Whatever happened to ?

[Anne]

Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?

On asia news tv lately is many bad americans killing many people in
middle east. This saddens me.

I remeber some time with good americans they were fun and easy.

Whatever happened to nice americans? What went wrong?

Me thank you

Anne

[Krztalizer]

>
>Whatever happened to nice americans? What went wrong?
>

Well, you see, sometimes we get attacked by people and our tradition is to get
damned unfriendly with those that did it, and anyone who even vaguely looked
like the people responsible for the attack. When a race or sect chooses to
announce that each of us here are automatically inferior to their race or sect,
and that Americans should be killed because their leader or prophet /says/ so,
we tend to flip that around and pretty much flatten everything, then feel
awful about it. A good way to get us all to return to being those funloving
big spenders you remember is to convince people to never attack us again.

v/r
Gordon
PS, what part of Finland are you from?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Anne" > wrote in message
...
> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
>

Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
ticked them off somewhat.

Keith

[Grantland]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Anne" > wrote in message
...
>> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
>>
>
>Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
>did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
>ticked them off somewhat.
>
>Keith
>
Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
There is no doubt.

Grant

[The Enlightenment]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
> >>
> >
> >Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
> >did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
> >ticked them off somewhat.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
> There is no doubt.

Well, there would have to be a doubt in the minds of most people in
regards to that.

However there is no doubt that they (the neo-cons and by implication
one of the Israeli services I'm thingking of the Niger Uranium
forgeries) exploited and misused the situation and that they were
ready and well prepared to exploit such an opportunity.



>
> Grant

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 12:38:38 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Anne" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
>
>Curiously enough, although I have travelled several times
>to the USA recently, I still have to meet face-to-face the
>first American who admits to approving of the actions of
>this particular US government. Everyone who talked about
>politics at all, voiced a strong dislike of George W. Bush.
>I don't know whether this is out of courtesy or because
>most of the people I met (east coast, scientific or technical
>education, frequently travelling abroad) are a natural
>Democratic constituency.
>
>Maybe those not-so-nice neo-Conservatives are computer
>simulations... :-)

You need to broaden your circle of friends. Go back to the 2000
elections and check the "red states and blue states". Visit some of
the 40 red states of what we like to call "the Heartland" of America.

Avoid E. Coast universities, upscale big city yuppie neighborhoods and
welfare-dependent inner city areas. Meet farmers, business owners,
entrepreneurs, managers, supervisors, and military folks (particularly
seek out some Vietnam vets like officers or ex-POWs).

Maybe even avoid anecdotal evidence gathering completely and check
some scientific polling by folks (not necessarily known for being
sympathetic to Republicans) like Zogby, Roper, Gallup, et. al.

The President still holds a greater than 60% approval rating and is
still shown as being ahead of his potential election opponent in most
of the polls.

There are a lot of real nice Americans left and they aren't
simulations.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

>> Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
>> There is no doubt.
>

I think, contrary to general belief,9/11 was a domestic "vaccination"
operation,but somebody else seized opportunity to implement their own agenda.

[miso]

Asleep at the switch? Absolutely. [Condi Rice never dreamed those
planes would be used to attack building, while she attended the G8
conference in Italy where they had AAA just to stop such an attack.]
Deliberate? No. The 9/11 attack took years of planning. It just took a
perfect storm of idiots to be in charge to let it happen. My blood
still boils when I think of Bush reading to those kids in Florida well
after the **** hit the fan.

Remember how they renewed Atta's visa 6 months after the attack? Talk
about being on autopilot.


(Grantland) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
> >>
> >
> >Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
> >did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
> >ticked them off somewhat.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
> There is no doubt.
>
> Grant

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Grantland) wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
> >>
> >
> >Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
> >did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
> >ticked them off somewhat.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
> There is no doubt.
>
> Grant

No -- it was aliens from the planet Mongo, masquerading as fanatical
Muslim fundamentalists, who did it!

[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

[Vaughn]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Whatever happened to nice americans? What went wrong?
> >
>
> Well, you see, sometimes we get attacked by people and our tradition is to get
> damned unfriendly with those that did it, ...

