Saddam sets oil wells on fire. [Archive]

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:59 PM

Yes they do. WOO SADDAM! TORCH EM, BUDDY!

This certainly sucks for everybody. No good for the Iraqis and no good for the allied forces. However, this might not be a specific action per Saddam's orders, but an attempt by fleeing Iraqis to ruin the booty. By which I don't mean to defend Saddam (even though I'm 100% BEHIND HIM BABY! YEAH!), but it might mean that we won't be seeing this all over Iraq for the coming weeks.

Bennett

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:03 PM

...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.

Mockery

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:22 PM

Exactly Bennett, exactly.

mburbank

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:49 PM

Ronnie, are you capable of being less of a jerk? I haven't heard anyone, here or elsewhere 'support' Saddam Huessein. This story is on every media outlet there is, and yet you choose foxnews. It's a wonder you didn't go with Newsmax. Their are environmentalists of all stripes, as todays defeat of Anwar drilling should make plain. Environmentalism has no speciffic tie to liberalism. Annd I don't know any liberals who support Saddam.

Unless and OF COURSE you are so utterly SIMPLE that disagreeing with this war or this president is the same as supporting Saddam.

Setting oil wells on fire is a bad thing. Saddam is a bad man. Do you really think anyone disagrees with either of those statements? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you hate liberals so much you need to say shit like that? Or do you feel compelled to lie?

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:00 PM

That's b/c conservative are simplists. They think that it can only be 2 ways, black or white. As Dubya said, "if you aren't for us, well, wait what was it Cheney...oh yeah, you are against us". It's not like most think in that, we aren't exactly for you, that doesn't mean we SUPPORT Hussein. I actually had a discussion with someone who asked me if I would've supported Hitler...um, hi, no, that doesn't mean I would've supported entering the war before we were bombed either.

There are shades of gray that can't be eliminated from the spectrum.

pjalne

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Ronnie, are you capable of being less of a jerk? I haven't heard anyone, here or elsewhere 'support' Saddam Huessein. This story is on every media outlet there is, and yet you choose foxnews.

During the War on Terrorism deal, a Norwegian channel whose stock majority is owned by Fox broadcasted FOX News whenever they didn't broadcast their own schedule. It made me sick to my stomach. I can't believe they discribe themselves as 'fair and balanced'.

Anonymous

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:15 PM

"a Norwegian channel whose stock majority is owned by Fox broadcasted FOX News"

WOW - what a FARCE. I cant believe Fox would have the sheer BALLS to broadcast their own feed.

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Quit trying to score points, Pants. He wasn't calling the fact that Fox broadcasts Fox News stupid - he was calling Fox News stupid.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:15 PM

....yet environmentalist libs still support him.

Oh shut up, twit.

El Blanco

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:39 PM

but an attempt by fleeing Iraqis to ruin the booty.

As I write this, we are no where near the wells.

Even though this is all about oil, we have yet to secure the primary objective. Even though they aren't heavily guarded and would be relatively easy to secure from Iraqi control. But this is all about oil...

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:47 PM

This isn't all about oil. Anybody who say that is naive. But it's equally naive to assume that this has nothin to do with oil, and really, just the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people. :tear

Oil fields CAN'T be a priority right now, because they may be booby trapped (sp?). Halliburton got the contract for a reason, however....

El Blanco

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:17 PM

what does booby trapped have to do with it? Get our people in to disarm them. The faster they get to the wells, the faster they can deal with whatever Hussien has doent to them.

I've always admitted oil has something to do with it, from every side. However, to say it is the driving force is naive. Part of it is pride that this asshole has been snubbing us all this time. The biggest part is that he does fund terrorists (he didn't help in 9/11 but he does have ties to groups), and he is preparing WMD.

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:35 AM

But it's equally naive to assume that this has nothin to do with oil, and really, just the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people. :tear

Huh? But it's called "Operation Iraqi Freedom", isn't it? :(

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 06:07 AM

Protoclown

Mar 21st, 2003, 07:22 AM

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

WOW, DO YOU REALLY SUPPOSE HE WOULD HAVE LISTENED??? :eek

Bennett

Mar 21st, 2003, 08:12 AM

It's called common sense Ronnie... When has war ever been a "good" thing for the environment? I don't think you need to see a posterboard sign to figure that out.

