'It Wasn't Hip To Protest Clinton Wars'

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: derek2034
My actual political leaning is anarcho-capitalist, with the debate between minarchy not yet settled.

OK, I'll bite. Isn't Anarcho-Capitalist an oxymoron?

 

[drewshin]

Now anyone who's against war is a communist. So, is everyone pro-war a nazi?[/quote]
No, I didn't say that now did I. I said the ORGANIZERS are communists and they are. Who do you think got the funds to print ads, create TV spots, hire protestors?

Many people went to to the rallies for Peace, but what they got was Communist propaganda. These were not anti-war marches, they were pro communism marches. Too bad many of the people marching had no idea what they were involved in. They should have done more research.[/quote]



since when did communism get associated with anti-war? isn't one of the basic tenets of communism a violent overthrow of the government? you're saying the communists in the u.s. is the one that funded ads, tv spots, and HIRED protestors? heh heh. last i heard, the communist party isnt very big and does not have that kind of money power. ever heard of grassroots organizing?

leave the talk about politics to the big boys, please. did you renew your subscription to highlights?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: axiom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

And considering almost half of our own country have strong socialist tendencies, I certainly would not waver from my statements

So half of the American Voters are a threat to the American way? You aren't a whacko..not much!

Yes, they are a threat. The American way is to be selfish in your mind and selfless in your heart. Socialism is the death of what is known to be good in man and the birth of what is believed to be the good of man. If this were the case we'd have no taxes. Zip, zilch, nada: because we'd all want to help eachother with our struggles. Fact is, not all men want to help eachother.

Do Canadiens, the French and the Chinese like what they have? Yes.
Do they want to change it? No.
Will it last? No, history has never let it last.

Canadiens, French and the Chinese? hmmmm... yes, because all three countries are communistic dictatorships...

How about the US and the Fascists? Or the Nazis, hmmm... yes, because all three are based upon capitalistic dictatorships...

Would you say Irak is capitalistic or socialistic?

 

[TNTrulez]

GREAT

 

[AndrewR]

To be fair, the UN was sitting on its hands with the Kosovo situation. They were sitting idly by letting hundreds be massacred while they discussed it in committees. The U.S. tried to work the UN route but gave up and organized NATO and went it in 'unilaterally'. 'Old Europe' was the hold up again in this situation. They spoke of 'containment'.

The rest of the attacks by the Clinton administration were done without UN support and the protests were there but mainly in Europe and not covered here in the U.S.

Ok, am I the only one who read this and substituted Iraq for Kosovo to great success?

UN is perhaps not sitting on its hands, but they certainly are discussing and denouncing without any real action. They pass more resolutions and "hope for the best" while Saddam thumbs his nose and continues to repress his population. It's safe to say that Saddam is responsible for thousands of deaths within his own country in the last ten years.

The U.S. has tried and is trying the UN route but is about to give up and go unilaterally. Old Europe is the hold up. They still speak of containment.

As I see it, there is almost ZERO difference between Kosovo and Iraq, aside from the fact that Iraq possesses and is developing chemical and biological weapons and is probably still attempting to develop nuclear weapons AND has shown a proclivity for attacking his neighbors and Israel in a bid to spread conflict throughout the Middle East. But, as we all know, we can just "contain" those missiles with WMD warheads.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: arod

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: majewski9
Clinton's "attacks" were far smaller than any Iraqi invasion. The Iraq bombing and Afghanistan bombings were both justified in my mind. Iraq was bombed after it kicked out inspections and failed them as well. It coincided with Monica Lewinsky which was a witch hunt to begin with. The Afghanistan bombing was a direct assualt on the then little pursued Osama Bin Laden after the embassy bombings. I dont think we ever bombed Haiti but were there on military police duty. Actually didnt Somalia happen during the Clinton years? I cant remember. We didnt bomb them either! Clinton years were relatively peaceful. Foreign policy was actually a Clinton strong point if you ask me. I mean jeez him and Tony Blair are like best friends not like George W. Bush who seems more like a gun totting cowboy to Blair. Dont get me wrong I agree with Bush to a certain extent. I wish we were out of the middle east altogether, but given the current state of things I agree with his actions.

I fear that Clinton's policy of "half azzism" put us in the position we are in now. When Bin Laden needed to be taken care of, instead of formulating a real plan to get rid of him/deal with the problrem we just lobbed a couple cruise missles over and said "look we did sumthin" In fact if you look into the many statements following 9/11 the cruise missle attacks were pointed out as the turning point for Bin Laden to plan somehting much bigger (9/11) Not saying he wouldnt of done it anyways, but half measures in this day and age will avail us nothing.

