[Qwinn]

"Don't ask me why Greenpeace is opposed to the liberation of Iraq. It's been marvellous for the eco-system: the marshlands of southern Iraq are now being restored after decades of Saddamite devastation."

Excellent point. And Steyn doesn't even mention the oil well fires and the oil spill that Saddam deliberately created to punish Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1991, at least ten (and some estimates say twenty) times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. He also spilled millions of tons of oil into the -desert-, believe it or not... creating massive on-land oil spills for little more than Carthagenian spite as he retreated from U.S. forces in Kuwait.

By -all- accounts, Saddam Hussein was the biggest bio-terrorist in world history. No single individual has done more to destroy the land and environment than him - NONE. No, not even the worst oil-guzzling SUV drivers in the U.S. could ever dream of collectively doing as much damage to Mother Gaea as Saddam Hussein did.

And yet, the Greens were okay with keeping him in power. Why?

Well, I am one who believes this really needs a treatise-length analysis (and Steyn's just the guy to do it actually). But here's my short answer: Because this is validation of what many, including myself, have been saying all along. Greens are absolutely NOTHING except a front for Communist ideology. They are watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. Saddam, as a Baathist, was more Communist than anything else, and as such he was tolerable to them.

What -this- proves it that if ever any conflict occurs between their real and mask ideologies, where the purported greens need to choose between green and red, they'll pick red, and they'll pick red -every- time, because if Saddam couldn't motivate them to actually stick to their green principles over red, nothing ever will.

This point needs to be expanded upon a LOT more in the media, but of course that will never happen outside of conservative media.

Qwinn

[American in Israel]

And yet, the Greens were okay with keeping him in power. Why? ...Because this is validation of what many, including myself, have been saying all along. Greens are absolutely NOTHING except a front for Communist ideology.

I nominate you for post of the month! Great catch!!!

[maica]

This point needs to be expanded upon a LOT more in the media, but of course that will never happen outside of conservative media.
****


Thanks for the reminder.

I think that many or most Freepers are talk show listeners. I would encourage all to become talk show callers. Points like this one need frequent mention, and it surely won't happen in the DNC media.

There are many hours of the day in every market that airs Hannity, Savage or Limbaugh, when local talk shows are on air.

Not one of the NGOs that so grieved over what UN sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people has come out in favor of the removal of Hussein. None have mentioned that "5000 children per month" are no longer dying, or that the Marsh Arabs are getting their lands back.

[Starve The Beast]

And yet, the Greens were okay with keeping him in power. Why?

Qwinn, we are of one mind on this. Early on, the environmental movement was about the environment. In the 70's and 80's, it was first infiltrated and then completely taken over by the anticorporate Left. It is now only peripherally concerned with environmental issues.

Spend a few minutes listening to a Green Party candidate or spokesman. Notice the steady diatribe against corporations and 'the Rich'. You can listen to entire speeches where the environment is not mentioned at all.