Saddam sets oil wells on fire.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The bombing in 1998 was not an invasion, it was a bombing like others that have gone on there for over a decade.

This is a bunch of nations, really one really powerful nation, going in and playing God with another sovereign nation. Whether you agree with that or not, it still raises the stakes from the past Gulf conflicts.

The protests were much smaller in 91, too. Bush was in the White House. Not as many "hypocrites" then, either. Why not?

[mburbank]

Are you sure it was "Libyya"?

That's a really sound point. Good work.

And maybe it's me, but a few small town protests seems proportional. Here we have an all out invasion, shock and awe, the biggest non nuclear weapon ever and along with it, nationwide, sizeable protests.
That makes sense to me. Do a small but nasty missile attack, get a small protest. Do a whole war, get a big protest.

Did I vote for Clinton, even once? No sir, I did not.

I do seem to recall a very large fracas generated by the president putting his willy in the wrong place and then lieing about it, though. That struck me as something of an over reaction, especially concidering president Bush the Firsts forays outside the marital bed and lies to congress (Out of the loop on Iran contra.)

Is that foam I see coming out of your mouth? Don't come vibrating to me with your festering Clinton hatred. I'm not his standard bearer. I just think your jealous 'cause his surplus was so big.

[Vibecrewangel]

and there are plenty of people who DO support war with Iraq, but feel that Bush did a very bad job presenting his case

I am one of these........

[FS]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

I don't care what you say. Their might have been a few home town protests but NOTHING near what's happened as of late which demonstrates the sherr hypocracy of the left.

Are you sure Ron, check your dictionary. Are you sure it was "sherr hypocracy"?

[mburbank]

FS is right, Naldo. That misspelling pretty much shoots down your whole argument.

Naldo, when you get so worked up over Anti-Bush protesters and anti Bush sentiment, aren't you hating their free speech? You should actively support and embrace it. Free speech is what America Stands for!

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm not hating anything except their lack of respect for the facts.

[Bennett]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

You think you might have seen a sign that condemns the man responsible for not disarming and causing the war.

Sorry it took me so long to get back on this one...

I'm sure that Hussein watches channel 10 action news, and would have been greatly moved by a "Stop Saddam" sign. People are protesting the war and our president, because supposedly, that is something that they (we) have control and influence over.

[theapportioner]

I'm not hating anything except their lack of respect for the facts.

Haha! If we are talking about facts, or the lack thereof, you'd have far fewer people supporting this war. It's about ideology, bucko.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81673,00.html

....yet environmentalist libs still support him.

I am a liberal, and I loathe Saddam. As do almost all of the anti-war protesters. Why do you oversimplify this issue and accuse us of being pro-Saddam when all we did was disagree with a foreign policy?
Sadly it is too late to turn back now. Its has begun, and hopefully it will end with minimal bloodshed and a new Iraqi government.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

"...because we all know he was planning on burning those oil wells today anyway. This is the a prime example of why environmental libs protested a war, because they knew things like this would happen." - Bennett

That's funny. I don't remember seeing one sign protesting Saddam or telling him not to set them on fire.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Do you really, honestly think that would stop him?! Seeing as he is 1. a ruthless dictator and 2. has nothing to gain by keeping the oil wells intact, why the hell would he listen?

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

Are you sure Maxi, Check your history. Are you sure it was "Libyya"?

Don't attack spelling. Its juveline.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

It didn't stop you people from calling Bush, "Hitler".

Why do you continually over-generalize and lump all liberals together as having the same faults?

[GAsux]

I must defer to my sense of integrity and support Ronnie on one point. It is probbaly the only thing I will ever defend him on.

Anyhow, Ronnie's point with regards to Max's protesting Libya comment was not just to point out the spelling error. He was being a smart ass and pointing out that the cruise missile strikes in August of 1998 were against training camps in Afghanistan and a "suspected" chemical weapons plant in Sudan, not Libya.

Ronnie's plan was to justify himself in disregarding every point Mr. burbank made because that one small part was an error.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"The bombing in 1998 was not an invasion, it was a bombing like others that have gone on there for over a decade."

The protests started was before the invasion.

"This is a bunch of nations, really one really powerful nation,"


Great Britian is a really powerful nation.....not like us but still.

"going in and playing God with another sovereign nation."

I know you're only defending Saddam's sovereignty but as you well know is a murderous dictator and the people their have no say......so I say the hell with his sovereighty.

"Whether you agree with that or not, it still raises the stakes from the past Gulf conflicts."

Nope. Clinton bombed civialian targets in both Iraq and Kosovo.

UNLIKE BUSH!

The lights are still on in Baghdad. You can't say the same for Clinton's attacks.

Where were the protests?