Were any of those people from Iraq? Hint: no

Vaughn

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:55:09 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You need to broaden your circle of friends. Go back to the 2000
>> elections and check the "red states and blue states". Visit some of
>> the 40 red states of what we like to call "the Heartland" of America.
>
>Frankly, considering the treatment "Homeland Security"
>now is planning to give to foreign visitors, which includes
>photographing, fingerprinting, and writing down what we
>had for lunch on the aircraft ("did not have pork -- possible
>terrorist"), I am not exactly looking forward to travelling to
>the USA again. (I probably can't avoid it.) Not that I can
>otherwise complain about the hospitality of Americans;
>as an inhabitant of "Old Europe" at its oldest, I have never
>encountered any hostility.

The "good news" is that your treatment isn't much worse than what
domestic air travelers experience these days. I've become a "frequent
driver" rather than a "frequent flier" for most trips.

And, I could tell you some horror stories of travels to other
nations--I recall a particularly tedious trip to Morocco and an
"unusual" border crossing between Turkey and Syria.

As for Europe, I lived there for nearly eight years and must freely
acknowledge that European hospitality was excellent.
>
>> Avoid E. Coast universities, upscale big city yuppie neighborhoods and
>> welfare-dependent inner city areas. Meet farmers, business owners,
>> entrepreneurs, managers, supervisors, and military folks (particularly
>> seek out some Vietnam vets like officers or ex-POWs).
>
>I wasn't claiming to wide statistics, nor citing any "evidence."
>I was just making a personal observation.
>
>As for the statistics, most of the people I met in the USA probably
>fall in the "business owners, entrepreneurs, managers, supervisors"
>category, even if they had an university education; people with
>purely academic jobs were a minority.

Unfortunately for America, the level of political discourse has
plummeted in recent years. Few Americans seem to have a clue about the
complexities of political events and most seem quite content to
ignorantly regurgitate the last sound bite that fit their particularl
political ideology.
>
>> The President still holds a greater than 60% approval rating
>
>Latest polls give figures well below 50%, AFAIK.

Be sure to distinguish between the "approval rating" polls and the
election polling.

The Chinese curse is definitely operative--we live in interesting
times.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >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?

If there has been a potential attack on the United States that may
involve subsequent attacks, and command decisions by the National
Command Authority, it was irresponsible for him to do anything except
have the Secret Service clear the fastest path possible, guns drawn, and
GET HIM AIRBORNE. That's basic Continuity of Government doctrine. Once
there were multiple attacks, as well as Flight 93's projected path, I
wouldn't have objected to activating the Joint Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Lots of things upset children. They get over it, mostly. Bush saying
'I must go now" would probably been less stressful than a denial of
Santa Claus.

As far as "a few minutes meaning anything", yes. Given one significant
attack, there was no certainty the NCA wasn't targeted.

[Leslie Swartz]

Were any of those people trained in Iraq; and funded by Iraq?

If you have been objective in the news sources you follow, you wouldn't need
a hint . . .

Steve Swartz


"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Whatever happened to nice americans? What went wrong?
> > >
> >
> > Well, you see, sometimes we get attacked by people and our tradition is
to get
> > damned unfriendly with those that did it, ...
>
> Were any of those people from Iraq? Hint: no
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 23 May 2004 12:49:36 GMT,
Grantland attempted to say .....

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
> >>
> >
> >Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
> >did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
> >ticked them off somewhat.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
> There is no doubt.

You have proof of course....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Glenfiddich
> wrote:

> On 23 May 2004 21:10:46 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>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?
>
> And, as anyone could realise if they *thought* about the logistics, it
> they would have taken _at_least_ 10 minutes to organise the motorcade
> for an unscheduled departure - especially with the new security worry
> of a suicide attack on the president himself

At any Presidential appearance I've ever attended -- and that's been a
fair number in getting close to 40 years in the DC area -- there is
ALWAYS a getaway team on alert -- usually one or two armored limos, a
Secret Service Suburban or the like, and local police.

The pretty well-known drill is that someone yelling "GUN!" on the Secret
Service frequency means GET HIM OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW!

