my anti-war stance in the debate over whether the us should initiate war with iraq has gone through many evolutions. more recently, peter, colin powell, and a dc taxi driver have forced me to deal with the implications of my beliefs. i did. here is the newest incarnation of my political belief regarding war:

initially, much of the anti-war movement was a reaction to the intellectual dishonesty ladden in the bush administration's rhetoric about war. the statements issued about iraq have included everything from claims of the existence of a biblical "axis of evil," to somewhat imaginative claims that iraq is an al queda a terrorist nation (and who can forget the ''wag the dog"-esque whispers of a long forgotten gulf war pilot, scott stryker, who we are now to believe is being held captive by iraq?) the US points for war have been refuted by diplomatic authorities just about as thoroughly as bush's blueprint for the tax cut has been battered by economists. the evidence that the govenment claims to have regarding the location of bombs they refuse to reveal to even the un inspectors themselves. the war agenda has not been presented and argued to allow for a referendum by the people... instead, it has been covered in a way that justifies bush's reelection as the war time president.

what if iraq has bombs? (well, frist of all, the united states got lucky). this it itself does not point the casual arrow to a declaration of war. far more serious matters need to be considered when discussing iraq's disarmament. first, in the event of an aerial attack on major iraqi cities, 200,000 - 500,000 civillian casualties are estimated to occur. second of all, independant of the un security council, the united states would be launching a preemptive unilateral war. such a war would be a crisis for international diplomacy.. and would set a very dangerous precedent for future interaction between global powers.

third of all.. peaceful diplomatic disarmamamet is possible. it is what is favored around the world, outside of the united states and britain. also, in the un, nato, and by the inspectors themselves, who have commented to news sources that iraq is cooperating with increasing agreeability. i only hope that cooler heads will be allowed to resolve this matter... while calling back the troops is not nearly as big and flashy as the current us plans for war, in the end, we need peace in the middle east. what will the us invest in iraq after it has torn it apart with bombs? what does this bode for global stability? what, even, about the significance of the lives of american soilders?

i've said my piece.

101 ways to make me hate your guts (in no particular order)

1 - consistently mispronounce my name: (i.e) chinyair, initchriyae, ms. easy...

2 - in regards to college admissions, comment to me, " it helped that you were black, right?"

3 - hold a nice, concerned discussion about affirmative action in front of me (while pretending that i'm not around), and conclude with the remark: "well, it just hurts them, because they really aren't qualifed [for college]. "

4 - tell me that activism is a waste of time

5 - drape a 'for god, country, and yale' banner on your wall, & not mean it as a joke

6 - be republican, libertarian, a democrat, or my favorite .. liberal politically & ecomonically conservative

7 - critique the welfare program, and somewhere in your argument express your discontement for "crack mothers" [who] "exploit the system for food stamps"

8 - be a left leaning person who doesn't know their shit

saturday was perfect. am i melodramatic?