We urgently need mass phone calling to L.A. City Council members from their constituents letting them know of your strong support for this resolution!

50 cities have already passed an antiwar resolution and Los Angeles would be the largest city in the country to take a stand against this war!!!

PLEASE CALL TODAY! Here are the phone numbers for each council member:
· 1st Ed Reyes 213/485-3451
· 2nd Wendy Greuel 213/485-3391
· 3rd Dennis Zine 213/485-3466
· 4th Tom LaBonge 213/485-3337
· 5th Jack Weiss 213/485-5013
· 6th Ruth Galanter 213/485-3357
· 7th Alex Padilla 213/847-7777
· 9th Jan Perry 213/485-3351
· 10th Nate Holden 213/485-3323
· 11th Cindy Miscikowski 213/485-3811
· 12th Hal Bernson 213/485-3343
· 13th Eric Garcetti 213/485-3353
· 14th Nick Pacheco 213/485-3335
· 15th Janice Hahn 213/485-3347

If these people don't have more to do than to listen to this nonsense, they ought to. All the problems L.A. has, they don't have one microsecond to spend jerking off with crap like this.

When I was coach at Forest, like a city councillor, my door was always open. Sometimes it was young Nigel with a tactical question, or maybe one of the young Dutch lads with a language problem. I dealt with all of the questions with equal patience and understanding. We won the European Cup one year, too.

All this "peace movement" is about is cheap opportunistic hatred of any and all things Republican. The "peace movement" wouldn't exist if a lefty democrat was in office right now and this War was immenent. You KNOW that's true. If Bush was about to end all clear-cutting and cut all funding to Israel, you all would be stumped for a moment but would definetely find a way to rally against his "fascist" machinations. So, give us a BREAK. The so called "peace movement" is a misnamed crock of shit. It's merely a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction to an overwhelmingly poular Republican president. And that, and only that, drives you all nuts. You all would sell every Iraqi baby down the river in a second if it would get rid of Bush and get one of your guys in.

Fresca - That's an excellent point. You've nailed it with that one.

If opposition to this war of agression were solely a movement of the Left your assertion might have some traction. Thankfully that is not the case. Take a spin over to APFN.org (hardly a Left-wing website). There are many people such as myself who are definitely "Right of Center" who oppose this war. One does not have to love blood and destruction to be on the Right. And as much as the left refuses to admit some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th Century were committed by governments on the left. (Stalin's body count makes Hitler look like he wasn't really trying.)
However, many of us on the "thinking" Right do not support this war of conquest. This is not a Republican/Demoncrat contest - it is a matter of humanity. No clear and immediate threat has been shown to exist. Every accusation by the Bush Junta has melted away from it's very lack of substance. Rusty warheads and College Papers. Spare me the jingoism.

Diogenes....let's be honest, to the extent that they think about it at all, MOST Americans are just fine with the idea of war. That's just not up for discussion. I know it and you know it. Now for those that are opposed, obviously, most of them are on the left. Of course some in the middle and in the right of center oppose it too, but the VAST majority are on the left. Don't ask me to cite numbers and don't post a few more links to non-leftist sites claiming otherwise. I was at the mid January "rally" in LA all day. I listened to the speakers and got first hand knowledge of all the fringe leftist groups who were there as well as the general mindset of the crowd, given the sub-causes they gave support through given their applause. There was and is, much more Bush bashing in this "movement" than pleas for peace. Don't even try to deny it and expect a meaningful discourse.
By the way, Bush Admirer, thank you.

Diogenes - You've been less than hones in this thread. Fresca has your number and I think you know it.

Opposition to this war is your basic leftist agenda. Those of us in the center don't see any reason to oppose the elimination of Saddam. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

You are not 'right of center' Diogenes. You are a left wing extemist -- way way over there on the left.

Do not flatter yourself with a self image that you're a centrist. You're not a centrist. You're a left wing extremist, period.

Now BA - why does your description of yourself as a “Centrist” occasion a broad smile. The word hutzpah comes to mind.

Def. Hutzpah N.: A man on trial for the murder of his parents pleading for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.

Politically BA whether you wish to accept it or not I am a Libertarian somewhere out on the far right hand edge. By many people’s standards I am a radical - I have this strong and persistent belief in the dignity of all men (and women for you PC sticklers determined to take offense) and I think Thoreau was close when he said “...the government that governs best governs not at all.” Although I am closer to Thomas Paines - “Government is at best a tolerable evil, at it’s worst an intolerable one”. I am a strict Constitutionalist in the J.S. Mill/Thomas Jefferson school and therefore object to the Bush Junta’s salacious assaults on the Constitution.