[Denyav]

>No -- it was aliens from the planet Mongo, masquerading as fanatical
>Muslim fundamentalists, who did it!
>
>

As far as I could remember the same aliens from the planet Mongo,but this time
masquerading as fanatical communists,burned down Reichstag.

[Denyav]

>At any Presidential appearance I've ever attended -- and that's been a
>fair number in getting close to 40 years in the DC area -- there is
>ALWAYS a getaway team on alert -- usually one or two armored limos, a
>Secret Service Suburban or the like, and local police.
>
>The pretty well-known drill is that someone yelling "GUN!" on the Secret
>Service frequency means GET HIM OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW!

Too much security for a position with ceremonial duties only.

[Paul Elliot]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>>You need to broaden your circle of friends. Go back to the 2000
>>elections and check the "red states and blue states". Visit some of
>>the 40 red states of what we like to call "the Heartland" of America.
>>
>>
>
>Frankly, considering the treatment "Homeland Security"
>now is planning to give to foreign visitors, which includes
>photographing, fingerprinting, and writing down what we
>had for lunch on the aircraft ("did not have pork -- possible
>terrorist"), I am not exactly looking forward to travelling to
>the USA again. (I probably can't avoid it.) Not that I can
>otherwise complain about the hospitality of Americans;
>as an inhabitant of "Old Europe" at its oldest, I have never
>encountered any hostility.
>
>
>
>>Avoid E. Coast universities, upscale big city yuppie neighborhoods and
>>welfare-dependent inner city areas. Meet farmers, business owners,
>>entrepreneurs, managers, supervisors, and military folks (particularly
>>seek out some Vietnam vets like officers or ex-POWs).
>>
>>
>
>I wasn't claiming to wide statistics, nor citing any "evidence."
>I was just making a personal observation.
>
>As for the statistics, most of the people I met in the USA probably
>fall in the "business owners, entrepreneurs, managers, supervisors"
>category, even if they had an university education; people with
>purely academic jobs were a minority.
>
>
>
>>The President still holds a greater than 60% approval rating
>>
>>
>
>Latest polls give figures well below 50%, AFAIK.
>
>
>
Well then, you're most certainly welcome to stay home! If you find us so
distasteful, you should not risk upsetting your delicate self by coming
here!

[Paul Elliot]

Grantland wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Anne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers of them and
>>did billions of dollars worth of damage. This understandably
>>ticked them off somewhat.
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>Proof? Neo-con traitors and Mossad did 9/11. That is the fact.
>There is no doubt.
>
>Grant
>
>
Ignore----FITH

[John Keeney]

"Anne" > wrote in message
...
> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?

Somebody came along and killed off a bunch of them
then some other assholes from such places as Europe
and New Zealand (such as yourself) behaved stupidly
as ****ed the rest of us off.

From: Anne >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Whatever happened to ?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:29:16 +1000
Organization: AsiaOnline
Lines: 12
Message-ID: >
Reply-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: p425-apx1.syd.ihug.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1085286678 10971 203.173.140.171 (23 May 2004
04:31:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 04:31:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Path:
news.iglou.com!ash.uu.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lus t.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!no
t-for-mail
Xref: news-incoming.iglou.com rec.aviation.military:594623

> On asia news tv lately is many bad americans killing many people in
> middle east. This saddens me.
>
> I remeber some time with good americans they were fun and easy.
>
> Whatever happened to nice americans? What went wrong?
>
> Me thank you
>
> Anne

[Krztalizer]

>
>> Well, you see, sometimes we get attacked by people and our tradition is to
>get
>> damned unfriendly with those that did it, ...
>
> Were any of those people from Iraq? Hint: no

Genius, if you hadn't edited my sentence, you'd have seen the reference to
"...and anyone vaguely resembling..." So, did the people that attacked us look
anything at all like natives of Iraq?

