Whatever happened to ?

"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?

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!

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!


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!

Vaughn






Sooner or
later someone will drop a dime on them and will walk away with a LOT of money.
Whether or not those they informed on will ever walk again is another
matter.....


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"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

often after the targeted thugs have quit those buildings after
realizing that CNN was spending a lot of time pointing cameras at them.

So you say.

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?

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. 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'.

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.

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.

Different means to handle different threats, and levels of
threat. Had the Taliban leadership exhibited the same degree of cooperation
that the Pakistanis have demonstrated thus far, things might very well have
turned out quite differently in Afghanistan--they were given the choice,
they chose wrong. Oops.

So where do the Pakis stand? They support our "war on terra" when it suites
their purposes, but when they decide they get to distribute nuclear secrets to
others in the "Axis of Evil", they are still on our team?

The Saudis have been the TARGET of that same
terrorist organization that you claim to "understand we need to go after",
if you had not noticed.

As long as the Madras system is up and running smoothly in Saudi Arabia, they
still haven't gotten it.

Gordon

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

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.

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/ )

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

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.

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...do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?). 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".

Brooks


Vaughn

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
often after the targeted thugs have quit those buildings after
realizing that CNN was spending a lot of time pointing cameras at them.

So you say.

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 (please tell me you did not actually believe that
would be the case?)--doesn't mean there is nothing to be gained by taking
down the facilities, though.


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.
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).

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. You take the intel you get
and you do the best you can with it, trying to limit collateral damage as
much as possible. 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.


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?). 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.


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
then opine that we as a nation have "gone right down the toilent(sic)", then
yeah, you sacrifice a lot of that previously built-up respect. Other's may
disagree, but then again, others are not responsible for my assignment of
"respect" to individuals in my own opinion.


Different means to handle different threats, and levels of
threat. Had the Taliban leadership exhibited the same degree of
cooperation
that the Pakistanis have demonstrated thus far, things might very well
have
turned out quite differently in Afghanistan--they were given the choice,
they chose wrong. Oops.

So where do the Pakis stand? They support our "war on terra" when it
suites
their purposes, but when they decide they get to distribute nuclear
secrets to
others in the "Axis of Evil", they are still on our team?

The world is unfortunately not so cut-and-dried as you would apparently like
it to be. To date, the Pakistanis have captured and handed over a couple of
folks we really wanted to get our hands on; they allowed US military forces
to operate from within their borders (albeit quietly). They have suffered
their own casualties in firefights with AQ elements. And IIRC they were
unaware, at the national level, that their chief weapons designer had been
dealing on the side--in fact, I think it was a US tip informed them of that
and closed that tap (at least for now). I guess your oft-remarked upon
aversion to collateral damage magically vanishes if we were to be insted
pounding Pakistani targets? I find it odd that those who decry the
lamentable effects of combat/warfare often find it convenient to use the,
"Well, why aren't we attacking *them*? They deserve it, too!" approach to
trying to make their point--kind of self-defeating, IMO.


The Saudis have been the TARGET of that same
terrorist organization that you claim to "understand we need to go
after",
if you had not noticed.

As long as the Madras system is up and running smoothly in Saudi Arabia,
they
still haven't gotten it.

But your solution would be to go to war with them? Hell of a strange (and
dislocated) view of preventing collateral damage you have there, if that is
*really* your beef...

Brooks


Gordon

"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

"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
"Anne" wrote in message
...
Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
SNIP:

Here's a thought that just occurred to me and one that I have never
seen any reference to in any media emission -
Back in the 30's Italy invaded Ethipia. Haile Selassie implored the
League of Nations for help in an eloquent and emotional speech. The
League did nothing, when a naval blockade would have stopped Italy
cold, since it has no internal source of oil. It is arguable that this
inaction led to the League's becoming an impotent organization unable
to influence future developments in Europe.
It is also arguable that Hitler was thus encouraged in his territorial
desires by this inaction.
Now - just what effective actions did the UN take to suppress Saddam's
desires, esepcially considering the counter-sanction actions by France
and Russia?
Walt BJ (Not that I was in favor of invading Iraq - I'd already lost
enough friends and colleagues in SEA, so cut me some slack.)

"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

Oh, goody--when argumentively bankrupt, resort to the dictionary as a source
for a nitpick. About what I'd expect from an unacknowledged snipper. My
Websters includes the following definition of "attribute": "to regard or
explain as arising or resulting from a source". You failed to ackowledge a
"source" (the arguments presented to you that you snipped). Sounds close
enogh to me--but you can insert "acknowledgement" in there if it will keep
you from getting your panties all twisted up.


..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.

Well, here you go; another chance to "address" those points:

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.

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. 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.

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?



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.

Justr avoid them--OK.


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?

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.

Brooks


Vaughn

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.

(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?

--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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

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!

If its bald faced lies you deal in, find another customer.

snip the rest as I am not bothering to read it

Gordon