Because I hold the Democons and the Republicrats in equal contempt does not make of me a leftist. My favorite economists are Smith, Hayek, Friedman, Von Mises, and I am rather fond of Walter Williams. I used to describe myself as a Monetarist but am increasingly drawn to the Austrian School.

Being wary of “foreign entanglements” does not make of me a leftist. The desire for a peaceful solution to problems is not the sole province of the left. The difference in my position is that I have not seen anything which justifies a full scale invasion of Iraq and I question the motivation. I do not trust the government to tell the truth or keep it’s word. The only way you can turn me into a leftist is by torturing the definition all out of shape.

Just remember the three biggest lies:

The Check’s in the mail.

Trust me you’ll love the Army kid.

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. - Mark Twain

And Fresca: “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.” You can quote all the Bolshies you want but there is a significant and, I believe, growing skepticism on the Right. Some of us who supported Bush in the election have jumped ship out of conscience. Of course the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers would continue to support Bush even if he grew a cute new “Mustache”.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

Libertarians do have some attractive ideas. I've always found Ayn Rand to be an interesting philosopher, and I believe Libertarians got oganized around her works.

I particularly like their ideas regarding commerce, immigration, and free trade. I particularly dislike their vews on guns (they're opposed to gun control) and drugs (they favor legalization). I also think they tend to be a bit overboard isolationists where defense is concerned.

My view on Iraq is summarized by the TV Commercial which contained the line, "Pay me now or pay me later." Saddam is clearly a man on a mission, and his mission works to our detriment. He has plenty of money (via oil) to pay for advancing his mission. We're going to have to stop him sooner or later, and later will be more expensive.

You may not be a leftist Diogenous, but you do find yourself surrounded by a mob of those who are, bearing anti-war protest signs.

My travels to the Libertarian viewpoint was more a matter of reading widely and comparing. As well it is a philosophic mindset - I prefer freedom. Probably Milton Friedman was what first pointed me in the Libertarian direction. Ayn Rand has has had a strong impact on libertarian development but is by no means the sole philosopher of freedom. Actually I find her kind of self righteous and snippy. Most leftist dogma does not stand up under tight scrutiny. Communism and it's kissing cousin Socialism result in tightly regimented unfree societies. That has been the case in every regime relying upon these dogmas. The "True Believers" of the left try to dispute this in various ways but cannot point to one example of a successful, and Free, Socialist Society. It is the "Empty Set". Anarcho-Communists are kidding themselves by thinking that "this time it will be different". Communism and Socialism rely upon naked physical force to impose their dictates.

Which is why many of the placard carrying protesters, of whom I am quite proud, will eventually gravitate to a more Libertarian point of view. Most people just want to be free and left alone. This of course is an anathema to the totalitarian mindset found both on the Communist Left and Fascist Right. I have rejected the Republican Right because like the Socialists and the Communists they wish to foist their beliefs and dictates, by force, upon others.

Define Isolationism. If by that you mean we tend to our own knitting and do not engage in military incursions to support U.S. Commercial interests then: Here, here!

As for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is a threat only to tyrants. John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" provides the best introduction as to why. But in a nutshell guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are no danger to their neighbors. Crime and gun ownership have an inverse relationship in every honest study done - more guns in the hands of honest citizens the less crime. This is provable statistically. Take a look at Violent Crime in Britain and Australia since gun control. Both are experiencing a strong uptrend in violent crime, such as home break-ins and carjackings, because the criminals do not have to fear an armed home owner. The anti-gun argument largely relies upon cheap emotional rhetoric unsupported by real world experience. (It is like the Cynics definition of a Think Tank: “It is where a bunch of people set down to see if the real world works out in theory.”)
As for gun accidents they are sad, and heart wrenching, but more kids drown in Five Gallon buckets annually than by accidental gun death (per Center for Disease Control numbers). Children are curious and sometimes their misadventures go horribly wrong. However, the numbers of accidental gun deaths have been on a decline througout the 90’s. The press focuses on them and trumpets them because of the “Man Bites Dog” Mentality of the press. A “child safely handles gun” or cannot reach gun because the parent thought ahead is to them not news. Additionally I would suggest that the Mainstream Presswhores have a distinct pro Gun Control bias which permeates their reporting. I say all this having once been pro gun control myself. Do you propose “bucket control” to prevent toddler drownings?
Gun ownership in 1900 was much higher than it is now. The murder tally for the year was about 350 nationwide. We now have that, or higher, for the average city. Clearly the presence of guns is not the causal factor. Every major totalitarian murder regime in the 20th Century had tight gun control laws - Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The citizenry was left defenseless against their evil. As for me when you come for mine bring help. You will not find me going willingly to slaughter.

