The when and who will be us, the United States after we have overextended our imperial grasp and fade away from the world stage like Great Britain after World War 2.

My own perception is that all this wrangling in the UN over Iran's nuclear weapons is the "diplomacy" that GW Bush and his crew are using as a precondition for war with Iran. All the signs are pointing to a military confrontation with Iran of some sort. I hope we don't instigate and Israel starts the war for our sake.

The current War with Iraq and a possible War with Iran will be to us what World War 1 and World 2 were for Great Britain. The deathblow to a glorious empire that then fades away into socialism.

Then again, this 22 year-old graduate student could be wrong.

Sorry there is a typo. World 2 is supposed to be World War 2.

All naysayers,

In terms of destruction and lives lost on "our" side, the Iraq War is not even comparable to Vietnam much less WWI or WWII.

The other factors we have to take into account is the costs being imposed on our healthcare, education and social services systems by those crossing our porous borders. Then one has to take into account the aging of the population and the costs that demands on the working population and healthcare system.

War, caring for undocumented hence illegal immigrants and caring for the baby boomers who only relied on Social Security and/or some public employee retirement system in their older age seems to me a perfect recipe into imperial decline. Then again, I could be wrong.

How long must we sing this song?

YoungOregonVoter,

Today's crowd was not a bunch of "rowdy young college kids", even if the O's flickr site is picture-heavy with that group. It was truly a mix of all kinds of everyday people. This tells me that the opposition to this war is real, intense and pervasive.

We can't protest like this every day. But we can do other things every day. My car has signs on it - every day. If I see someone with a Bush sticker on his or her car, I leave a note (I have a supply in my car ready to go). I have signs in my front yard. I call our Oregon Congressional delegation, and other politicians, frequently. People don't want to do these things because maybe they are concerned about irritating their neighbors, etc. I can't be concerned about that when someone else's 18 year-old-son is in Iraq without body armor, without equipment, without training, driving around in an unarmored humvee! And there is no plan to get him home. I can't be concerned about irritating people when somone's son is at Walter Reed, living in a moldy room. I can't be concerned about that when war veterans are not getting treatment for PTSD and are living in shelters. Yes, someone might get mad and key my car. It's been keyed before. Do you want me to go to a gold star mom and say I'm afraid to make a statment because someone might key my car? I'm done with keeping my opinion to myself on this matter. In fact, I think that unless we all become a lot more outspoken about this personally, on a day to day basis, things are not really going to change. Some say, "well, there's a time and a place for that discussion". I say the time is always, and the place is everywhere. There's not a time and a place for a our troops to be safe - as long as they are there they are always in danger.

Michelle:

Thanks for the pictures and the report on the days events! Was that Tom Potter in a few of those pics? Good on him for coming out!

Glenlivid,

I honestly don't know. I did not notice him in person, but looking through the pictures there is someone who looks like him. I couldn't tell you for sure.

But, but, if we lose the War on Terror, this is what you can expect:

http://leenks.com/link68113.htm

Holy terrorist, Batman!

How many times have we heard Condi and George say "They only have to be right once". Meaning, that we are not and will never be safe from a terrorist attack because we have to be right every time, and they only have to evade detection once. This is true no matter what we do in Iraq. That bears repeating: This is true no matter what we do in Iraq. Even if we "win" - whatever that means - they still only have to be right once, and George and Condi have already confessed that they cannot protect us 100% of the time. Given that either way the risk is the same, it makes it difficult for you to persuade me that leaving Iraq will have the dire consequences you suggest - those consequences are already in motion thanks to George's need to act like a macho man on the world stage and start kicking a beehive.

Has the $500 billion we have already spent made us safer, or has it made the world more dangerous? $500 billion dollars would have bought a lot of security for our ports, our nuclear facilities, our airports, etc. Right now, we are wide open and that has not changed one bit over the past 4 years.

What a great Protest! Osama would be proud! I couldn't be there this weekend but did burn an Amerikan flag and an effigy of bu$h while I chanted DEATH to Amerika.

Peace out.

My favorite chant of the day was: "If Democrats could stop this war, what the hell are we marching for?"

One of the main speakers was our own Earl Blumenauer, introduced by Tom Potter as someone who had voted 4 times against the war. What Potter didn't say was that when it most counted, before the war started, Blumenauer voted to authorize the use of force. Potter should have said "four out of five", but that wouldn't have sounded as catchy.