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 09:23 AM

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

You think you might have seen a sign that condemns the man responsible for not disarming and causing the war. Which leads the majority of Americans to believe that the anti-"war" protesters are really anti-"Bush". After all, there were no protests when Clinton was bombing Iraq.

WHY IS THAT!?

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:12 AM

Because Iraq was attacking Kuwait, Ronnie.

Anonymous

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:18 AM

That is a blatant misstatement FS.

and....

England and Spain will win in the end. Germany and France are lying hypocrites, destroying Europe.

_________________________________________
Before he was killed, Saddam Huseein was found in breach of UN Resolution 1441

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:36 AM

That is a blatant misstatement FS.

You're right, I was thinking of the wrong historical event.

I was paying a lot less attention to international news at that time, so I can't give a clear answer as to why Clinton wasn't protested. I'd say that 9/11 woke people up to realize war could affect them too, and perhaps they should have protested just as strongly then as they do now.

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:36 AM

Nalds, they're protesting the war. That's why their signs say what they say.

If you go to a rally to support our troops, will you carry a sign that says 'TRY REALLY, REALLY HARD NOT TO KILL ANY INNOCENT PEOPLE'.

Of course you wouldn't. Does this mean you endorse the killing of innocent people? Of course not.

Don't go environmental on me, either. Rumsfeld made several statements about how bad setting the wells on fire was. They ALL had to do with 'riches'. I suppose he might have meant air quality, but I think he was talking about petro dollars.

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:04 AM

Petro dollars of the Iraqi people.

Setting oil wells on fire does nothing to hinder allied troops. They will only hurt the Iraqi people....but then again, he has a long history of that.

"Nalds, they're protesting the war. That's why their signs say what they say."

Their signs say Bush is like Hitler. Bush wants to dominate the world. Bush will cause WWIII. Bush want's Iraqi children dead. Bush is a terrorist.

......AND SAY NOTHING ABOUT SADDAM.

There has not been an anti-war protest. Only anti-Bush protests.

And the proof is that these people didn't protest Clinton when he did it.

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:32 AM

Your quite wrong on several counts.

There were protests against Clinton's war gestures. I was at one that protested the cruise missiles we fired into Libyya at the so called Chemical Weapons plant there. Several studies have found no evidence at all that this was what it was.

I was also at the protest in San Francisco. I saw lots of signs, and while some of them adressed Bush personally (and he is the commander in chief of the army, after all) I didn't see any comparing Bush to Hitler or Bush actively wanting Babies dead. I did see Grannies against Dead Babies" which I rather liked, but that was the whole text. I also saw "Republicans against the war". These are American citizens excersising American rights and protesting American actions. They are anti American partcipation in this war. I cannot see why you see this as so awful. Do you hate The Right To Assemble. Do you hate Freedom of Speech? You seem to hate something here.

And even if this protest were speciffically and solely anti-bush (and there are plenty of people who DO support war with Iraq, but feel that Bush did a very bad job presenting his case) that would be problem why? Isn't it American to do that if that it is your sincere belief that what Bush is doing is bad for our country and the world?

I think, deep at the heart of a lot of your anger, is hatred of people disagreeing with you, or as I'm sure you see it, not facing facts. But that's America, Ronnie. No matter how right a person is sure they are, a lot of other people are going to disagree.

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:33 PM

"I was at one that protested the cruise missiles we fired into Libyya at the so called Chemical Weapons plant there."

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

I mean, if you were at the protest, you should know which country it was right?

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.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:20 PM

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

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:01 PM

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

Mar 21st, 2003, 06:52 PM

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........

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:00 AM

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

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:30 AM

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

Mar 22nd, 2003, 11:32 AM

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

Bennett

Mar 23rd, 2003, 12:54 AM

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

Mar 23rd, 2003, 01:05 AM

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

Mar 23rd, 2003, 01:22 AM

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

Mar 23rd, 2003, 01:25 AM

"...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?

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

Don't attack spelling. Its juveline.

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

Mar 23rd, 2003, 02:41 AM

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

Mar 23rd, 2003, 10:24 AM

"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?