CJ you're not alone. There's a Dixie Chick getting flamed right now for speaking out, and after yet another country balked at support of Bush's war, a local talk show host called the whole world crazy, except for us. It never occured to him we might be the one's out of line. IF GW Bush had hit the beach at Normandy, The argument against the French could be used with more validity, IMO

In all the discussions put forth here, I'd bet no one has changed their mindset any, because our opinions are shaped by our experiences and the information sources we deem as "credible".

Dear CJ the USA has been split right down the middle since the 2000 election...so this division in the country is allready here.......the 2002 election broke the Repblican way in repudiation of the Democratic Bill Clinton faction in the party....now they are a BK party and left with only the hard line oleft wing of the party in control......Nancy Pellossi as miniority whip come on......who left her out of her cave....

More terrorism...as if the WTC wasn't massive enough, how could they hate the USA more????? Give up everything U own and that place in that Liberal school.....grow a beard, put a rag on your head and start reading the Koran and then maybe they will like you.

GW ain't telling all the reasons why they are going into Ireck.....but it ain't strictly about oil either......it's about perceived danger and the USA response to that danger...U might say it about...WE WILL TAKE A STAND...

Ha ha ha . . ."Dixie Chick" . .that just exudes "credible" . . . in a political information source kind of way.;)
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/roflmao.gif

Come on now Island, now you are just being mean. :D

Yes a Dixie Chick is against this war and you may not deem her credible. But don't forget that Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O' Dumbbell, Susan Sarandon, Madonna, George Michael and Barbra Streisand are also against this war. Add their heavyweight knowledge of foreign policy, to that of the Dixie Chicks and you would have to be "insane" not to agree with them. You know they all get a briefing each morning from the CIA and are fully aware of everything that goes into making a decision like this. LOL. What an absolute joke!

Limbaugh vs. O'Donnell, O'Reilly vs. Garofolo. You may not like the mouthpieces of the right, but how can you not wet your pants with laughter at the validity of the spokesmen on the left?

LOL, well, if it isn't our resident ambassador of warm and fuzzy. Did I forget to throw you a bone last time I posted? Well, here's a bone for ya. Maybe Tabs knows him?

bone

I have know idea where the dixie chick looks for her sources, I was refering to her getting flamed. On the red neck country stations here in TX she's taking a beating, but the local Sports talk station want's to play nothing but Dixie Chick's to piss off their sister country station. Kinda funny, really. ;)

Protesting is very important, yet the question is at the SFSE, what did they accomplish, or better yet, what were they out to accomplish.

I would be much more impressed if the protestors managed to actually close the exchange. If they had done that, (or convinced the traders to stop trading), that would be a huge story.

I don't want to equate the protestors to the Democratic party, and yet it's the only analogy I have: they shout a lot, scream, make noise, but what do they change? Nothing. And in doing nothing, the core Republican who have truly invested in this war, are allowed to go forth unabated.

Dixie Chick Maines (I forget her first name), is also indicative of the Democratic party - she apologized within hours of making her remarks condemning Bush. That was very weak and ultimately, she let down whomever has passionate ideals about the current situation. Not that whatever she said had any substance anyway: she simply stated she's ashamed of being from Texas (or something like that) because of Bush.

As protestors, or individuals protestors look up to, she and the SFSE are not very good examples of constructive opposition to the current crisis.

Did you read the whole story? the point was, one of those arrested was the President of the Exchange from 1996-1999. Not your typical liberal profile, I'd say.

So what? What did he change? In the larger scheme? That's my point.

In the larger scheme, what will changing the name to "freedom fries" do- absolutely nothing, and that was the original point of this thread. They made their statement, the stock exchange president made his. you'll have to ask him if he accomplished his goal.

I found a postcard in my maibox today...made me LOL. It said: "If French fried potatoes are now 'freedom fries'...shouldn't French ticklers be called 'freedom condoms'?

1) So you're saying this whole cause of war or no war is really about personal goals? Well, that's been my point all along.

2) If you have no argument left in this issue about million dollar a year or more stock brokers getting busted protesting the hand that fed them their million or more dollars, sure, I can go back to talk about "freedom fries." As I said, that's a ridiculous decision and will also change little if nothing.

Well the Brits have been, and still are, calling them chips. I suppose the french pissed them off quite a while ago.

wasn't it patton who said that he would rather have the german army in front of him than a french army behind him in support?

"stock brokers getting busted protesting the hand that fed them"

Actually, he was President of the Stock Exchange, and as far as impact goes it will have to be determined. You have to admit it was more effective to protest at the PCSE than somewhere else where no one would recognize him, and he'd be "just another hippie in the park".