True, Blumenauer has introduced a bill to get troops out in a year, but he still supports the free trade policies that are fueling much of the economic disparity that leads to war. He also supported the horrific bombing of Lebanon. For someone representing one of the most progressive districts in the country, this guy is too conservative for me. He's not even a member of the Progressive Caucus. Why he was invited to speak at the rally, and be thrust forward as a leader of the peace movement, is a question that baffles me.

You know...sometimes you just have to say something. I don't support this war and I never have but I have to face reality. The reality is we have a 51-49 majority in the Senate(1 Dem in the hospital and not able to vote right now). That is not a super majority which is what we need to override a Presidential veto. I know we all want our troops out. I know we all want them home safe but we have to face a certain reality. Because of the Republican majority for 12 years and a slim majority in the Senate President Bush is going to be able to do whatever he wants until 2008. Cutting off funding for our troops that are already over there is political suicide and any responsible person has to realize that. The Senate does not have a super-majority to override President Bush. As much as I want them to spend time on the Iraq war I think they could better spend time working on health care, stem cell research...things like that instead of wasting their time on a non binding resolution saying they want our troops to come home when there isn't a prayer that enough Republicans are even going to break within their ranks to allow it floor debate...lets get real about this.

"Cutting off funding for our troops that are already over there is political suicide and any responsible person has to realize that..."

So I guess all those Dems who ran for office with the promise to end the war were lying, correct? That, or they just don't have the guts to carry out the will of the people.

What a pathetic bunch.

Congress has to appropriate the money for the war. Congress does have the power to appropriate funds to operate the war for another six to 12 months and tell the president, that's it. Get it over by then and get the troops out. We aren't giving you any more money after this.

Now Bush could veto this appropriation, but then he's the one to blame if the troops don't have the resources they need. The blood would be on his hands.

Now Bush possibly would spend all the money right up to the deadline and come asking for more, just like he did with his daddy when he maxed out a credit card. So Congress would have to issue a warning a few weeks prior to the deadline to start moving the troops out.

This is basic parenting: you gotta learn to say "No."

"So I guess all those Dems who ran for office with the promise to end the war were lying, correct? That, or they just don't have the guts to carry out the will of the people.

What a pathetic bunch."

Well, the will of the people doesn't want anyone to cut off funding for the troops. Here are the poll #s as of March 9-11th. I believe you'll find an overwhelming amount of polls that say the majority of America is opposed to cutting off funding for the war. Look, it's political reality. We have to keep the pressure on the Republicans to show that they don't have the slightest clue what they're doing but the reality is we can't stop what is going on with the majority that we have in the Senate. Best case scenario is that the House approved cutting funding, the Republcians in the Senate stall it or if we use the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster then Bush vetos it and there is a standoff for the remainder of Bush's Presidency. If you think Bush will bring the troops home if the Congress cuts off their funds you're thinking process needs to be reevaluated. Bush will do something like direct funds from such and such program to the military and then he'll make the Democrats look like they don't support the troops. The rest of the Republicans will jump all over that and it will make the 1994 elections look like a happy day in the sun for the Democrats. It's called political reality. Keep the pressure on your reps to support a pullout and make the Republicans look bad. If they look bad enough before then maybe something will happen but things aren't bad enough for that many Republicans to start jumping ship right now. In 2008 if you've made the Republicans look bad enough you maintain the Congress and win the Presidency and then you can blame Democrats for not pulling out the troops. Until then don't blame Democrats that are doing their best. Here are poll numbers and a source to check up regularly.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

CNN Poll Favors blocking funds- 52% Oppose- 43%

NBC News March 2-5 Favors Blocking funds- 45% Opposes- 48%

USA Today/Gallup March 2-4 Favors blocking funds- 37% Opposes- 61%

ABC News/Washington Post Feb. 22-25 Favors blocking funds- 46% Opposes- 51%

AP Feb 12-15 Favors blocking funds- 29% Opposes- 68%

I wasn't too high to find this: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

Torridjoe...you're right. There is more support for cutting off funding after a certain date. This is the problem I see with that so please fill me on any other ideas out there.

Dems say that in 2008 we're going to cut off funding for troops if Iraq doesn't meet certain goals like putting forth their own police force.

