If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so? Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL. All apparently true, and as I DID say earlier, no worse than other Arab countries with which the present administration is not at war. No, contrary to your assertion, the White House has apparently not been looking very hard for linkage between Saddam and AQ. There were some reports that senior AQ personnel visited Iraq, as guests of one of the Iraqi intelligence organizations, pre-war, traveling from Sudan. There is probaby a very good reason why you did not hear much about thoes allegations. Then there is the whole Al Zarqawi issue. But we have seen precious little indicating that the WH has been diligently searching for further evidence. As I previously noted... While you express an opinion that you'd like to see Al Zarqawi in a body bag, you don't seem to be very concerned over his reportedly being given refuge in Iraq by Saddam--why is that? Again, something I previously addressed. (sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously; are you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set foreign policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore? PL 105-338, "The Iraqi Liberation Act", was indeed signed into law by Clinton. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Clinton signed it into law in 1998, after it was passed by the House 360-38, and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The goal was clearly stated. Thanks for the info. But I notice that you ignored my questions about the import of PL 105-338 to the present administration after berating me for simply not addressing each and every of your points. Please don't bother now, this exchange has gone long enough. Vaughn |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Krztalizer" wrote in message ... So, in your version of reality, "Shock and Awe" was a complete success, because it caught all of those "Top 52" Iraqis at their desks? Or ... not? Only an idiot would have expected to catch the Iraqi leadership lounging in their offices at that time What I said in my original post was that we razed the building after the thugs we were supposedly targeting left - I seem to recall the buzz back then was that we were targeting the 'leadership' in Bagdad, but here you are telling me that Shock and Awe was merely a plan to knock down government buildings. I'm not the idiot that expected them to be sitting at their desks, weeks after it "leaked out" that we'd astound the world with "shock and awe" bombing. Oh, to be so simplistic--it must be nice. Yes, we took down the buildings that housed the power centers of the Baath Party, the intel centers, the military command centers, etc. What you find unacceptable about that I am having difficulty fathoming. It would have been nice if we could have at the same time taken out a lot of those key leaders themselves, but that was an unlikely proposition given that everyone knew that an attack was immenent. So we took down their "bases"--and then we no doubt tried to take down any alternate HQ's we could identify as they were revealed. How important is the individual if he no longer can carry out his role, if his primary and alternate command and control centers are not available to him? I guess you figure the disjointed nature of the Iraqi military (and initially their paramilitary) response was preordained even if we had ignored the C3I targets? I doubt that very much. (please tell me you did not actually believe that would be the case?) Well, it was a government talking head that said we would be going after the leadership with this new whiz-bang S&A campaign. Are you suggesting the spokemen lied and I should have not believed him? When you effectively remove those individuals from their C3 support, or if you make it inordinantly hard for them to use what remains of their C3 system, you acheive your objective, or a significant effect towards that objective. I'd have thought you could understand that immutable fact. When the enemy leaders are spending more time and effort scurrying from one hidey-hole to the next and furtively looking over their shoulders, they tend to have less time and resources to dedicate to opposing your own forces. --doesn't mean there is nothing to be gained by taking down the facilities, though. Destroying evacuated palaces doesn't seem worth the millions of $$ in PGMs to me. And you can assure me that the destruction of those C3 centers, and of those palaces that were symbols of Saddam's power, had nothing to do with the uncoordinated military response we usually encountered, or with the initial jubilation which the locals in Bgahdad exhibited when US forces entered the city? I don't think you can. I can't prove beyond a doubt that those actions did result in those conditions, either--but it is a pretty darned safe bet at least the lack of well coordinated Iraqi military responses owed something to the disruption of their C3I systems. Again, when the enemy leaders are spending more time and effort scurrying from one hidey-hole to the next and furtively looking over their shoulders, they tend to have less time and resources to dedicate to opposing your own forces. I understand we need to go after terrorists, I doubt that, because apparently you can't seem to grasp the necessity of going into Afghanistan, which is where the freakin' terrorists happened TO BE at the time, No, what I apparently