  The Pro-America camp likes to argue against protesting with the following point: "Your ability to protest and think the way you do is supported by our government. We are fighting for that. " Well, we must not be doing too good a job of supporting freedom at home when organizations like the Baseball Hall of Fame urlLink cancel a tribute to Bull Durham because actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are anti-war, a stance that the President of the Hall says "puts the men on the battlefield in danger. " That quote - fascism. Exercising the right that Tim and Susan are - democracy. I mean, doesn't anyone find it odd that the anti-war people are the people who have protested our government's inability to usurp dictators who violate human rights?
Governments in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and other places treat their people much worse than Saddam did his. Yet the Pro-America folks are willing to look past that lack of action and instead rejoice in Saddam's fall. The push for war truly started in September, when Bush cited Iraq as a threat to the United States. It was about disarming Iraq. Then it was about regime change. Now it's about the liberation of people.
Why? Because the weapons aren't there. I want a government that doesn't spin itself one way when it suits them, and then goes another depending on how the wind is blowing. If you want to liberate people, stop supporting dictators in Saudi Arabia and those other countries. Stop supporting Israel. Work it across the board.
If we would just sit and think about things, they would make sense. Why is the majority of the free world (and almost all of the dictatorial world) against this? Party line answer = because they don't have the balls to do anything. Does that really make sense? If Iraq was a viable threat, wouldn't every country want him gone, as to not repeat World War II and Hitler. Ahh, Hitler.
He comes up so often in conversation. Anti-war folks calling Bush Hitler. Pro-America folks saying that we have to act so we don't have another Hitler. Both are wrong. Bush isn't Hitler any more than Clinton was; Bush is just a little more mindless than the quite mindless Clinton. And considering that Europe went to war with Hitler two years before America did, the argument that Europe is afraid of this guy doesn't hold shit.
Objective viewpoints. This urlLink blog entry from Harvard is supposed to be ironic. At least I hope. Who is to blame? How about we take a page from urlLink Bowling for Columbine and say THE MEDIA. It's all about perspective.
The media doesn't give us any. They spend six months talking about Iraq and its disarmament, and suddenly, when the United States decide to go to war and label it OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM&copy;, the media steps in line. And that's what they think is right: "We're just calling it what they call it. " Well, by doing that you're immediately slanting the coverage to an American standpoint. And you're pretending that past history didn't exist. The rhetoric about "Iraqi Freedom" only started after Bush realized that disarmament didn't hold water.
But after a month of Operation Iraqi Freedom&copy;, people forget about that and see this as a vigilante mission, or a freedom fight. The media is bias because of its penchant to be unbias, and report "The Day's News. " But the day's news means nothing without perspective. 
