[B-Man]

Are you ever capable of staying on-point, or do you always have to change the discussion to whatever you feel like arguing about?

My post was about the anti-American prejudice which is prevalent (even if perhaps unconsciously) among many of the anti-war protestors. This post was not about the reasons to go to war or not go to war; that is a different issue (I think there are valid reasons to go to war, and I have also heard a few legitimate arguments against the war, though I think the former outweigh the latter).

The article noted that you never see the peaceniks protesting against things like Soviet ICBMs in East Germany, though they protest American missiles in West Germany. They don't protest against Saddam invading Iran or Kuwait, or using WMD on his own people, but they protest the U.S. going to war to free Kuwait, as well as the war which seems to be pending. Basically, it seems that the protest only when the U.S. is involved; totalitarian and communist regimes get a free pass. You responded with your usual gibberish and alleged parallels which aren't parallel at all.

Also, feel free to explain how thinking that war isn't the solution to the violation of a UN resolution is un-American.

I never said or suggested anything like that. Everyone has a right to an opinion and free speech in this country (unlike other countries, like, for example, Iraq). I simply suggested that the pattern of "peace protests" shows a clear anti-American bias. I suggest re-reading the article, then try to tell me that the pattern of protests doesn't have an anti-American bias.