trained a team of people in both Iraq and Syria for almost a year to drive 3 trucks filled with chemical weapons and explosives into the US Embassy in Amman, Jordan. The estimated casualties were estimated to have been 160,000 dead and injured if Jordanian intelligence didn’t manage to stop the operation a few days before hand.

    The inspectors had found uranium measured in tons and a great deal of WMD raw material and other prohibited weapons that were imported passed the sanctions.

    So much for containment.

    Angry Bear Said QUOTE –
    3. I have repeatedly cited sources on this weblog that dispute whether Hussein killed those people or whether it was Iran. – End Quote

    Answer – I remember that and I destroyed the credibility of those sources with a few minutes of fact checking, because they were full of it.

    Angry Bear Said –
    4. This point is all Bush administration hearsay, and has been proven wrong so many times. Like the story about a high level Iraq official meeting one of these people in Prague, ALL BS. – END Quote

    Answer – Just because the intelligence may have been incorrect on Prague, doesn’t mean that the rest of the info tying Saddam’s misdeeds was wrong. Anyone who reads the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bipartisan Senate Intel Committee Report and the Butler Commission Report knows that there were many instances when intelligence reports were right on.

    Angry Bear said –
    5. What did you want the man to do, the U.S was violating Iraqi airspace on a daily basis, and the resolutions were for weapons that he didn’t have, he was boxed in a corner. – End Quote

    Answer – The no fly zone was established to keep Saddam from wiping out all the Marsh Arabs and the South and the Kurds in the North. But what do you care…. they were just Arabs anyways right Angry Bear? I am always so amused when Arab hating moonbats act as Saddam apologists.

  51. Chuck,

    The difference is, in Germany in 1945, there was no one shooting at us, there were no car bombs going off, and we were working to rebuild Germany, the two cases are not the same. Second, you mentioned loss of life. Yes, we lost life in WWII in many battles, but we also gained something from it, land etc, or the enemy retreated. What do we gain today when men and women die in Iraq. You mentioned voting. How much security was needed to keep the voters safe, and big of a percentage of voters actually voted. This government in Iraq would not stand without U.S help, so is it a realy sovereign state, I dont think so. Until the violence ends, and people feel safe in voting, then we will be experiencing democracy. Also, democracy and our system of government are not the end all system. Some people dont want our system or style of government, so who are we to impose it on them. They could of just as easily voted for a communist system, or a monarch sytem. Finally, I think your right in your assessment of marxism or socialism, how dare people have a system in which all people are treated equal.


  52. Angry Bear said


    Everytime you get cornered, you pop out more souces that no one has ever heard of. I cited acutal souces that someone can go and look up. His WMD were not domestically produced, we gave them too him, and there are thousands of document that support this. Next, Iraq was boxed in, and there were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded Iraq, so your point is mute. And, yes he gave terrorists money, but one mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighter. Why were the terrorists fighting for, and who were they fighting. Next, I am new to this weblog, so please refute them again. Until you do, then I will assume they are correct. (LOL)
    wow Chuck, admitting it is the first step, I am proud of you for admitting that Praque may of been false. Admitting the problem is the first step

  53. Rachel Custer said

    I’m not sure the issue is whether or not we CAN win this war; if we wanted to and it was necessary, we could reduce Iraq to rubble with less than half of our army. The issue that I seem to see emerging is whether we really WANT to win this war. Bush’s “troop surge” has been acknowledged by military experts as basically useless; leaving politics out of it completely, if we want to win this war, we need to send enough troops in there to lock down Iraq once and for all, or we might as well get out of there. We have already had one war where the administration kept sending just enough young men into combat to keep the war going, when they had no real intention of winning. Either do what needs to be done to win, or give it up completely; there’s no use in just getting bogged down over there when there are bigger problems to be dealt with (Iran).


    On paper, Marxism calls for equality of outcome, it’s true. Unfortunately, things don’t always work out as well in practice as they do on paper. Historically, it has been pretty well shown that Marxism in practice means nothing of the sort. Would you contend that everybody was treated equally in Communist Russia, or that everybody is treated equally in Communist Cuba? I don’t see how any intelligent person (which I believe you to be) could make this argument in all seriousness. No economic system has ever been implemented perfectly, but at least capitalism strives for equality of opportunity, and there ARE many instances in capitalist societies where people who were raised poor have raised themselves up; in a Communist nation, the emphasis is more on bringing the highest achievers down. I prefer a system where elevation is possible, not one where bringing people down is mandated.

  54. iusbvision said

    Angry Bear,

    Iraq was not boxed in. I challenge you to debate that topic with me in the cafeteria using Lincoln-Douglas style debate…. but since we all know that you cant back up what you say……

  55. Andrew Filmer said


    I respectfully recommend that the posts under the name of “iusbvision” be deleted and reposted under your own name.

    I appreciate your clarification in Comment No. 55 but this is an area we have to thread with extra care.

  56. Erkki KochKetola said


    I’m tentatively interested, but I want to know what “Lincoln-Douglas style debate” is first (i.e., what you mean by it).

  57. Anonymous said

    Mr. Gorney:

    Re. number 41 above . . .

    I would have thought you would have learned your lesson about plagiarism.

  58. Chuck Norton said

    Google it Erkki for the procedure. Since wordpress is finicky about posting links. Some of the links have the long portion of each side at 5 minutes, some have it at 8 minutes, but you can get a good idea of it with a simple google.

  59. Chuck Norton said

    Hmmm anonymous interesting link.

    The save them from their incompetent leader part is especially entertaining, considering that this has been one of the most successful military actions in the history of warfare. All war is managed chaos but most people are to young to know what the consequences of a war can really be.

    Lincoln was called incompetent and all that during the civil war, and think of the number of Generals Lincoln went through before he found U.S. Grant. Lincoln also deported the “Peace Democrats” as he called them “the fire behind the lines”. Now Lincoln’s bust in on the first floor of our library.

  60. Anonymous said

    Mr. Norton . . .
    You don’t get it. My post was an effort to point out publicly that Mr. Gorney has once agained willfully plagiarized large portions of his post. I could not care less about the content of the post; rather, Mr. Gorney, habitual offender that he is, has simply done it again.

  61. Kevin C. said

    For God’s sake, Gorney! Is plagiarism like crack-cocaine for you? I don’t want to be mean, it’s just that I thought your #41 was pretty good post, just like I thought your articles were pretty good. How many times are you going to lie to your readers before enough is enough?

  62. Andres Paz said


    You asked me to “quote [you] a study from a group that isnt a marxist think tank.”

    I don’t consider that site “marxist.” Althought, I understand why marxist and socialists love that site… because it shows that things have not been managed well by our administration.

    Please, tell me which statistical data that I posted is incorrect.

    One thing is for sure, we spent $379 billion on the war… and the insurgency has grown in numbers, because it was considered to be much smaller at the bigining of the war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: