We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Americans must come…

Thousands were slaughtered on the streets of Liberian capital of Monrovia during the intermittent civil war in the mid-1990s. Now there is more killing as clashes between troops loyal to President Charles Taylor and the well-armed rebels have intensified. The French military commanders based in nearby Ivory Coast felt they had no option other than to order an evacuation of United Nations staff and foreign diplomats from Monrovia.

But unlike in Sierra Leone in 2000, when British troops remained in large numbers on the ground for months, the French commanders ordered their men to leave Liberia as soon as the foreign passport holders had been rounded up.

Our sole mission is to proceed with the evacuation of Europeans and other foreigners upon the demand of the French government.

The rebel groups now fighting for control of Liberia have been accused of voodoo-driven atrocities that have almost become the norm in west Africa – with prisoners cut to pieces so rebel soldiers can eat their vital organs.

For Liberians who did not have the option of being rescued, the immediate future looked grim and thousands of Monrovians continued to gather around the city’s main soccer stadium desperate for sanctuary. Fanny, a Liberian refugee who had trudged for two days to reach the stadium said:

There’s no food anywhere. People are dying. The Americans must come. We want peace.

Thanks to Dissident Frogman for the link.

40 comments to The Americans must come…

  • Susan

    Sadly, there are some people in America still living under the influence of the drug “peace, love and understanding” and cannot fight. They have been brainwashed to believe that wars lead by America to free oppressed people are merely hegemonic.

    Fotunately, most Americans are beginning to awaken from our drug induced haze.

  • The Americans must come, eh? So we really are the world’s saviors and not its hegemons, then?

    But I don’t think we’ll come.

    For one thing, the European backlash against American military intervention in Africa, a place where our dealings have been solely (if unwisely) charitable, would probably be ten times the size of the reaction against our intervention in Iraq. Europe’s attitude toward Africa is even more proprietary than its attitude toward the Middle East. For another, there’s no case, however subtle, that the Liberian terror poses a threat to any interest of America’s.

    America is powerful, but we’re not all-powerful. There’s a limit to what others who can’t solve their own problems should reasonably expect from us. And there’s this: once we were in Liberia, how long would those who so ardently desire our intervention remain hospitable toward us? How long would it be before “Yankee Go Home” was the watchword of the day?

  • Francis… I think by ‘Europe’ you mean France. It is really only the French who give a phuk about what happens in Africa these days.

  • Neil Eden

    I notice no shrill cries for intervention from either Gabriel and Perry. Does that mean that they are supporters of Charles Taylor and the civil war in Liberia, just as people not in favor of the war in Iraq were supporters of Saddam? Certainly the justification for attacking Iraq (bad things were happening there, no proven threat to our interests needed) exist just as richly in Liberia.

  • Of course I would be happy to see Charles Taylor overthrown. Not just for the usual reasons but also I have personal ones. When Taylor came to power, he had an old school friend of mine shot dead by his people for no other reason that he had the misfortune to be the son of a member of the previous government. Not surprisingly I would love to see Taylor hanging from a meathook as a result.

    In reality, there is no reason whatsoever for the US or UK to actually do that however. Executive Outcomes had totally stabalised the military situation in Sierra Leone before the amoral morons in the Foreign Office pressured them into halting their highly successful military operations there… resulting in the UK having to evatually send British forces to undo the damage a couole years later.

    A private sector outfit like EO (no longer trading) or Sandline (who are infact the same outfit rebranded) are more than capable of organising the takedown a piece of shit like Taylor and if the toxic states of Europe would just butt-the-fuck-out, problems like Taylor, or for that matter Mugabe, could be solved with hardly a penny of Western tax money or any western state army being involved at all.

    THAT is much closer to what I regard as the ideal solutions to tinpot tyrants rather than what happened in Iraq.

  • T. Hartin

    Neil, here is where you go off the rails:

    “no proven threat to our interests needed”

    Au contraire, Saddam Hussein was indeed a proven threat to our interests, however you define them.

    No one, but no one, doubted that he had WMD stockpiles and the capability for making more, when the war was launched. The very foolish, who already sacrificed their credibility with chickenhawk arguments, or quagmire predictions, or whatever, now foolishly bet the farm on the US never finding any WMD or capabilities at all. You are welcome to make that bet, of course, but I will decline.

    Saddam Hussein also had a proven record of attacking his neighbors, something that I believe the odious Mr. Taylor has refrained from.

    Saddam Hussein also had a record of attacking the US, via assassination attempts and terrorist proxies, something else Mr. Taylor has refrained from.

    Saddam Hussein had numerous and undeniable ties to all sorts of nasty terrorist organizations, who were killing Americans either intentionally or by accident, yet another thing Mr. Taylor has refrained from.

    Finally, of course, Liberia has absolutely zero strategic significance or connection to the worldwide Islamic terror networks that the US is fighting.

  • Saddam Hussein also had a proven record of attacking his neighbors, something that I believe the odious Mr. Taylor has refrained from.

    Are you kidding? Taylor is the engine behind much of the entire region’s woes. Without his backing, the horrors in Sierra Leone would have ended years ago… in fact it would be fair to describe the events in Sierra Leone as a proxy-war being waged by the government in Monrovia.

  • Neil Eden

    I don’t understand. I read your site pretty regularily and I don’t recall anyone on the staff advocating the sending of the EO and Sandline into Iraq. I’d like to know, what’s the difference between the two countries, Liberia and Iraq? By the logic you guys have already set up, sending in American and British forces to Iraq was solely justified by the fact that Saddam was a evil dictator and was killing people. This certainly seem to apply to Charles Taylor (especially if what you said about your friend is true). If “the toxic states of Europe” won’t “just butt-the-fuck-out”, then aren’t our two countries troops beholden to go in there? You liberventionists have always been a little vague on this topic.

  • The only vagueness is your understanding of where we are coming from. Clearly you just have not read enough of our propaganda to understand our views on the subject. There are perfectly good ‘private sector’ solutions to many of Africa’s problems, a fact which was proven in Sierra Leone and then promptly undone by the British Foreign Office. That is why they need to butt-out.

    At the risk of stating what should be blindingly obvious, the difference between Iraq and Liberia is one of scale. Professional non-governmental military forces capable of taking down the likes of Ba’athist Iraq do not exist in the world at the moment (more is the pity) but they most certainly do for 95% of Africa’s tinpot tyrants.

    So when it comes to Iraq, in the real world we were left with either doing nothing or using the lesser evils to take out the greater evils. The options are vastly greater in places like Liberia.

  • Will Allen

    If Taylor had significant influence in a region that was critical to supplying the most globally important natural resource, and the exploitation of that resource provided fascist elements the means by which to slaughter Americans in massive numbers, then the United States would eventually no longer tolerate Taylor’s behavior. Thisis not meant as criticism of U.S. policy. The reality is that it is no longer tolerable for the Middle East to be dominated by fascist/Stalinist thugs, whether they be of the secular or theocratic variety, and Hussein was easiest to target by overt means. The people of the Middle East need to be provided the opportunity for self government. If the people of the region then use the wealth they control to continue the pursuit of goals now favored by their fascist elements, then they will receive an extraordinarily harsh education, nearly historically unprecedented, of the costs of waging war against vastly technologically superior enemies. This would be gigantic tragedy for all involved, including the victors, but it is an unavoidable outcome if the people of the middle east indeed decide to use what means are available to them to wage war. It is more likely, however, that if given the opportunity to develop means of self government, the people of the middle east will do what free people often do; trade what they have that others find valuable for what they in turn can gain from those others. In any case, when the current roster of the region’s thugs have been given the full Mussolini, the people of the region will have the opportunity to choose their future. It can only be hoped, for everyone’s sake,that they choose wisely.

  • T. Hartin

    Perry, I will defer to you on Mr. Taylor’s aggressive activities, as I don’t follow events in Africa in sufficient detail to know which tinpot butcher is slaughtering people in his own country and which is having his proxies slaughter people over the border.

    In my defense, I will say that I don’t believe Mr. Taylor has sent the Liberian army over the border in an official invasion, unlike Saddam in Iran and Kuwait.

  • Interesting to hear about Executive Outcomes and the FCO in that part of Africa.

    Can you tell us more about that incident, Perry?

  • What prevents American or British citizens from pooling their money, getting armaments, and going over to help the Liberians without government intervention?

    Liberia has an estimated population of 3.5M. That’s about 1 South Carolina, 3 New Hampshires, or 1 Los Angeles (city limits). A few thousand Anglosphere volunteers, well armed and trained, and committed to helping end the terror in Liberia, could make a huge difference. In comparison, Los Angeles’ “thin blue line” was made up of between only 6000-8000 sworn police officers at any one time throughout the last couple of decades of the 20th century.

    If all the people outside Liberia who clamor for the US government to DO something would just DO something themselves — whether contributing money, weapons or supplies, or going over to fight — just imagine how quickly the balance would shift in that conflict.

    Such an “Intervention by American Citizens” would honor our heritage (especially the heritage of private support for the movement that established Liberia in the first place), respect our institutions, and serve to promote honest goodwill between peoples (unlike, I fear, the ongoing Iraq operation).

  • I am all for that, James. Such things are by no means without precedent though they do not always turn out as hoped (ranging on the fiasco scale from William Walker’s adventures to those rather more successful actions of Cecil Rhodes, to name but two). Not that I am holding either up as paragons of a desired New Order featuring host of competing private military groups (TyrantKillers-R-Ustm? Coup d’état Incorporated?). And for course there are the many mercenary operations in Africa post 1945, a significant portion of which did not end it tears. In truth, your idea is not as fanciful as it sounds.

  • I hasten to add that my notion only sounds fanciful in a world where people have been accustomed to colossus nations striding around the world with big sticks, establishing the impression that only massive national military action can get anything useful done in situations like this (or even in situations as insignificant as Grenada or the Falklands). Even the socialists believed in volunteer foreign freedom fighters back around the time of the Spanish Civil War, or during the Bolshevik revolution, but very few people of any political or ideological stripe seem to subscribe to that idea in the modern day. That is only a failure of ideology or imagination, of course.

    I don’t claim that volunteer intervention in Liberia will end as well, or as relatively cleanly as US/UK admin sources are claiming the “shock and awe” of the Iraq war has ended. I just think that the problems that will inevitably come from establishing the US or any other nation as police (de facto OR de jure) to right the wrongs around the world will spill over to affect orders of magnitude more lives, adversely, than the problems of the volunteer freedom brigade scenario.

  • T. Hartin

    Part of the problem with putting a volunteer force on the ground is one of scale and organization. Having well-intentioned, and even well-armed, folks dribbling in ones and twos would be useless or worse.

    You need enough of them to make a difference, arriving all at once (or nearly so), organized to act coherently, and with a common goal, not to mention the supply tail that even a few thousand light infantry require. Those are not inconsiderable barriers, and once Sic Semper Tyrannis Inc. has boots on the ground it will have only begun to suffer from supply and financial problems.

    And what happens when the French show up to install a new government after SST Inc. has done all the heavy lifting?

    These are not insuperable problems. They are, however, very serious issues that would have to be addressed before private sector tyrant killers could go to work in Africa, or anywhere else.

  • Jacob

    T. Hartin is right. Given the problems of organization and logistics – the private armies would need to have the full backing of some giant Government. Just imagine that while saving humanity, their bank accounts are frozen by some new administration back home; or, while on leave, they are arrested by Belgian gendarmes for having failed to get France’s stamp of approval.

    Leviathan states rule the world.

    Still, since the US seems to be short of the needed manpower to police Iraq – it should consider outsourcing. Contract several of those outfits, and give each a province to police and pacify. Great possibilities there.

  • The US has no strategic interest in Africa. Why should American soldiers get killed in a place where we are not wanted? Wasn’t Somalia a big enough disaster? I hope the US stays the hell out of Africa.

  • David Mercer

    Well, if the US is going to get in the preemptive dictator removal game in a serious way, Congress could always use the “Letters of Marque or Reprisal” clause to make up a shit list of tin pot nasties, and authorize privateers to go after them. At least that way their bank accounts wouldn’t get frozen, and would keep the Belgians off of their backs.

    And it would sure as hell help their liability insurance rates, and help insure that they were able to collect any offered bounty for successful completion (with victory/stabilization conditions defined on a case by case basis, of course).

    Hell, if you’re going to adopt Regime Change as a policy, why not do it the American Way, and let folks compete to remove the scum?

  • “Leviathan states rule the world.” -Jacob

    Well, THAT certainly has to change. And, given the general, demonstrated incompetence of most leviathan states to do more than beat hell out of each other — and even that on a relatively temporary basis — I expect the change will come.

    As far as the legal consequences for members of the hypothetical Freedom Brigade, I must bow to Jacob’s superior foresight. One man’s Freedom Brigade is another man’s gang of stateless terrorists, after all. It just depends upon who is enforcing the draconian anti-terror laws on any particular day…

  • Scott Cattanach

    No one, but no one, doubted that he had WMD stockpiles and the capability for making more, when the war was launched. The very foolish, who already sacrificed their credibility with chickenhawk arguments, or quagmire predictions, or whatever, now foolishly bet the farm on the US never finding any WMD or capabilities at all.

    T. Hartin, you are one sick mamma jamma if you take the evident lie of Bush and Blair, leaders of your War Party, as an indication that those who opposed them are foolish.

    Didn’t Scott Ritter get savaged for saying that Iraq didn’t have WMDs?

  • Scott Cattanach

    At the risk of stating what should be blindingly obvious, the difference between Iraq and Liberia is one of scale.

    Just out of curiousity Perry, do you think the embargo against Cuba weakens or strengthens Castro (not Cuba itself, but Castro’s hold on power there)? Do you favor or oppose the embargo?

    My point is that an outside threat like, say, us, can be used by a tyrant to rally support to himself (“our leader is a tryant, but dammit he’s our tyrant”). Couldn’t our embargo of Iraq have done the same, and let Saddam blame the US for any economic problems, starving kids, whatever, even tho he was spending $$ on palaces and the like? (That’s not to say we killed millions w/ the embargo, its to say we left ourselves open to Saddam blaming us, regardless of the truth).

    Won’t our saber rattling, special ops, etc against Iran (even stopping well short of full out invasion) just strengthen the Islamofundamentalists? Doesn’t that argue against your “we don’t need to invade” stance concerning Iran if smaller steps can just rally support to their govt against outsiders like us?

    Are we more popular w/ the average Iranian now (and thus available as an example of free countries) than when we were interfearing in their lives in the 70s and 80s? We may be the “Great Satan” in their govt propoganda, but are we a threat to rally against when we leave them alone?

  • veryretired

    The US could create, as fast or faster than it ever could supply them, an imposing number (100?) of divisions of hardened foriegn legionaires by simply offering the possibility of citizenship after 10 years service, or, in case of death, a full college education and citizenship for any children of the soldier. The hunger around the world, especially in the former USSR affiliated and South American countries, for the perceived gold mine of American citizenship and an advanced education is utterly ravenous.

    We could also offer statehood to smaller countries in a phased in, decades long process of acculteration if they agreed to supply manpower for military, relief, or construction projects. None of these ideas are new, but could be considered as a potential tactic to overcome international (read UN) opposition, and/or domestic manpower shortages that would generate support for a renewed draft, which I oppose except in case of an emergency comparable to WW2.

    The dangers of this type of militarization and expansion of the polity are obvious and very serious. The permanent state of war that would be required to rid the world of all its Taylors and Mugabe’s over the next few decades might very well undercut any freedoms we were attempting to promote. The military procurement process and expense would also dangerously warp the economy, not only of this country but of any allies who joined in to be part of the winning team and share the spoils. But, since we are discussing edgy propositions, there ya go.

  • David Mercer

    veryretired, I”ve thought about stuff like that myself, and there has been some scifi written upon those lines too.

    If you extended Statehood to Latin America (or any other democracy) on phased in terms, you could very well stamp out terrorism world wide, but you’d probably see space totally militarized along the way by competing powers, if they were allowed to get a leg up in that area.

    Privatization of space and military adventurism feels less dangerous to me.

  • veryretired

    “The Tomorrow File”, a very prescient sci-fi novel from around 1970, had, as one of its premises, an expanded USA of 90+ states. Can’t think of the author’s name offhand. The government was clearly fairly far gone into a bureaucratic form of authoritarianism but not specified.

    The other is just a variation of the Roman technique, which we now use on a very small scale.

    I am not proposing we become the saviour of the world’s oppressed. I have no qualms about the pursuit of legitimate national interests, but little interest in Somalian, Bosnian, or other rescue operations based on the idea that we must stop all mean people from doing mean things no matter what.

    On another thread, one of the things being argued was how much everyone in the world hates us. I always find that idea amusing, since we could not count or keep up with the number of the world’s disenchanted who are ready to do almost anything in order to get here, just as most of our ancestors did.
    Whenever I read about how the people of Asia or Latin America or wherever hate us so much, all I can see in my mind is the image of those thousands who have literally thrown themselves into the sea on the hope they will float here. I live in a city which is home to many SE Asian refugees. Amazing people.

  • The author of The Tomorrow File was Laurence Sanders, better known for his present-day thrillers.

    For some further thoughts on the mess in Liberia and Africa generally, see this.

  • Scott Cattanach

    Wouldn’t the “de-Taylorizing” (for lack of a better term) of Liberia require conquest and occupation? The half measure of overthrowing the current tyrant and leaving it at that won’t do in Liberia any more than it would in Iraq, would it?

    Half measures can wind up strengthening the tyrant (we’ve overthrown governments thru the special ops, but don’t get warm and fuzzy democracies as a result), and you need to occupy to fully clean up the mess. Sounds like full invasion and occupation is the only possible route for any country anywhere.

    Maybe we should invade Eastern Europe. Perry has complained that they were insufficiently de-Communized since they had to rely on their internal resources, and the old Warsaw Pact is biggerthan Iraq or Liberia ever will be.

    Roll them tanks.

  • T. Hartin

    Sure, Scott, when it comes to Saddam’s WMD, I will take the word of child molester on Saddam’s payroll over the intelligence estimates of every nation in the Western world, as adopted in UN resolutions.

  • Scott Cattanach

    Is the DIA filled with child molseters too, T?

    Pentagon report found ‘no reliable evidence’ of WMD in Iraq
    By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

    07 June 2003

    A report by the Pentagon’s intelligence agency concluded last year there was “no reliable evidence” to prove Saddam Hussein had developed chemical weapons – further undermining claims from Washington and London that the Iraqi regime presented a genuine threat to the West.

    A leaked copy of the report by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) reveals that, despite extensive analysis, experts were unable definitively to conclude Iraq was either stockpiling or producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The report’s contents will add to the considerable pressure Tony Blair and President George Bush face as their pre-war claims come under intense scrutiny.

    “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities,” a summary page of the DIA report said. The report does not suggest Iraq did not have WMD. Indeed, it concludes that Iraq “probably” has such stockpiles. But its language is far more circumspect than that of senior Bush administration officials and the President himself, who insisted Iraq not only had large stocks of WMD but it was capable of delivering them in weapons….

  • It has been amusing to read the arguments for and against taking on Liberia and/or Africa. However, the point of the post is that a person in a far removed country wrecked by violence and oppression invokes the (evil, war-like and capitalist) Americans to bring peace to her people. Not the UN, not the French but the US.

    Just like The Dissident Frogman I thought that is the best argument against those acting out their hysterical anti-Americanism…

  • T. Hartin

    Scott, your very own post gives away the game on WMD. The Buncombe article states “The report does not suggest Iraq did not have WMD. Indeed, it concludes that Iraq “probably” has such stockpiles.”

    That’s all I have ever been saying. Having posted, with evident approval, an article that admits as much, are you also admitting that Saddam had the stuff, and that Bush and others (including Blix and all the members of the Security Council) did not “lie” when they said so.

    Or are you falling back to a position that claims only that Bush, Blix, and the Security Council were hyping the WMD, not lying about it.

  • Scott Cattanach

    Bush and/or Blair claimed Saddam could hit us w/ WMDs within 45 minutes. That was a lie. A bald faced absolute total lie. A total lack of honesty.

    They could not have sold this war by saying Saddam may have had some old chemical artillery shells lying around.

    Besides, you said that “no one, but no one, doubted that he had WMD stockpiles”, and the article above only said “probably”. ‘Probably’ is perfectly compatible with doubt. Without doubt, probably becomes certainly.

    Try to defend your precious government leaders again, T.

  • Scott Cattanach

    These are the claims you need to back up, T.

  • Scott Cattanach

    CHICAGO (NFTF.org) — Weeks after Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq collapsed,
    there are still no signs of his alleged weapons of mass destruction. Before
    the invasion of Iraq by the United States, the Bush administration claimed
    that they had specific intelligence proving that Iraq was in possession of
    weapons of mass destruction. For example, on October 7, 2002, the President
    stated in a speech in Ohio: “The Iraqi regime … possesses and produces
    chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” The
    President continued, “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding
    facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.”

    Full Text

  • Gabriel seems to be the only one who got the point of the post. The lady asked for us hated Americans to come to her aid, not the UN, the EU or anyone else. She wants the one country bent on world destruction, the breakdown of international law, calling for swarms of locusts on the fields of the poor and downtrodden, etc., etc., etc.

    The message is clear: if the problem is to be solved it is the Anglosphere — the Brits and Aussies aren’t ones to miss out on a scrape — that will get it done.

    I wish we could solve the problem but we just don’t have the wherewithall to handle everything, hyperpower or not.

    If we did go in there we wouldn’t do it like Somalia. That, like Vietnam, was a failure of the politicians. If we did it we would do it to destroy the regime, occupy it and establish the rule of law, among other things.

  • Jack

    Robert, I think the objectors have two points:

    If invading Iraq was good because Saddam is an evil dictator, why not Charles Taylor too?

    How come Libertarians are so keen on interfering in other people’s affairs?

  • Dan McWiggins

    If you haven’t read Kim Du Toit’s blog “Let Africa Sink,” I suggest you do so. Nothing we would be willing to do–in either Britain or America–is really going to permanently better the situation anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. If you want empirical proof of that statement, look at any inner-city black ghetto in either the U.S. or Britain. If we can’t manage to wean those blacks from criminality and vice and convert them to productive citizens, why should we figure we have the magic to do it in Africa where they’ve had even less exposure to Western civilization and values. Kim’s right. Nothing’s going to help until they decide to do it themselves.

  • I’d just like to assure Jack that Libertarians are not characterized by the need to interfere in other people’s affairs, at least, not through coercion or violence.

    For more background material, see the Advocates for Self Government’s informational website on Libertarianism and the American Liberty Foundation’s website in protest of the Iraq war in particular and all aggressive wars in general.

    The characteristic Libertarian position is non-interventionism, which is most often uncharitably mis-characterized as “isolationism.” For the most part, Libertarians encourage cultural, economic, and interpersonal relations between peoples of different nations and cultures, but do not believe that one nation or culture is justified in forcibly, aggressively interfering with another. Defending against and retaliating in response to attack is reasonable; pre-emptive aggression, or aggression even for “humanitarian purposes” is not.

    Many otherwise doctrinaire Libertarians went on the side of the neocons, in favor of the Iraq war, as long as Washington and London told lies about Saddam’s stockpiles of WMDs on hair-triggers. Not so many went along on the basis of liberating the Iraqi people, although that case was argued vigorously here on samizdata and in other fora. I and many other Libertarians I know or know of, didn’t go along at all. I actually sent letters to Bush, my senators, and congress reps, saying that I believed the war to be unconstitutional, and would view any attempt to prosecute it as both a violation of their federal oaths of office and grounds for impeachment. If the paranoids among us are correct, that probably landed me on a list of suspicious characters. If I brought some measure of heat upon myself for my rash actions in simply speaking my mind, it was still the least I could do as a patriotic American. People died and are still dying in this ongoing conflict, Americans, Iraqis, and others. If that isn’t worth going on record in protest — not to mention stronger measures — than what is?

  • Jack: How come Libertarians are so keen on interfering in other people’s affairs?

    For much the same reason as I intend to interfere in the affairs of a rapist attacking a woman in the public street in front of my house. Tyrants who run countries, murderers, rapists and other of their ilk have no rights to be left alone doing ‘their affairs’.

  • James Merritt: People died and are still dying in this ongoing conflict, Americans, Iraqis, and others. If that isn’t worth going on record in protest — not to mention stronger measures — than what is?

    Let’s be honest here… it is not consern for the lives of the ‘Iraqis, and others’ that got you to start protesting. Iraqis have been dying for 25 years at the hands of the Ba’athist Socialists and still would be if they were still in power, but I suspect that did not get you out on the streets. Stick to your ‘constitutional’ arguments because I am sure it has traction with other Americans who, unlike me, actually think the US constitution has any moral relevence to anything, because opposing the war on the grounds you care about the Iraqi people is preposterous.