StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover. ... /23/151110

Just a link showing the protesters are more anti-bush than anti-war. The hypocrisy is just dripping! Its ok for a Dem to bomb but not a Republican.

Eh?

I know for a fact there were demonstrations during Clinton's little wars.

Janeane Garofalo's thing with Tony Snow was censored btw. As soon as her turn came up, Faux cut the feed and went to some bogus breaking news alert. What a coincidence that the 'pubs before and after her didn't get the treatment.

It's because it's apparently not "cool" to be a Republican these days.

It does seen that they're more anti-Bush or anti-America then anti-war.

Morons...

And we're saying that there were LESS protests against Clinton's war actions, not NONE, silly Hameru...

NATO's war on Kosovo was subjected to extremely hostile and sceptical coverage in the media.
Similarly, Operation Desert Fox was presented - even while the missiles were exploding over Baghdad - as an inconsequential foreign adventure to distract the public and press from Slick Willy's tribulations regarding adultery and perjury.

RadiO, I think the article was based on celbs protesting, not the media...

Republicans and their fucking paranoid delusions of persecution

Where was all this anti-Republic hatred during Gulf War 1? Can't you people get it through your skulls that maybe some people just don't like George W. Bush for what he is and what he's done, not because they mindlessly hate anyone with an R next to their fucking names? Even if you disagree with their opinions, why do you automatically assume it's because of the R, and not because of his policies?

theski wrote:RadiO, I think the article was based on celbs protesting, not the media...

Indeed. It's just I distinctly remember some people carping about how biased and Anti-American the media were during those previous wars.

And that's why my 'eh' is there. I just didn't want to express my full opinion because I wasn't feeling up to defending it but now that other people have said it I'll leave the defending that point to them.

(respectful) I'm sorry I just don't agree.. These people were nowhere to be seen when it was (their) president. No anti-clinton rallies No Martin Sheen flood the white house campaigns. This is politics pure and simple. This is the lefts chance to get back into power, with out the best intrests of the country being first.

even while the missiles were exploding over Baghdad - as an inconsequential foreign adventure to distract the public and press from Slick Willy's tribulations regarding adultery and perjury.

As I have pointed out in the past, The Day the Missles were launched were horrible weather for Cruise Missles inculding passing through several storms on the way to Bagdad while the preceeding three weeks had been tip top weather
Why launch the day that Clinton was to tesitify if the weather is shitty? He had three weeks of perfect weather and the first SHITTY weather day he launchs?

Its much like Mounting a Ground War aginst Russia with the Jump Date set as Novemeber the 1st

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It's because it's apparently not "cool" to be a Republican these days.

Oh, shut the fuck up. We live in an era where the word liberal is considered an insult. Nowadays, everyone goes out of their way to be as politically incorrect and offensive as they possibly can.

It does seen that they're more anti-Bush or anti-America then anti-war.

Just as illogical as saying they're pro-Saddam because they protest. And even if they're anti-america or communists, what does it matter?

Morons...

JINGOIST!!! NEENER NEENER NEENER!!

And we're saying that there were LESS protests against Clinton's war actions, not NONE, silly Hameru...

There is bound to be a few people here who'll say otherwise.

The massive protests are a collection of many things. Some of them are just anti-war, it doesn't matter what the war is or whois fighting, they just don't want any wars of any sort, ever.

Some just hate America, it doesn't matter if America was handing out a gold bar and a pizza to every man, woman and child on the face of the planet-- they'd protest because they hate America, period. Or they hate George W. Bush for whatever reason, and again it doesn't matter what he does-- they're against it.

And many of them are protesting for some one-issue, poorly thought out reason, ie, "It's a war for oil". I have met very, very, very few anti-war protesters who have intelligent, articulate, well thought-out reasons for their protests. Only the true pacifists, the anti-any-war people, are arguing from a true devotion to a principle.

