No one is cheering for the death of Americans, Andrew, except the people we are "liberating." This may be hard for you to grasp, but much of the world would like to see the United States humbled because of our arrogance, our greed, and our unwillingness to work within the network of the international community.

I signed my daughter's contract to join the Army last night, and neither she nor her recruiter, who fought in the first Gulf War, felt insulted by the "No War in Iraq" sign in our window. But I would gladly let you go in her place.

-- Gaia Guirl

You're right when you assess that many in the antiwar movement are hoping, publicly or privately, for an American defeat in Iraq. I am among them. It's not that I hate the individual troops -- poor and very misguided people. It has to do with our concept of justice and our belief that this war is unjustified murder.

Take the O.J. Simpson trial. Just because O.J. paid a high-priced lawyer to get acquitted doesn't mean that I now support O.J.'s killing of his wife. In the same way, just because Bush and company paid a tiny handful of allies to support him in this illegal conquest, in spite of the overwhelming opposition of their constituents, doesn't mean I'm going to support the murder he now commits. Regardless of who bought who, Bush must be stopped for the sake of humanity.

Beyond the current aggression, the intentions of this illegal regime are clear. Just read the New American Century to see blatant plans for world domination. It's the American "Mein Kampf." When people talk of "not appeasing Saddam Hussein," comparing him to Hitler, it's such a ridiculous argument. There's nothing to indicate that Saddam wants to dominate the world in the way Hitler did. George Bush, on the other hand, clearly has this objective in mind. From his first action of rigging the Florida election to the present day, Bush has exposed himself, to any mind free of TV control, as the true enemy of peace, freedom and democracy across the world.

What people do notice is body bags piling up and obvious comparisons to Vietnam and Somalia. That's what it will take to check Bush's aggression to dominate the world, one oil-producing country at a time. Therefore, if America suffers a horrible defeat in Iraq, it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives in the long run.

-- Paul Seymour

Sullivan uses the old sleight-of-hand technique of assigning guilt for the extreme comments of a few to an entire movement. He asks that those opposed to the war repudiate those comments, which I am sure I am not alone in doing. One can deplore comments after they are made, but it should be obvious that there is no way to stop every spokesman for the antiwar cause from saying what he believes, repugnant or counterproductive as it might be.

I would ask Sullivan, where has he repudiated the comments of the extremists on his side? Ann Coulter wishing that Timothy McVeigh had targeted the New York Times; Richard Perle calling Seymour Hersh a "terrorist" on CNN, David Horowitz suggesting that antiwar protesters be interned -- those are but a few of the idiocies that we are subjected to on a daily basis from the right.

Disagree with him though I might, I have enough respect for Sullivan to know that they do not speak for him any more than the lunatics on the left speak for me.

-- John Manchester

Regarding "'A Million Mogadishus,'" by Andrew Sullivan, I am part of the antiwar right. I am a middle-aged Republican who does not believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, and who feels that North Korea is 10 times more dangerous that Iraq. I oppose this war because it's stupid!

As most of my friends are conservative Republicans, I've heard every reason why I shouldn't participate in a protest march. Here are some:

"Why are they protesting a war that hasn't even started yet?"

"We're at war now, the time for protest is over."

"Where were these protesters when Saddam was murdering his own people?"

And now, "If you protest, you are responsible for any far-left crazies who participate in the antiwar movement."

What these antiwar-protest protesters really want is a total ban on any demonstrations, unless it's a "support our troops" rally. But they'll never admit it.

-- Karl Spisak

Andrew Sullivan's article "'A Million Mogadishus'" is yet another warning coming from the right: If you oppose the war, you are a traitor. He uses the remarks of some unknown college professor as "proof" that the antiwar movement is some sort of "fifth column" and that if you are against the war you naturally support Saddam.

Well, I have some news for Sullivan and all the rest like him. We Americans are not going to stop exercising the most important right in a democracy, the right of free speech.

-- Edward Miechowicz

As I read Sullivan's article, I was watching on BBC the antiwar protests in Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Morocco. The sentiment in those countries (if not mainstream, pretty close) is what Sullivan attributes to the "radical left" in this country. In a way, that underscores the abyss between perceptions in this country and abroad. But it raises the question: Does Sullivan thinks all these people around the world are immoral, misguided or stupid? Maybe they need to be 'liberated' as well so they can see Sullivan's truth.

American arrogance is at an all-time high. It should occur to Americans that maybe the animosity harbored by non-Americans has a reason, and it's high time that Americans step down from their high horse and try to understand it.

I do not agree that the U.S. government is comparable to Saddam's, but once it chose to step down to Saddam's level and take a path that necessarily involves civilian casualties, it lost at least some of its moral high ground.

It is true that Saddam has killed civilians; by now, it is also true that so have the Americans. How can we be so sure that our killing is so much more justified than Saddam's?

-- Frederico Gil Sander

Recent Stories