can't seem to grasp is the almost uniquely American view that its ok to bomb on cities, as long as MOST of our PGMs land on target and at least SOME of the people we *might* kill are terrorists. LOL! No, the "prevailing American view" is that when you live in what has become a combat zone courtesy of your own leadership's BAD decisions, despite the strenuous efforts our forces make to prevent collateral damage there will be damage and deaths. That is called *war*, if you had missed it. Thanks for the update. Now tell me what would happen to "defeatist" families that Saddam caught trying to flee? Ah, the old "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario? Unfortunately, those same folks had decided to knuckle under to Saddam long before. Now I am sure you will say they had no choice--but that is not really true. They had a choice, and placed their temporary well being first and foremost instead of thinking about the long term consequences. Can't really condemn them outright for that, which is why our forces take all reasonable precautions to limit collateral damage and thus try to avoid injuring such folks. But again, it is *war*--it will never be a completely tidy and antiseptic endeavor, and you should know that by now. We did not seek it out--not in Afghanistan in 2001, or in Iraq in 1991, or, it could be argued, in OIF (for which most of the reasons given for our going into were resultant from the *last* ceasefire agreement's requirements, i.e., WMD's, NFZ violations, missile range violation). I'm certain we could always find a reason to invade - primarily to correct the mistake of halting GW1. So if we keep making mistakes, such as supporting Saddam, then attacking him but leaving him in power, then attacking him again, we'll eventually get it right. Boy, you sure are out to portray the US in the worst possible light, eh? The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, after the House passed it by an overwhelming majority, and Clinton signed it into law in 1998. That set the goal of regime change. I personally find that goal to have been a worthy one (and i was never accused of being a big Clinton fan). Five years later we acheived the goal, and those Iraqis you pretend to be so concerned about in terms of their welfare during the initial phases of OIF now have an opportunity to choose their own government within sight. No, they are not exactly happy about being occupied at present (though a lot of them seem to be more unhappy with the inability of the coalition to provide full-and-complete security against the insurgents' attacks, with "lack of security", not presense of coalition forces, heading up the list of concerns expressed during that BBC poll conducted this past February), but if you recall those same poll results, a very large chunk of the populace (right under 50%) as a whole approved of our getting rid of Saddam by invading. A few embassies or refugee-loaded busses now and then might sneak into our CEP, but what the hell? Its all good, because Brooks says so -- as if there was no other way to target the very few individuals responsible. You want to snipe every last Ba'athist, be my guess, but when you do it by using bunker busters on restaurants in neighborhoods ("Ooops, he wasn't in THAT one, either!"), then I am never going to 'grasp the necessity'. You obviously can't grasp reality, either; surprising, given the fact that you do have military experience under your belt. No experience of mine has convinced me that dropping bombs into cities is the right way to liberate a country from their leaders. You act as if we were "carpet bombing" the population centers. I guess in your little utopia, all urban targets are verbotten? You take the intel you get and you do the best you can with it, trying to limit collateral damage as much as possible. When bombs are falling on a city, there are always going to be mistakes, there are always going to be innocent civilians caught up in the carnage. "Fact of life" or not, its not morally right. "We killed a few innocents so we could take some shots at the guilty" is never going to fly with me. OK, so you DO have that "urban combat is verbotten" philosophy at heart. Strange, to say the least, and definitely unrealistic to the extreme. You don't think we did--too bad. And I mean that--it is really sad that you have such a poor view of the servicemembers that you once served with. When did I say that, Brooks? My opinion of my current and formerly serving friends remains as high and strong as always. I can disagree with the current leadership while still supporting our people in the field - this isn't Nazi Germany where only one opinion is allowed. Bull****. You can't have it both ways--first you said, "A few embassies or refugee-loaded busses now and then might sneak into our CEP, but what the hell?" and, "...when you do it by using bunker busters on restaurants in neighborhoods ("Ooops, he wasn't in THAT one, either!"), then I am never going to 'grasp the necessity'." Along with, ""Fact of life" or not, its not morally right. "We killed a few innocents so we could take some shots at the guilty" is never going to fly with me." Versus your belated, "My opinion of my current and formerly serving friends remains as high and strong as always." So on the one hand you claim we are carelessly disregarding civilian casulaties (and BTW, you do know that the targeteers are generally the guys wearing uniforms, and the folks ordering and executing those missions are also wearing uniforms?), while you then softshoe into the, "But I really respect and support our troops... (except for when they actually have to go to war, that is, and *then* I'll claim they are using wanton disregard in hitting all of those verbotten urban targets!)"