Edited by author 01-31-2003 02:21 AM
Maybe you should get out more some guy, or listen to Pacifica radio if you're within their broadcast signal but there were protests of thousands over Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, there were also protests over his bombing that pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan and many over many other incidents. Do you recall Clinton's own war plans against Iraq being derailed by protestors at a Town hall type meeting with Madeleine Not at Albright in '97? There was plenty of protest on the left over Clinton's policies, you have to look beyond the Democrats you know, and oh, we didn't care much where he put his cock.

You know, Clinton did get away with a lot of crap. Some people were calling him on it, and they weren't conservatives. I think those are the people I want to pay attention to now.

This only thing a campaign like this ever does is give its target publicity and ammo. People never learn.

Could we please say things like "I hate Rush Limbaugh" instead so I don't mistakenly think everyone is dissing my favorite Canadian power rock trio?

I think it's fine for people to try to convince companies to stop advertising on Rush's show, even if he ends up being kicked off the air. I would be alarmed if the government shut down his show, though. That would be bad.

I hate Rush.

As a rebellious teenager, I was subjeced to hours of Mr. Limbaugh's demagoguery: my father *loved* his show. Every day, Dad usedto listen to Rush. I even read with one of Rush's books that was laying around the house, just to find out who this guy was.

I hate Rush.

But, let's not forget the big picture, if you really are pro-democracy: Rush has First Amendment rights, too.

I hate Rush.

What Rush says, I find to be repulsive and dangerous speech. But he has the right to say it.

I love that Rush has Freedom of Speech.

Of course, all these brave peace activists were protesting their assess off with Bill Clinton was President, right?

When he bombed Kosovo, they were in the street by the thousands, fightin' the power, right?

When we bombed Iraq, quite a number of times, activists across the globe rose up to urge our President to seek another way, right?

When he blew up that aspirin factory in Sudan, he had the permission of the UN, the EU, and the approval of Congress, and yet our valient warriors for peace were in the streets fighting once again for justice and global harmony, right?

Oh wait. Clinton was a Democrat. Never mind.

What? When was I President?

Why's anyone even care about Rush Fatpiggh anymore, much less bother throwing feces in yet another flame war commenting about it?

That overpacked dipshit was already old news about 15 minutes after Clitman became president.

iblis }()+

CowLord, the U.S. is only able to attack one country at a time. A few years ago it was the Balkans. Last year it was Afghanistan. This year Iraq. Next year someone else (or maybe still Iraq).

You should not ask, why Iraq and no others, you should ask, why is Iraq first in line? Why Iraq before the others? And maybe this question is easier to answer.

If you want to discuss the war with a group of very well-informed posters from the right and left, register at

cancom forums:

http://207.44.170.192/forums/index.php

"Letting Iraq know what WE know simply gives them an opportunity to kill the leak and hide the evidence."

In the words of Church Lady, how conveeeeenient.

The inspectors are there, now, and they're not amenable to playing games this time. They given notice that they will take steps to specifically designed to prevent last-minute relocation of stockpiles of schmutz.

Given this, *why not* provide specific locations of specific projects?

Again: *One verified instance* of an actual great pile of deployable chemical warheads would give the U.S. the moral high ground to call for a multilateral strike.

"1) This is a war for internationnal security
2) this is a war against an oppressive government

Which one is it? Will it stop after Iraq? I don't know politics or the world, but I'm ready to bet that there are a lot more countries that fit 1) and 2). "

This is a war to protect US interests AND international security AND oust an oppressive government. I don't know why you assume it must only have a single goal.

North Korea is in the box. They simply don't pose the credible threat that Iraq poses. N Korea simply spoke out and said "We're gonna break our Nuclear treaties" simply as a bargaining chip to get the US to relax the embargo. China will keep them under control, as China isn't in great shape to fund another war in Korea, and N Korea certainly cannot afford it either. It's a political move meant to press buttons and make people ask EXACTLY the question you asked. In reality, the just want Bush to lift the embargo and they will stop nuclear development.

Why don't we go after other oppressive regimes? Because we don't have any interests there. Does that make us BAD people? no. We are allowed to protect our national interests, especially when they coincide with other more "humanitarian" interests.

If you look at it, this war CANNOT be about oil. After all, it would be CHEAPER and FASTER to just lift the embargo and resume trade with Iraq. It's not ONLY about terrorism either. It's not only about the way Saddam kills whole towns of Kurds. It's about ALL of those things. Saddam won't think twice about giving a nuke to a terrorist. After all, Saddam has already offered $20K to any family that has a child give their life in a suicide attack against the US. He's very open about his hatred for the US, and he's also very open with his support of terrorists.

So, oil + terrorism + genocide of the Kurds + regional stability = war in Iraq.

No other country presents us with so many good reasons to invade them...

"If the specifics of the crap that is going on over there is really that awful, why not reveal them, sources be-damned?

Are the safety of these sources more important than our national reputation and the lives of our soldiers?"

Um, the safety of our sources might DEPEND on these folks.

So, we blow the cover of two operatives within Saddam's government. From that point forward we are flying blind, getting no inside info on what's going on over there.

When fighting a war, knowing more about what's going on in your enemy's camp is everything. Look at WWII. It's been 50 years and we are STILL finding out stuff that the government kept hidden.

Furthermore, since Saddam was aided by the CIA back when Iran was the bully on the block, a lot of the info we'd provide would fuel a lot of ugly fires. For example, if the world was to find out that we KNOW Saddam has a sample of Smallpox because we gave it to him as part of a "technology exchange" so he can "use it for research", how well do you think that would sit?

Saying "We should tell the American People EVERYTHING the Intelligence community knows" is simply a bad idea. Letting Iraq know what WE know simply gives them an opportunity to kill the leak and hide the evidence.

You could always ring up and ask him about his anal cysts - see http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.

I guess a decent right-wing warmonger and firefight live a good country mile apart.

Smug Canadian is too smug.

Don't stand beside anyone on the bus who may have jaywalked in their life because that makes you a criminal everybody.