Gotta agree there, We should have taken care of bin laden long before now and we had the perfect situation to do so in the clinton years and he opted to do nothing.... that really paid off didnt it? Not to say that the 9/11 attacks wouldnt have happened anyways but he still should have been wiped out.

Clinton knew of the growing threat of bin Laden near the end of his term, but decided not to go to war because he didn't want Bush to inherit a war. He briefed the Bush administration about bin Laden but they didn't really do anything about it.

 

[JellyBaby]

The U.S. has tried and is trying the UN route but is about to give up and go unilaterally. Old Europe is the hold up. They still speak of containment.

Andrew, who did Iraq surrender to in '91?

It seems if you live by the coalition you die by the coalition. Bush 1.0 fought hard to buy the support of a coalition for Gulf War 1.0. Now Bush 2.0 is doing the same for Gulf War 2.0 but it's harder this time because Saddum hasn't commited a Blue Colllar Crime this time around, just a breach of contract.

Anyway, if a group of nations once again decide to use force against Iraq, Iraq will again surrender to a group of nations. Then in the future that group of nations will once again decide Iraq's destiny should it misbehave again and history wil repeat itself. Fun, huh?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: derek2034
Well, if you want to ignore the FACT that most of these "anti-war" protestors are in fact communists or socialists.....

Holy shades of Joe Mccarthy!

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing that really bothers me about this upcoming war is that we have to Bribe many of these countries to get them to support us.

yeah that bothers me also.

Im pro-military (most of my family has served. heck there has been one of us in every war after WW1 not always on the same side though 🙂 ) and yes i know Saddam needs to be taken out. but im not 100% for this action. Im not sure if its the fact it will be the first time we have struck first or the fact that most of the world is against it.

General Wesley Clark is anti-Iraqi war too. He was a 4 star and Supreme NATO Commander.

According to whats his face Wesley is a commie or a commie dupe.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Zipp

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing that really bothers me about this upcoming war is that we have to Bribe many of these countries to get them to support us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bribes? War impacts all, but it hurts direct neighbors the most. Turkey will take massive hits if Iraq is attacked. From refugess, to defense, to postwar peacekeeping: costs will be high. Certainly the US is not going to let allies just wither away in the wind. We support our friends that support us.

Actually,the majority of the money that Turkey receives will be in the form of a loan and will be paid back with interest.

LOL!

 

[0roo0roo]

no, it was hip to rant on about how the wars were just diversions from scandal 😛 republicans were bad as antiwar protesters.

 

[SnapIT]

The Kurds and Iraki opposition do not seem overly excited either now that they know who is going to be ruling Irak after the war is done...

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: derek2034
I would certainly claim that the majority of the people protesting are socialist and would follow another communist type quite easily into communism, although they may not be now.

Are you going to send a survey to all the protestors "Are you a communist? Check Yes, No, or Maybe."? Okay, well then none of us know, do we? Change my fact statement from everyone to organizers and it all stands. And considering almost half of our own country have strong socialist tendencies, I certainly would not waver from my statements, minus the communist (full-fledged anyway) part.

Prove it. Sounds like McCarthyism to me...

Mc?Car?thy?ism \me-"kar-the-'i-zem also -"kar-te-\ noun [Joseph R. McCarthy] (1950)
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated charges
Mc?Car?thy?ite \-'it\ noun or adjective

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

 

[NeoV]

lets see.....a few dozen cruise missiles......and: 150,000+ US troops in the region, regime change, post-war occupation

Gee Axiom, you are right, they are the same thing....



What is even funnier is that the big-shot conservatives were all shouting that Clinton ordered the strikes simply to take away attention from what was going on here in the US....and now they use the same rhetoric he used to defend his actions...amazing.

 

[UDT89]

another celeb that forgets which country pays her bills.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
The Kurds and Iraki opposition do not seem overly excited either now that they know who is going to be ruling Irak after the war is done...

I agree, they probably won't be happy that a coalition government made up of their peers are going to be governing. A system where more people have a voice in government. Oh, that's not what you meant?

Oh yeah... the US is really going to "rule" Iraq. Do you actually expect us to swallow this tripe?

*waits patiently for SnapIT to roll in a cart full of donated tripe*