Republicans during the Clinton wars didn't really notice the protesters because THEY were the protesters. They just notice when the other guy is doing to them what they were doing to Clinton, fairly or not.

::sigh::

Newsmax....gah....

phongn, I take its a bad (gah) not a good (gah)

The most well-reasoned, clearly thought out objections to the war I've heard have been from conservatives. I wasn't convinced, but the arguments made more sense than anything I've heard the leftists come up with.

theski wrote:phongn, I take its a bad (gah) not a good (gah)

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a good (gah)!

theski wrote:phongn, I take its a bad (gah) not a good (gah)

Bad. I don't like Newsmax at all.

Wong,

I think the main problem is Bush is actually playing more by the rules that Clinton is, and he is getting hammered for it. The point of hypocrisy is when people do things that are fairly similar, but are treated differently for it. Consider the facts.

1. Kosovo, I don't recall a UN resolution.
2. Iraq, 1998... no resolution there either (figuratively and literally)
3. lobbing missiles into Iraq and Afghanistan and some other backwater country in Africa.

I don't recall a tremendous sense of outrage on most of those instances. Except for the Republicans, which didn't amount to much. The Russians didn't like it, for sure the Taliban protested. But I don't see the world peace movement out marching against Clinton for what he did. Now effectively, the Bush policy is much more aggressive, and not as passive. But one could argue that the passive policy of the Clinton years lead to what happened 18 months ago.

And heck, Bush went through the UN security council, I don't think he was compelled to do so. The question then becomes, why bother. All he got was hammered for trying to do things on the up and up. And when Clinton did Kosovo, and put troops on the ground, he didn't go through the UN. I didn't see the mass hysteria around the world you see today. So, you see, there is some truth to the hypocrisy of the so called anti-war movement.

During the first gulf war, I recall significant opposition from the democrats who controlled Congress at the time, and even from the old Soviet Union and other European countries all the way up until the first bomb dropped. So, let's not confuse the issue too much, the difference between now and then is liberation of Kuwait then versus the removal of Saddam now.

In the end, as you pointed out before, the U.S. will do what it wants, the rest is just noise. I honestly think Bush might have been better off without going to the UN, but that's the price you pay for trying to play nice.

Liberals tend to take to the street more than conservatives. But there was no shortage of critizism during the war over Kosovo.

We had this same bullshit before, by the same knee-jerk partisan types. I posted a direct link to a news article from the time about Kosovo-era antiwar protests, and of course, people dismissed it as just an exception to the norm. People remember what they choose to remember.

You Americans have NO IDEA how fucking ridiculous your partisan approach to politics looks from the outside. EVERYTHING is either Democrat or Republican, and every D or R's response to any criticism is to simply attack the other party's record rather than addressing it.

You Americans have NO IDEA how fucking ridiculous your partisan approach to politics looks from the outside. EVERYTHING is either Democrat or Republican, and every D or R's response to any criticism is to simply attack the other party's record rather than addressing it.

Acutal Wong Anecidotal Story(Senate Minority Leader) Tom Dashal demands you applogize then repeats himself

(In case you have not noticed I have a serious bone to pick with a politicison or two, One is Liberman for his rabid regulating the Media Stance, the other is Tom Dashal who makes a habit of switching positions every week)

And how does that change the fact that a typical Republican response to criticism of policy is to attack past Democratic actions, and vice versa for the Democrats? Does the logical fallacy inherent in this practice even occur to you people?

And how does that change the fact that a typical Republican response to criticism of policy is to attack past Democratic actions, and vice versa for the Democrats? Does the logical fallacy inherent in this practice even occur to you people?

We know it and we see it and we remeber it, More often than not our Senators do one of two things
1.Say the same old thing day in day out, Class Warefare Reterect, Tax Cuts for the Rich, Yadda Yaddaaa Yaddaa(Standered Democratic method, Talk you into agreeing)
2. Sit there take it (Standered Republican Response)