Saddam sets oil wells on fire.

[Ronnie Raygun]

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

....yet environmentalist libs still support him.

[FS]

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]

...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]

Exactly Bennett, exactly.

[mburbank]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mburbank

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]

"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.

[FS]

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

....yet environmentalist libs still support him.

Oh shut up, twit.

[El Blanco]

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]

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.

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]

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.

[FS]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

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.

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

[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.

[Protoclown]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

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???

[Bennett]

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]

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!?

[FS]

Because Iraq was attacking Kuwait, Ronnie.

[Anonymous]

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

[FS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.