Whatever happened to ?

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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.

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

"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!