What happends if they don't meet their goals? Do we actually pull out and stand on the sidelines when the bloodbath begins among the Iraqi people? Best case scenario is the Shiites just go genocidal on the Sunnis. Hopefully the Kurds don't succeed because Turkey will go into Northern Iraq at that point to stop the Kurds from declaring their own state and then they would have to deal with part of Turkey wanting to succeed to become part of Kurdistan. Turkey isn't going to let that happen. So then we have the Shiites cutting the Sunnis down left and right. On Iraq's borders are Jordan and Saudi Arabia which have large Sunni majorities. Do you actually think they're going to sit by and watch that happen? Nope...probably they will step in...the Iran is probably going to step in to help the Iraqi Shiites. Now...think about this...who in the world wants to stop the oil flow from these countries? Nobody...so a bunch of countries have to protect their interests. American's just won't stand for $4 or $5 a gallon of gas.

I know I'm being hypothetical but this is a reality. The Chinese sure as hell aren't going to stand by and watch someone else take away their interest in Iran's oil. Not only this but if we step out of Iraq now are we going to stand by and watch genocide happen? I know we've done it in Africa but we haven't directly caused any of those conflicts. As much as I hate our troops being there I think that they are the only thing standing in between the wholesale slaughter of millions of Iraqis and possibly a regional war.

A far better stance for our progressive cause would be to try to elect people who are going to convince countries like China, Russia, Britan, France...basically the UN...that they all have an interest and they should help us financially and militarily because now we have a govt. that isn't full of a bunch of assholes who don't give a shit about world opinion and genuinely know we screwed up Iraq but we need help fixing it.

I just don't think "pulling out" is going to solve anything. If we pull out and genocide starts its more blood on our hands. We already have enough and I don't want more. I hate the war but this is the corner we're in. If we pull out and everything goes nuts in Iraq do you not think the world isn't going to blame us for that too?

Torrid,

I'd love to agree with you. I realize that our Shia trained death squads are killing the Sunni minority. This is a problem that we created. Once again, I hate this war and we never should have got into in but now that Bush and the Repubs have screwed Iraq up this much how can we (as compassionate human beings) wash our hands and walk away?

Today's Froomkin:

As we enter the fifth year of the war, the debate over withdrawal has grown more clamorous. Evidence mounts that the American presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good. Large majorities of Americans favor withdrawing all troops within a year. A narrow majority of Iraqis call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces. But is Bush right? Will they follow us home if we leave? No. At least not according to a story in Saturday's Washington Post by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus. DeYoung and Pincus write: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the United States' most formidable enemy in that country. But unlike Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization in Pakistan, U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts believe, the Iraqi branch poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland. ... "Attacking the United States clearly remains on bin Laden's agenda. But the likelihood that such an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dramatic changes. Once believed to include thousands of 'foreign fighters,' it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said."

Having taught martial arts for 17 years and known a few police officers, I know the last thing you want to do is step in between two people who are fighting (domestic fights especially). You're the one who is likely to get clocked. Yeah, sometimes you have to do it, but if keep doing it, you end up enabling them.

Basically, that's what the U.S. is now doing in Iraq. We've stepped into the middle of a fight.

My suggestion is this: we step aside but pull out our wallet and show them some money. Tell the Iraqis we'll give them a third of what we currently are spending on the war over, say, three or four years, on the condition that they form a stable government and end the sectarian violence. If they can pull it off, they get a serious amount of economic aid money. If they can't, too bad.

I think people like Garrett ought to consider that the people of Iraq have had a very sophisticated and civil culture and they are not all barbarians. If left alone, they might just figure out how to end the violence by themeselves.

Gil,

I think I do understand that the people of Iraq were very sophisticated before we bombed them back into the stone age. I get it...that's not the point. We have trained Shia death squads. We've trained them to go out and kill and they've been getting revenge for the time the Sunnis ruled the Shia majority. Just because we leave its not going to stop. What I am saying (not just me, plenty of middle east experts) is that we need to get every country around that region and plenty of European countries to help us. This go it alone approach isn't going to work but if we walk away and say its not our problem anymore we risk genocide (I'm not saying its not already going on but it would be far more wholesale if we left) and regional war (Saudis and Jordanians come in to protect the Sunnis and the Iranians come in with the Shia; Kurds succeed causing Turkey to invade Northern Iraq).

I think Gil, that you need to stop thinking in the best case scenario. When does anything happen in the best case scenario? Yes we should offer them money and help rebuild their country...something nobody is suggesting. Maybe if we put Iraqis to work instead of having jobless rates in the 40-50% range we should be working on our reps to get US companies like Halliburton out of Iraq? Perhaps if Iraqis had work to do they wouldn't be so worried about killing each other?