Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

Jim Yanik wrote:
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
1...

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
e.com:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
.21...

...

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?


The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.


Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.


Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
them out.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.


Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
wounded in a crime and does not report it

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

Cheers

--mike



19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.


A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
State Dept's.

None of them Iraqi.

Mike Dargan wrote:

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

I'm sure you can provide an example? No? I didn't think so. The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.


BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:


Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?


I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Thelasian wrote:

Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring.

Come on! Get it right, it's a "vast right wing conspiracy"

Interesting how you're quite willing to see conspiracies where you
like, but not where you don't like.


Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said
they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr

Interesting? But perhaps the military (you know, the numerous guys actually
there, on the ground in Iraq) *does* have evidence.


Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign
infiltators"
So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of
the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks
on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not
foreign forces," (see below)


His own words and actions
are good enough for me. His exile to Iran following his fathers assasination in
1999 is pretty damning as far as an Iranian link and he has openly called for


Ummmm...in that case you'd better be prepared for a shock: MOST of
Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran. Iran is
after all the neighbor of Iraq, and an enemy of Saddam. Does that
automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran? In fact the current
US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too?


and
despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters"
precious few have actually turned up

Wrong.

"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700
captives being held as security threats in Iraq

How many of the dead are foreign? How many suicide bombers are foriegn? These
guys are not surrendering which will upset your data.
Sorry, but talking with
guys who have been there, they say the foriegn influance in the insurgency is
huge.


Yeah well that's not what your "guys" say to the reporters.

UPI Wednesday, 19-Nov-2003 4:50AM PST
Copyright 2003 by United Press International (via ClariNet)

BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. military leaders say there is little
evidence of foreign fighters from Syria, Turkey and Iran in Iraq.

"Most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and
other Iraqis, not foreign forces," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack
Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division....The generals' remarks
don't concur with Bush administration estimates of last month, when
the number of foreign fighters was pegged between 1,000 and 3,000, the
New York Times reported Wednesday...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We
need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than
hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work.

While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work
in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a
good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic
terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and
attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say,
"Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it
right."

Give Israel a good spanking when it needs it. Settling the occupied
terrorities was really stupid.



A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't
and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and
create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people
some hope for a democratic future.

Just how many do you plan to kill? 10, 20, 30 million? There are religious
schools all over the Niddle east teaching children that america is the
enemy. There are over a billion Muslims, If only 10% hold extemist views
thats a 100 million.

And before someone out in the peanu gallery calls me an anti-semite. I
fully support the right of Israel to exist. I just wish Israel would be
smarter about doing it.




(Note the evolution of democracy in
Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs
and now seeks a return to progressivism.)

The last Iranian election seemed to be a step backwards as candidates had to
be "mullah approved"




This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they
need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses.
Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the
hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins
the
next election leaves office.

But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be
even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic
principles?

Might have been a lot brighter picture if we could have worked better with
the UN and our allies. I have a sneaking suspicion that their decision may
not have been based on how they perceived the threat of Iraq under Sadaam
but whether or not they wanted to do it with George "my way or the highway"
Bush in charge. Roosevelt had people working on the occupation of Germany
in 1943. These guys, who have planned this war since 1998 didn't start
until Baghdad fell.

Ultimately we aren't going to know until US troops leave.


I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November

The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that
violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of
Hiroshima didn't beget more violence,

There is a good argument that it wasn't the A-bombs but the Soviets entry
to the war that did the trick



it toppled the regime and
created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The
violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

Apples and oranges. This war is nothing like WWII. Don't mistake my
opposition to Bush for pacifism. I spent a few years on willy airplane
patch in the comm unit (76-80). I fully support the war against Bin-laden
and Al-queda. I think the war though in Iraq is a misguided side show that
wasted resources like RC-135's and arab speaking green berets which could
have been used better in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When your boot is on the enemies throat you don't let up. Bush did and now
he needs to pay for it.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:3FRZc.107321$Fg5.31523@attbi_s53...
BUFDRVR wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:


Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?


I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

"This is where Unger's accusations are greeted with skepticism. For experts,
connection does not prove corruption. Jonathan D. Tepperman, senior editor
at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, argues that Unger's book "has done a
really good job" showing "a lot of smoke but what he hasn't done is shown me
there is any fire." Tepperman wrote a critical review of Unger's book in The
New York Times Book Review. In an interview, Tepperman agreed with Unger
that "these connections" (such as President Bush hosting Bandar at his
Crawford ranch, an honor usually reserved for heads of state) do "look bad."
But he adds "what I don't see is any evidence that the Bush family ever let
their personal financial concerns dictate U.S. policy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612852.shtml

A book full of inuendo, and short of hard evidence.


No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

So what you are saying with all of that obtuse wording is that you don't
think too much?


Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist
groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the
point and a
crack down has begun.

Odd how you missed out on this more important bit of Bufdrvr's response.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

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

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

What Belgians have learned from experience is that as a small country
they can depend upon other, larger, more powerful nations to defend
them

And can you imagine, after their experience in both World Wars, that they take
this stand?

That, in fact was a Big Problem in World War 2. During most of the
1930s, the Belgians had rebuffed proposals by Great Britain and France
that they develop a joint strategy, and do joint planning, for teh
defence of Belgium (And thus Northern France) from a German Invasion.
(FOr whatever reasons, such a "The Germans are nice people, they've
only invaded us twice, maybe they won't this time." or "If we don't
provoke them, we won't be on the list of targets.")
This changed in late 1939, when the writing was firmly engraved on the
wall, and Belgium as a nation changed their mind and hollered lustily
for help. Of course, by that time, it was too late.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an
illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that
he died of
multiple gun shot wounds.

It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Sounds like he died of lead poisoning.

By definition, terrorists are extremely dangerous people. Perhaps Saddam
decided that he had lived too long.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism. Nidal had
a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the
U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows?

Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
fighting terrorism;

I made no such claim.

what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

I already stated that Abbas was living openly in Baghdad
pursuant to some sort of amnesty agreement.

I wasn't clear on how long Nidal was had been there befor his
execution, I appreciate the information.

I don't think anyone has made a case for either of them being
involved with the attacks of September 11, or part of the heirarchy
of Al Quaeda. I'll agree their organizations are as bad and
should be dealt with in a similar manner, but not necessarily on
the same schedule.

--

FF

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current
government
otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".

The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
to "con-men".

This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

As a Francophone you will appreciate the 'con' part of it in a different way
as well. More appropriate still IMO

John