? That puppy won't hunt. Are we safer or not, since Pakistan granted full immunity and awarded saint status to the prick that sold nuclear technology to practically everyone with a fist full of money? This whole affair is being handled poorly and in the process, the reputation of my country has gone right down the toilent in nearly every other nation. In your own mind, sadly. I doubt I am the only person to see our national standing slip in the past year. And many are undoubtedly loving every minute of that *perceived* slippage (fueled by sensationalized and often one-sided press accounts--note that today Kimmet presented photos of some of the equipment found at that wedding party during his press brief, and I have yet to see any of them pop up on any media websites, while they are all falling all over themselves to publish pictures of a wrecked microphone or photos of the casualties--odd, huh?). That is outside the scope of my comment about the reputation of our country being diminished. It has. Its not just in the eyes of our enemies - its slipped in the eyes of many of our friends as well. So you say. The only eyes I *really* worry about are my own, and unlike you I am confident in the integrity and morality of our forces as a whole. OTOH, I am quite confident in the skill, determination, and committment of our military personnel as a group, to include their committment to limiting collateral damage as much as is humanly possible under the circumstances. How much would such damage be limited if we chose to not bomb the hearts of cities, and stuck to military and infrastructure targets outside of urban centers? Gee, you really do go for that "Urban is off-limits" schtick, eh? Fine strategy you have there--"OK, guys, we are going to attack tomorrow...now remember, we can only engage bad guys or their support systems in open spaces...if they go-to-ground in an urban area, or if those pesky HQ's and commo centers and the like are *already* in urban areas, then we have to leave them alone, OK?" I guess you would find seige warfare conducted against all urban areas a more viable solution? Get real, Gordon. Along with your reputation in my mind, also sadly, I might add. If you can only respect people that mirror your own views, its never going to be a very long list. No, I can respect those with differing views--you and I have differed before, and I still respected you even if I did not agree with you. But when you reach the point of alledging that US military personnel, writ "at large", don't *really* care about collateral damage, or killing kids, and woah, Brooks, you are putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth that were never there before. I have made _NO_ such comments. That ends this debate - you are resorting to slander to make a point, and accusing me of **** I would never do. You have repeatedly said our forces have not shown the proper regard for targeting of urban locations. I hate to break it to you, but those guys who recommended that B1B strike against the suspected Saddam hideout included military leaders, and the guy who put the crosshairs on the target was wearing a flight suit along with threst of his flight crew. "Shock and Awe" was a plan developed by uniformed personnel. But you said all of these were "its not morally right". YOUR words. Stop trying to weasel out of them now. then opine that we as a nation have "gone right down the toilent(sic)", asshole, I said OUR REPUTATION, NOT OUR NATION. Quit Tarvering me! So freakin' sorry for leaving out "reputation". If its bald faced lies you deal in, find another customer. No bold faced lies required. Your words--"its not morally right". Try to dodge them if you want, but that is what you have said, and your other comments in the same vein back that sentiment up. Brooks snip the rest as I am not bothering to read it Gordon |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so? Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL. All apparently true, and as I DID say earlier, no worse than other Arab countries with which the present administration is not at war. Can you name any Arab country currently, or over the past year, providing knowing refuge to an individual who we have expressed a desire to take into custody over the 9-11 affair (and Al Zarqawi was a key leader in AQ before that attack)? Any? No, contrary to your assertion, the White House has apparently not been looking very hard for linkage between Saddam and AQ. There were some reports that senior AQ personnel visited Iraq, as guests of one of the Iraqi intelligence organizations, pre-war, traveling from Sudan. There is probaby a very good reason why you did not hear much about thoes allegations. Then there is the whole Al Zarqawi issue. But we have seen precious little indicating that the WH has been diligently searching for further evidence. As I previously noted... While you express an opinion that you'd like to see Al Zarqawi in a body bag, you don't seem to be very concerned over his reportedly being given refuge in Iraq by Saddam--why is that? Again, something I previously addressed. (sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously; are you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set foreign policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore? PL 105-338, "The Iraqi Liberation Act", was indeed signed into law by Clinton. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Clinton signed it into law in 1998, after it was passed by the House 360-38, and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The goal was clearly stated. Thanks for the info. But I notice that you ignored my questions about the import of PL 105-338 to the present administration after berating me for simply not addressing each and every of your points. Please don't bother now, this exchange has gone long enough. No, I left it intact (not snipping away without "acknowledgement"--are you all warm and fuzzy now?) and answered the relevant question. You obviously were unaware of the very existance of the ILA, so I kind of figured you's perhaps rethink those questions once you checked into it. But since you have not... No, Clinton did not "make" Bush attack Iraq. He did however sign into law the act that made "regime change" our stated goal. That law did remain in effect, amended in sorts I guess by the later congressional approval for Bush to used armed force to acheive it. Brooks Vaughn |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Who trained the AQ terrorists? Who ran the training camps? Who provided
material and financial support to the terrorists? Who assisted with tactical advisors? Saddam did- yes, among others- but to claim "Iraq had no connection tot he 9-11 terrorists" is a crock. Steve Swartz "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:40b22b65@bg2.... Thanks, Keith. I'm a nice American who is VERY ANGRY at OBL Me too and his ilk, Saddam Insane and his ilk, Mind you; I have no love for Saddam, he is in some sort of a jail and that is a fine place for him. I just don't think putting that impotent blustering imbicile there was worth all of those lives, all of that money, and all of America's lost standing in the world community. Why do you equate OBL and Saddam? Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so? Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL. and anyone here or in other countries who would apologize for them. All we need to do is make membership in Al-Queda and its affiliates very life threatening... Was Saddam a member of Al-Queda? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! Member, no; shared animosity towards the US, yes. You want a link between Saddam and AQ? Refuge for Al Zarqawi. to the members and find OBL and his top henchmen and kill them without mercy. They gave no mercy to airline passengers or the occupants of the buildings on 9-11, so why should any quarter be given to them. The favors they gave on 9-11 will be returned. Did Saddam have something to do with 911? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! No, they have not. And Bin Laden will either take a perp walk or be carried away-in a body bag. I vote for the body bag. (Ditto for his top lieutenants like Ayman Al-Zwahari and Abu Musab Al-Zarquari.) Yes, them too! But you don't hold any animosity towards Saddam for providing refuge to the latter? Odd... Brooks Vaughn |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
So, are you still trying to claim that "There was no link between OBL and
Iraq?" No? O.K. then- how would *you* characterize the Iraq-OBVL linkages then? Steve Swartz "Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And according to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem Al Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ ) OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not "going for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got them (and then you just snipped them away without attribution\ One entry found for attribution. Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n Function: noun 1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of literature or art) to a particular author or artist 2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right - at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective ..do you always do that with arguments you find difficult to answer?). If you really mean "attribution" then I wish to acknowledge that they are your arguments. If you mean "address"; I have no obligation to address every argument posed by every poster, if we all did that, the Internet would be a ponderous place. If I fail to address one of your arguments, 1) I accept it, or 2) didn't follow it, or 3) think it is beside the point or an unnecessary distraction, or 4) Find it so insubstantial as to not be worthy of comment' or 5) Simply trying to focus the discussion, or 6) Perhaps I somehow screwed up and forget to address the point. I find it good practice to focus Internet conversations by snipping the bulk of parts I am not responding to. All of your verbage is still there in your original post for the whole world to read and respond to if they wish, there is no need for me to repeat every word. There is another reason, too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration that stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be "regime change". (sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously; are you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set foreign policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore? Vaughn |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so? Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL. and anyone here or in other countries who would apologize for them. All we need to do is make membership in Al-Queda and its affiliates very life threatening... Was Saddam a member of Al-Queda? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! Member, no; shared animosity towards the US, yes. You want a link between Saddam and AQ? Refuge for Al Zarqawi. to the members and find OBL and his top henchmen and kill them without mercy. They gave no mercy to airline passengers or the occupants of the buildings on 9-11, so why should any quarter be given to them. The favors they gave on 9-11 will be returned. Did Saddam have something to do with 911? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! No, they have not. And Bin Laden will either take a perp walk or be carried away-in a body bag. I vote for the body bag. (Ditto for his top lieutenants like Ayman Al-Zwahari and Abu Musab Al-Zarquari.) Yes, them too! But you don't hold any animosity towards Saddam for providing refuge to the latter? Odd... Brooks Vaughn -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Roush Fan6)
Date: 5/25/2004 10:59 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Whatever happened to ? Group: rec.aviation.military Date: Sun, May 23, 2004, 9:10pm (EDT+4) From: (B2431) From: (miso) snip My blood still boils when I think of Bush reading to those kids in Florida well after the **** hit the fan. What would you have him do? Jump up and leave the room? That would lead to confusion and speculation beyond what was already going on and it would have upset the children in the room. Do you really think that few minutes would have meant anything? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Oh Damn...Hate to upset a few kids while his country was being attacked. ~ Seriously tho I agree that he wouldnt have made any more difference on the events if he had bolted as soon as he was notified. It also showed a cool head when it was all hitting at once. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:40b22b65@bg2.... Thanks, Keith. I'm a nice American who is VERY ANGRY at OBL Me too and his ilk, Saddam Insane and his ilk, Mind you; I have no love for Saddam, he is in some sort of a jail and that is a fine place for him. I just don't think putting that impotent blustering imbicile there was worth all of those lives, all of that money, and all of America's lost standing in the world community. Why do you equate OBL and Saddam? Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so? Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam, Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL. and anyone here or in other countries who would apologize for them. All we need to do is make membership in Al-Queda and its affiliates very life threatening... Was Saddam a member of Al-Queda? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! Member, no; shared animosity towards the US, yes. You want a link between Saddam and AQ? Refuge for Al Zarqawi. to the members and find OBL and his top henchmen and kill them without mercy. They gave no mercy to airline passengers or the occupants of the buildings on 9-11, so why should any quarter be given to them. The favors they gave on 9-11 will be returned. Did Saddam have something to do with 911? If so, please post the proof here and be sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard for it! No, they have not. And Bin Laden will either take a perp walk or be carried away-in a body bag. I vote for the body bag. (Ditto for his top lieutenants like Ayman Al-Zwahari and Abu Musab Al-Zarquari.) Yes, them too! But you don't hold any animosity towards Saddam for providing refuge to the latter? Odd... Brooks Vaughn I have no use whatsoever for Saddam and his Baathist mis-rule of Iraq, not to mention their harboring folks like Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, and not to mention Zarquari. Saddam and his ******* sons were very good at ID'ing potential threats to their misrule and taking them out. With extreme prejiduce. The only difference between the sons was that Uday killed people for fun, while Qusay killed for business, although Qusay's habit of feeding political prisoners into a wood chipper could be called a pastime of his. As for Saddam and AQ: although OBL had no love for Saddam's reign, there is a saying in the Middle East: "My enemy's enemy is my friend." Saddam and AQ? Just turning a blind eye to them passing thru is reason enough to put him on the target list, as far as I'm concerned. And since there was nearly zero chance of a coup or assassination attempt that would work from inside Iraq, the only way to get rid of Saddam and his whole bloody regime was for an outside force to come in and do it. That's been done. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Happened to Europa Aircraft in Yorkshire | Trevor Ball | Home Built | 0 | August 12th 04 08:26 AM |
Whatever happened to Thunderhead hood ? | Sanjay Kumar | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | February 25th 04 06:32 AM |
Whatever happened to Thunderhead hood ? | Sanjay Kumar | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | February 24th 04 02:11 PM |
What happened to the Snark ? | Roland M | Home Built | 6 | September 13th 03 01:26 AM |
What ever happened to the Subaru x-100 ? | Wooduuuward | Home Built | 0 | July 6th 03 12:53 AM |