Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.



"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


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

North Korea is not being ignored, but it does represent a much tougher nut to
crack. I think the problems we're encountering with North Korea (possible
nuclear weapons being the the biggest problem) were the main reason we
decided
to go into Iraq as soon as we did.


Very true and your message for other third world countries:
"Develop your own nuclear weapons as soon as possible otherwise you too will
be occupied and colonized like Iraq by Anglos".

I think North Korean "Great Leader" feels vindicated now.

Sorry, that question was supposed to go to 'Mr Know It All Windbag' who
discounts any knowledge that isn't gained first hand.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.



"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


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

Describe your combat experience in Iraq.


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


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

In message , BUFDRVR
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

Which member of the IRA was harbored by the U.S. ever, but particularly after
9/11?

Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth. Convicted (not
accused, convicted) terrorists, who after breaking out of prison
(killing a guard in the process), fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
because they were victims of "political persecution".

Life isn't simple or obvious.

I guess because it happened here and not in Europe September 11th has left
(after nearly 3 years) two starkly different impressions on Europe and the U.S.
As far as terrorism is concerned, life is simple and very obvious.

What's "obvious" about it?

Currently, the government of Sudan is dealing with a terrorist
insurgency in Darfur. What's the "obvious" simplicity about that
situation?

But much worse has been tolerated in the past

"The past" being the key term. 9/11 changed everything.

For some people in the US. Not actually that many. (There's still the
fundamental problem of the 'Yes, Minister' irregular verb: "I am a brave
and noble freedom fighter. You are a guerilla. He is a murdering
terrorist."

To pick two controversial countries, Israel and South Africa are
literally run by terrorists: Israel less recently, but at what point did
the ANC go from being 'terrorists' to 'lawful government'?

and it remains a question worth asking: given the
cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

The potential of Hussain.

To do what? He was bottled up and contained.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan
and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
given medical treatment in Baghdad...

The first is pretty unarguable. Two, three and four are claimed rather
than proven.

Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval".

Ansar al-Islam opposed a secular Kurdistan, which might have earned
Hussein's approval... except that they preferred Sharia law and a
theocracy, which sets them directly against Hussein.

Yep, that adds up
to providing support to AQ.

Only if you simultaneously believe that Saudi Arabia is the main
bankroll and wellspring for al-Qaeda, which apparently has been
_completely_ discredited: it seems Saudi Arabia hasn't even *heard* of
Wahabbi Islam, let alone ever supported it.

Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
he covered it last night in his speech.

So now we're into "book X is truth and book Y is lies"?

Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...

Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Trying to change the subject?

We're talking about terrorists?

Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
after killing their way out of prison.

By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.

Strawman...

Evasion.

Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
not?

Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists, though.

Why do you find the subject so frightening?

You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
no worse than the US.

But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

Isn't it strange how those who are most huffy about US action against Iraq
often put Libya forward as a counterexample, and forget that the action
against Iraq is probably the single greatest factor in bringing QaDaffy Duck
"in from the cold", so to speak, in terms of his own WMD efforts (and
apparently terrorist support as well)?

What is your evidence for that?

Bear in mind that "I'm next!" isn't credible simply because there are
not the troops available to invade Libya anytime soon.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam wrote:

Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth

You have a strange definition of harboring.

Kevin Artt

Currently locked up in a federal jail in Pleasanton, California. He did several
stints, since his arrest in '94, in prison and on electronically monitored
bail.

Pol Brennan

Not sure about his current where abouts, but was arrested in '93, did several
stints in jail (including plenty of time in solitary for failure to do prison
work), a few stints on electronically monitored bail and as late as October
1998 was back in jail.

Terence Kirby

Like Pol Brennan, not alot about Kirby after 2000. Latest word from 2000 was he
was in jail where he had been like the other 3.

Jimmy Smyth

Arrested in 1993, worked his way in, around and through the U.S. judicial
system until his return to Northern Ireland in 1998. Interestingly enough, he
was such a threat that he was released from prison in NI in 2000.

fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
because they were victims of "political persecution".

That doesn't seem to have been the case. All four spent most of their time
(after being discovered and arrested) in jail working through the U.S. judicial
system. That is not being harbored.

As far as terrorism is concerned, life is simple and very obvious.

What's "obvious" about it?

That if you are helping terrorists, harboring them or assisting them in any way
we will stop the activity for you. Simple and obvious.

The potential of Hussain.

To do what? He was bottled up and contained.

And supporting AQ fighters from Afghanistan with medical aid and who knows what
else. Saddam's conventional forces were contained however his work with and for
terrorists was continuing.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Paul J. Adam wrote:

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...

Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

With the major difference of course that unlike the H-Block 4, Nidal spent no
time in any Iraqi prisons and there was no system working to hand him over to
any country that had indicted him. So I guess its not really like the H-Block 4
at all is it?

Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
after killing their way out of prison.

And what happened to them when their identity was discovered? They were
arrested and jailed and at least Artt is there to this day! Nidal didn't
illegally enter Iraq, he did so with the aid of the Iraqi government. Once in
Iraq he was given everything he needed to live and was sheltered from several
nations where he was sought on various charges. To compare the H-Block 4 to
Nidal is just plain ridiculous and insulting. What assistance were any of the 4
given to enter the U.S. from the U.S. government? Once discovered, how were
they treated as opposed to Nidal?

Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
not?

Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
harboring...not even close. Amazing how a Brit demands the immediate
extradition of wanted UK terrorists, yet has an issue with the U.S. holding
onto a British subject wanted for terrorism by the U.S.

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
no worse than the US.

The U.S. allowed the H Block 4 residence *in prison* or at the least on
electronically monitored house arrest. Your comparison is ridiculous.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , BUFDRVR
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

Which member of the IRA was harbored by the U.S. ever, but particularly
after 9/11?

Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth. Convicted (not
accused, convicted) terrorists, who after breaking out of prison
(killing a guard in the process), fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
because they were victims of "political persecution".

How much would you like to bet that you can, in large part, thank Ted
Kennedy for that?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in
Afghanistan
and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
given medical treatment in Baghdad...

The first is pretty unarguable. Two, three and four are claimed rather
than proven.

Then you apparently know more than General Franks...nah, I don't think so.
See his book.

There are other references to the links between Saddam and AAI; for example
the following describes some foreign national memebers who were captured
after they attacked PUK forces: "Interestingly, many captured Arab fighters
held passports with Iraqi visas, signaling that Iraq likely approved their
presence." www.meforum.org/article/579 This is in regards to foreign
fighters caught immediately after hostilities were initiated in March 03,
not any current batches.

I have yet to see any reputable source claim that Al Zarqawi did NOT receive
medical care in Baghdad. Given that Iran has reportedly *not* been a safe
haven for AAI fighters (those that tried to flee across the border early in
the conflict were either turned back or taken into custody), then how the
heck do you think Zarqawi got into Iraq without governmental approval?

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck--it's a duck.


Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval".

Ansar al-Islam opposed a secular Kurdistan, which might have earned
Hussein's approval... except that they preferred Sharia law and a
theocracy, which sets them directly against Hussein.

As others have pointed out in the media, Saddam had no problem with allying
himself with those who did not really like him, and apparently Al Zarqawi
and friends were likewise amenable to working with those they did not really
care for when it served their purposes.


Yep, that adds up
to providing support to AQ.

Only if you simultaneously believe that Saudi Arabia is the main
bankroll and wellspring for al-Qaeda, which apparently has been
_completely_ discredited: it seems Saudi Arabia hasn't even *heard* of
Wahabbi Islam, let alone ever supported it.

Nobody has said that--that is you once again stretching things to the
extreme in a juvenile attempt to sway the argument from its focus. Al
Zarqawi was in Iraq; even if you want to discount him, you still have Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal to contend with, not to mention the funneling of money
to those suicide bombers' families, and that curious training facility
overrun early in the war, etc. But hey, you want to turn this into a Saudi
Arabia thread to get the attention off of those things, right? Try again.


Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
he covered it last night in his speech.

So now we're into "book X is truth and book Y is lies"?

You have yet to produce Book Y. Boox X was written by the former CENTCOM
commander, a man yet shown to have ever presented anything but the truth.
You should read it--but I doubt you will, being as it goes against some of
your more cherished preconceptions.


Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have
happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...

Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

Excuse me, but were any of those fellows in Iraq? No? Why do you persist in
trying to change the subject, which is Iraq? Try again.


(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Trying to change the subject?

We're talking about terrorists?

No, we are talking about Iraq, Hussein, and terrorists; if your ideas don't
entertwine with at least two of the above, you are posting to the wrong
thread.


Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
after killing their way out of prison.

They have not been to Iraq, and have nothing to do with Hussein--take it to
another thread.


By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and
California.

Strawman...

Evasion.

Abu Nidal. Abbu Abbas. Al Zarqawi. Those are the names that first popped up,
and which you are apparently evading. This is about Iraq, not NI.


Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
not?

So you are saying that Hussein harboring terrorists was causus belli? Good.


Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists, though.

Why do you find the subject so frightening?

I don't--I am not arguing it here, because it is not the subject here, no
matter how much you want to try to change it. Nor am I going to introduce
Bloody Sunday into the discussion, or UK officials turning a blind eye to
past Protestant terrorist acts--because they are not part and parcel to the
discussion at hand. Get it?


You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true

Well, you left out that training camp that one of them was apparently
running outside Baghdad, the money he was providing to support suicide
bombings, etc.; but it is nice to see you agree he was supporting
terrorists. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Brooks

snip