It's all moot now anyway. Bush has invited the countries that support the war to a summit, they'll declare it "unanimous support" for action and go in.

This isn't quoting Limbaugh, is it?
 

I think Hardflex does have a very valid point and this person protesting the war has some legitimacy. He has some intelligence and is not the typical war protester.

But what about this guy in my example? Do the leftists consider this guy to be legitimate and do they consider his opinions to be legit?

American president defends timing and need for strikes
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16, 1998) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

The American president said a report by inspectors to the U.N. over the weekend determined that Iraq had failed to fulfill that promise and had instead placed new restrictions on the inspections.

In response, Clinton gave the go ahead for "Operation Desert Fox."

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said earlier that the president made his decision Wednesday morning after reviewing the United Nation's report.



Does any of this sound slightly familiar to all you "anti-war" protesters? What is SO DIFFERENT NOW? I'll tell you what is different now. The difference is that the anti-war protesters are just plain anti-Bush. They would be against free chocolate for everyone if Bush was proposing it. Transparent Simpletons, plain as day.

The only difference here is that Bush is sending in ground troops because this time, the President of the USA is showing enough intestinal fortitude to do the job right, once and for all.

World Support is so different now, right?
 

Does this sound familiar? This was FIVE FREAKING YEARS AGO! It sounds like it could have been on the news 5 minutes ago. How long will the UN be run by eunechs? Was this okay because democrats carried it out?

December 17, 1998
Web posted at: 11:20 a.m. EST (1620 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- China and Russia reacted angrily Thursday to the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, calling it a violation of the U.N. charter, while France warned that the Iraqi people would suffer "grave consequences" as a result of the bombing.

The United States and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox on Wednesday. The strikes against Iraq came a day after the top U.N. weapons inspector issued a report criticizing Iraq for its continued failure to cooperate with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of Defense in 1998
 

Five years without any weapons inspectors in Iraq and people are now doubting he has WMD? Where were the war protesters asking for proof when this was happening?

December 16, 1998 -- Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen [Also participating in the briefing was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations.

How about Al Gore?
 

Washington -- Vice President, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late
December 16, explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at
Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day.

"We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not
cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going
to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military to
degrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten
his neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military action
is completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to
continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass
destruction, we may have to do it again."


"I will say that we
have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We
would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that
plenty of times. But this action is focussed specifically and
precisely on preventing him or degrading his ability to get weapons of
mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors and we're going to
continue it until we achieve that objective."


"We have strong support from around the world. The British are
participating. We have strong support in the region. We're very
pleased with the level of support for this. I think people all over
the world are really fed up with Saddam Hussein."


"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons,
ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many
people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already
demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his
own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction
against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots
and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the
stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the
peace and security of the entire world."

And how about Sec of State Albright?
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

December 16, 1998
Q: Madame Secretary, you've said that you talked to more than a dozen
of your counterparts today. France, since these strikes have started,
has issued a statement saying that it disassociated itself from the
military action. My question is, what are they telling you about the
reasons that, in effect, the US and Britain are acting alone?


SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that basically they have felt that
Saddam Hussein needs to comply, and they have approached it from a
different way. But the truth is they have no answers as to how to make
them comply. I think that we have support from a number of countries.
I feel very satisfied with the overall support -- not only for
diplomatic purposes, but I think that Secretary Cohen has also
indicated that we have the kind of support we need in order to carry
out our mission.


The bottom line is that it would be very nice if those who do not
support our approach had an approach that worked. We have not been
able -- either they, through their diplomatic efforts, or we through
ours -- to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply. I think we've been at
this, as I've said -- in the last year there have been over four
crises with Saddam Hussein. I think the important point that I have
made as I've made my calls is that we have to break this cycle. Unless
people have an answer that works, I think they can go their own way. But
the bottom line here is I feel quite comfortable with the support we
have. And if I might say, as I said in my opening statement,
diplomatically the Security Council, which had been divided a year
ago, had come together recently with a 15 to nothing vote in support
of having Saddam Hussein comply. So I think that basically we've got
the support we need.

That's a lot of reading, and I'll do it in a while when I have some time. For the moment, though, I always found it highly suspect that the day we bombed the "aspirin factory" was the day the Lewinski story broke, and I always distrusted Clinton as trying to deflect criticism by bringing in a common enemy.

Looks like good info though, Thanks for the post. I'll be the first to admit I may have missed something.