The Drug war has been ineffective at halting drug use. Again this is position I have reversed on having once opposed legalization vehemently, but I was convinced by the facts. Drugs are more available, and cheaper, than they have been at any time in our history. Where there is a market there will be a supplier. Let me repeat that: Where there is a market there will be a supplier. All tight drug laws due is make drug suppliers more vicious by removing the incentive to avoid “hard time”. Again going back to the Pre Prohibition days - there were no street gangs peddling dope in schoolyards. It was all done as above board commerce and there was no profit for the criminal element; and use was actually much less. The Drug War has only succeeded upon infringing upon the liberties of people who do not use drugs and filled our prisons to overflowing with people who need to be helped to break their addiction. The Drug War is a black hole for money and lives. However, there are vested interests getting rich off of the “Drug War” and puritanical Christians who cannot see past the end of their nose abet them. Most of the violent gun deaths in this country today can be traced back to the prohibitions and criminals using guns to kill each other - most frequently drug trade related. The two are inextricably related.

February 7, 2003 -- 72 cities and counties have passed resolutions, along with the Maine Senate and Hawaii House of Representative

http://www.citiesforpeace.org

Ultimately to “win” the war on drugs in the manner you propose would be at best a Pyrrhric Victory. Under the terms of engagement which you lay forth the resulting Police State is not one in which I would care to live. As well I think it unlikely that it would succeed even under such draconian measures. Oh, you might well succeed in drying up supplies of one drug or another but basic economics still applies - substitutes would be found. And I will state again “where there is a market there will be a supplier”.

The main arguments against the “War on Drugs”® are really twofold:

1. It is, has been, and will continue to be ineffective.

2. It’s impositions upon nonusers is unwarranted, unjustified, and unacceptable in a free state.

It is beyond the scope of a short post to explore these in any great detail however...

IT IS INEFFECTIVE AND BREEDS CORRUPTION:

Yearly the amount spent on this unjustifiable war has mounted and yearly the quantity of drugs entering the U.S. has gone up. Since the early 1970’s when “war” was declared the budget for such has gone from millions to billions (I don’t have the exact numbers handy but if needed I can dig them up). Drugs are now more available and cheaper than when it began. The only casualties being the lives destroyed by not addressing the problem as one of public health not law enforcement.

Further because of the vast sums of illegal loot to be had corruption has hampered the “Drug War” from it’s onset. Ex-LA Narcotics Officer Mike Ruppert maintains that the C.I.A. has used the importation of drugs as a major funding source for illegal off the books operations. (Mena Aiport, Bill Clinton, Oliver North) Such activity was acknowledged in the C.I.A.’s Inspector’s General’s Report (1998 or 99 if memory serves). The C.I.A. claims they have ceased such activities. However I would question that given that C.I.A. connected Afghani Warlords are expected to produce an Opium harvest up 4000% from Taliban Afghanistan.

As well there have been whistleblowers come forward from the Border Patrol alleging massive corruption within the Border Patrol. Oddly these allegations have been suppressed rather than investigated. I wonder why?

Some researchers into “the belly of the beast” suggest that U.S. Banking and Financial markets have become dependent upon the inflow of drug money.

As for playing this out until we get the top guys I am afraid under the current scheme that will not be allowed to happen. The tentacles of the drug trade would appear to reach well into the upper levels of government - including those making and enforcing the laws. If there is one thing we can learn from history that applies here it is that we have always been plagued by those for whom the lure of lucre is greater than the desire to do right. The laws are currently used only to eliminate “the competition”. You may think this a cynical appraisal - I call it acknowledging reality.

THE IMPOSITION UPON NONUSERS IS UNACCEPTABLE:

The cost as well has been in liberties infringed, or lost as in the case of unconstitutional expropriation of property under “forfeiture laws” which frequently have been exercised under vague and unjustifiable circumstances i.e., abused. The property is seized upon mere suspicion - even if innocence is proved try getting it back. Their are multiple well documented horror stories along these lines. No remedies for false accusation and/or unjustified confiscation were provided. Agencies that have unjustifiably confiscated property of innocent citizens have still refused to give it back and the courts have stated that they no authority under existing statute to help the injured party recover or to force the law enforcement agency involved to return the illegally confiscated property or money.

The other parallel line of argument is simply what business of the Federal Government’s how some person chooses to destroy their own life? Certainly there is no constitutional provision for the laws or tactics underlying it. While someone destroying their own life through the use of noxious drugs is sad and regrettable it is not and should not be any business of the central government. To grant such authority over the individual is to grant tyranny.

