A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 1st 04, 12:04 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse


I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the U.S. You
don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a threat to U.S.
national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S.
forces in Afghanistan, was injured and received treatment where? That's right,
Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control


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


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #2  
Old September 1st 04, 03:07 AM
Chris Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anyone interested in pre-emptive and preventative war, and its likely role in
American foreign policy, could do no better than read Michael Walzer’s "Just
and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations." First
published in 1977, updated versions taking into account more recent events,
have appeared. It is studied in Ivy League and armed forces academy poly sci
classes, the students of which generally intend to pursue careers in
statescraft or the military. It has influenced, among other significant
personages, Kenneth Pollack, Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National
Security Council, in the Carter Administration, and author of "The Threatening
Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," as well as Philip Bobbitt, Senior Director
for Strategic Planning, National Security Council, in the Clinton
Administration, and author of "The Shield of Achilles: War and Peace in the
Course of History."
It should be pointed out that all the above men are more or less left-of-center
politically, and Democrats, but both Pollack and Bobbitt have been influential
in shaping the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, using, at least in part
Walzer's (an ardent Vietnam War critic) ideas.

If nothing else, reading Walzer will provide insight into why Sir Arthur Harris
was treated the way he was after WW2 was over.


Chris Mark
  #3  
Old September 1st 04, 03:14 AM
Chris Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: xmarx467@

Kenneth Pollack, Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National
Security Council, in the Carter Administration,


Meant Clinton Administration.


Chris Mark
  #5  
Old September 1st 04, 04:47 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse


I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control


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


BUFDRVR

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


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.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


Come now--you KNOW that merely having regular contact with various terrorist
groups, providing medical care to one wanted senior AQ member, and then
giving him a new area to operate from, providing money in support of suicide
bombers, etc., does not constitute "support for terrorism", don't you? Just
ask all of those folks with their heads buried in the sand and from whom
continuously emanate muffled, repetitive chants like, "Saddam never even
*met* a terrorist, much less supported any of them", and "Continued work on
biological warfare programs, hiding of WMD equipment, documents, and
WMD-knowledgable personnel, the finding of a type of binary weapon that was
obviously not developed until after the Iran-Iraq War, etc., does not mean
that Saddam was continuing to pursue WMD's..."; they'll assure you that
Saddam *never* supported terrorists...

Ooops...keep forgetting to turn that danged sarcasm switch off...

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net



  #6  
Old September 1st 04, 08:46 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse


I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control


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?

....


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


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

Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


--

FF
  #7  
Old September 2nd 04, 12:06 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

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?

...


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


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.
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.

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



Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...


Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.



Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #9  
Old September 3rd 04, 05:07 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

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

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...

...

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


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.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #10  
Old September 3rd 04, 05:13 AM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 01:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 10:38 PM
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been Psalm 110 Military Aviation 0 August 12th 04 10:40 AM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.