General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?


Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?


Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism activity
in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab countries.
Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown open
the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11 and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to have
something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission accomplished"),
but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
9-11 and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism.


It had everything to do with terrorism.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
9-11 and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism.


It had everything to do with terrorism.

I notice that all you ever seem to offer is a blank assertion; never logic,
never an example, never even a cogent argument, and certainly never a reference.
Only blankness.

Bye
Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

I notice that all you ever seem to offer is a blank assertion; never
logic,
never an example, never even a cogent argument, and certainly never a
reference.
Only blankness.


Have you also noticed that those that insist Iraq had nothing to do with
terrorism simply offer blank assertions; never logic, never an example,
never even a hint of a cogent argument, and certainly never a reference?

No, of course you haven't.

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?


Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
activity
in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
countries.
Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
open
the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
have
something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
accomplished"),
but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.

Vaughn


Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we invaded
Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?


Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
activity
in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
countries.
Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
open
the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
have
something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
accomplished"),
but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.

Vaughn



Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians?

So we invaded
Iraq.

Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports.

Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.

Cheers

--mike


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Mike Dargan
Date: 5/31/04 7:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51

ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?


Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
Iraq
now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
Iraq
because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
activity
in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
countries.
Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
open
the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
have
something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
accomplished"),
but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.

Vaughn



Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians?

So we invaded
Iraq.

Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports.

Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.

Cheers

--mike


And lost the Hispanic vote? Never!

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.


Cheers

--mike

In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942.
Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that
was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.

Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.