Tom, when you write things like this statement which concluded your post:

"These protesters are collaborators with the Democrats at worst, useful idiots for the Democrats at best."

I hope you understand both how difficult such statements make it for others to engage you in dialogue, and how little they do for your credibility, which is already suffering due to the way in which even simple points seem to elude you. Or perhaps you are eluding them.

You asked why there was no protest against these other operations, and I replied that each situation is unique. Is this a difficult concept?

I guess I could spend a little time reminding you of all the baggage that has come with the entire magical mystery tour from 911 to Iraq. Perhaps such "legislation" as the Patriot Act might have some bearing on the groundswell of protest which is accompanying Pres. Bush's bellicose posturing toward Iraq.

But who really knows? As I've stated before, Americans oppose war on Iraq for a great variety of reasons, some of them very compelling, in my opinion.

~

I also want to address your opening statement where you said:

"I'm having a real difficult time wrapping myself around your concepts of when a war is "justified" and when it isn't. It looks like a war to help hungry Africans is okay, while a war to prevent a tyrant from obtaining fission weapons is not. A war to remove a leader in Bosnia that is ostensibly participating in massacres is okay. Somehow, a war to remove a tyrant in Iraq who has also participated in massacres--using nerve gas--is not."

Neither did I use the word "justified" in my post, nor are the operations you mention all "wars."

The UN got militarily involved in Somalia because humanitarian supplies to the famine-stricken region were being hijacked by warlords. Armed forces under UN jurisdiction were brought in to ensure that relief aid reached the starving masses. Subsequently, a UN unit was ambushed and 25 Pakastanis were killed. There were botched American-led efforts to track down the responsible warlord, operations which culminated in the Battle of Mogadishu, pictures of dead American GIs being dragged through the streets, public outcry, and subsequent successful withdrawal from the chaotic situation.

At the beginning of the events described preceding paragraph, there was a Republican president and no protest, but by end of the preceding paragraph there is a Democratic president and lots of protest, anguish, or something which hastened UN/US withdrawal from the Horn of Africa.

So your premise here is already fatally undermined by one of the very examples you cite. This is known as being hoist by your own petard. Enjoy.

sp