As for creating a new welfare class of druggies ahem, we already have it and will continue to have it as long as we do not attack the problem from the treatment end. There are effective programs that do get people off drugs and keep them off - of their own volition. In the long run treatment is much more effective and less invasive of non-users rights and liberties.

The fundamental problems of the so-called “War On Drugs” are really underscored nicely by your post and is reflective of the divide between viewpoints and mindsets.

There are those of your school - let’s create a massive frontal assault and go trampling through the countryside in full armor and attack the problem. How dare people be so weak as to use something I disapprove of. Of course the toll taken is not just upon those who are engaged in the despised activity but innocents taken in by the net. This is the “Authoritarian Mindset”. “I’m going to make you do what I think you should do”.

Then there are those like myself who find it regrettable that some individuals find themselves so frightened by reality that they have to retreat into a world of chemically induced euphoria. However, it is a problem of individual choices and however regrettable is not rightly the province of government to pass judgment on. It is the job of other individuals of good heart to reach out and help these people to help themselves. Incarceration for personal frailties is not a solution. This I regard as the win-win approach.

Thankfully there are effective treatment programs springing up which do address the problem on an individual level. In particular the NARCONON program has proven itself to be spectacularly effective. I don’t have current numbers but when I was last aware they had a success rate of about 80% - head and shoulders above any other comparable program. I believe they have opened up a new facility in a renovated resort that had gone bust. And despite some early resistance some Insurance Plans will pay for the services - again as they have proven effectiveness.

So, basically you eliminate the users desire, the user stops using, the market disappears and consequently the trade.

Please, trolls (bush admirer, fresca, etc.) do your RESEARCH.

There is a coalition of Republican business leaders, many Rebublican congress members, and several right leaning cities that are against this war.

Reality Check: While the US has a history of waging regime changes (1 + per year) when it is economically/politically convenient, we DO NOT have a history of waging preemptive strikes.

That's something rogue nations do.

Diogenes - We really do part company on this topic.

I've got less than zero interest in placating drug lords and druggies.

There is one way, and only one way, to deal with drugs. That is to escalate the war on drugs. We should fight to win. We've never done that.

Fighting to win means going after the drug lords with hammer and tong. They should have no quarter, and no place to hide. Natonal borders shouldn't be our concern. If there is a drug lord there, then we go after them with helicopter guns blazing.

Give them no quarter.

The idea of legalizing drugs is about as appealing to me as the idea of electing Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader President. Yuck!

Is caught in a warp.

The question is do you want to solve the problem or just pound your chest? And you really do need to separate dealers from users. One is a predator the other prey.

Pushers are scum and while I generally oppose such things as being pointless the image of a firing squad warms the cockles of my heart.

Users are another thing. While I do not approve of their behavior again I would point out that treatment is the saner route to go. We do not need to destroy their lives more than they have already done to themselves. While at first glance it might provide some self righteous self gratification by flogging them it does not solve the problem. For the cost of warehousing a drug user for a year in a penal institution you can put 2 or 3 through the Narconon program and reclaim them as useful citizens. Rather than keeping the revolving door spinning and continuing too pour money down a rat hole you eliminate the “drug lord’s” market.

As for your comment:
“There is one way, and only one way, to deal with drugs. That is to escalate the war on drugs. We should fight to win. We've never done that.”

Contrast that with:
“Communism works and it is the way to go we have just got to give it a fair chance. We’ve never done that.”

You sound like the Negative Image of a Bleeding Heart Liberal who wants to reward people for behaving irresponsibly.

When you reward non-production you get non-production. Whether it is counterproductive welfare programs that reward indolence and irresponsibility (which is not a kindness contrary to what the Bleeding Hearts seem to believe - you are crippling those people by not demanding that they behave responsibly.)

The Drug War has been ineffective and it has had a hundred fold increase in funding since it’s inception. It has produced nothing useful. It is counterproductive as it simply increases the reward for the crime.

The authoritarian mindset you offer will never get the job done - even with production line executions.

While you might find the prospect of such a society desirable I do not wish to live in a Police State.

I doubt that I have convinced you to change your mind. Then again I was not necessarily trying to do so. Only you can do that. Think about it.

And don't forget (and I do not care how draconian the drug law) "where there is a market there will be a supplier". Remove the user from the equation through treatment and you have solved the problem which I thought was the goal.?

Bush Admirer, can we take it that you support prohibition for alcohol and nicotine too? Or are you just another right-wing hypocrite?