Hint: yes.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Well, there would have to be a doubt in the minds of most people in
> regards to that.
>
> However there is no doubt that they (the neo-cons and by implication
> one of the Israeli services I'm thingking of the Niger Uranium
> forgeries)

The Nigerian Uranium stories came from British source not
American.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >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?
>

Actually I was impressed when I heard this. It shows
an ability to remain cool that I hadnt previously credited
Bush with.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George Z. Bush]

Krztalizer wrote:
>>> Well, you see, sometimes we get attacked by people and our tradition is to
>>> get damned unfriendly with those that did it, ...
>>
>> Were any of those people from Iraq? Hint: no
>
> Genius, if you hadn't edited my sentence, you'd have seen the reference to
> "...and anyone vaguely resembling..." So, did the people that attacked us
> look anything at all like natives of Iraq?
>
> Hint: yes.

If that's the case, why didn't we attack the people from Syria, or Lebanon, or
Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Lybia? They all look alike, don't they,
or can you tell one from another? Since when do Americans go to war with
someone because they look like somebody who did something nasty to us? When did
we become so stupid?

George Z.

[Matt Wiser]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>"Anne" > wrote in message
...
>> Can you tell what ever happened to nice americans?
>>
>
>Some Islamic extremists killed large numbers
>of them and
>did billions of dollars worth of damage. This
>understandably
>ticked them off somewhat.
>
>Keith
>
>
Thanks, Keith. I'm a nice American who is VERY ANGRY at OBL and his ilk,
Saddam Insane and his ilk, 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 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. And Bin Laden will
either take a perp walk or be carried away-in a body bag. (Ditto for his
top lieutenants like Ayman Al-Zwahari and Abu Musab Al-Zarquari.)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!

[Krztalizer]

>
>If that's the case, why didn't we attack the people from Syria, or Lebanon,
>or
>Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Lybia?

Because our leadership is just smart enough not to. Not that they wouldn't
/want/ to, they just know that they'd have the US population up in arms if they
went that far off the deep end.

>Since when do Americans go to war with
>someone because they look like >somebody who did something nasty to us?

How many Afganis attacked us before we deployed B-52s? Granted, its a cesspool
over there, but it wasn't 'our' cesspool, nor did people from Afganistan take
part in the 9/11 attacks. If we struck back at only the groups that nailed us,
Saudi Arabia would be under new management right now. So instead, we went
after a country filled with people who looked quite a bit like the folks that
zapped us, after claiming they were a genuine, immediate threat to our internal
safety.

> When did
>we become so stupid?

Sometime around when we sent bombers to drop on downtown Belgrade.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> How many Afganis attacked us before we deployed B-52s? Granted, its a
cesspool
> over there, but it wasn't 'our' cesspool, nor did people from Afganistan
take
> part in the 9/11 attacks.

No, their government just provided the support and infrastructure that
allowed the organization that did conduct those attacks to operate openly,
along with providing training grounds for some of those very same terrorists
who did do the attack to hone their skills. They also apprently provided
security for that same group. When confronted and the demand to hand over
those same organizational leaders was issued, along with the requirement to
dismantle the training camps, they said, "Fuhgetaboutit." Not a wise move.


If we struck back at only the groups that nailed us,
> Saudi Arabia would be under new management right now.

Eh? You are accusing King Fahd of having "nailed us"?

So instead, we went
> after a country filled with people who looked quite a bit like the folks
that
> zapped us, after claiming they were a genuine, immediate threat to our
internal
> safety.

Gee, it is interesting how easly you forget/discount the fact that "the
folks that(sic) zapped us" were then resident in same said country, and were
continuing to train and operate from same said country, with same said
country's rather open support. Kind of changes the equation a bit, eh?

>
> > When did
> >we become so stupid?
>
> Sometime around when we sent bombers to drop on downtown Belgrade.

Uhmmm..? And the connection is...?

Brooks

[Krztalizer]

>> > When did
>> >we become so stupid?
>>
>> Sometime around when we sent bombers to drop on downtown Belgrade.
>
>Uhmmm..? And the connection is...?
>

The only connection is that neither the citizens of Belgrade nor the citizens
of Afganistan attacked us, but that didn't stop our government from dropping
bombs on population centers. Think about what sort of psychological damage it
does to kids and non-combatants when the "greatest nation on earth" comes and
terrorizes you and everyone you know by blowing up familiar landmarks in your
home town, often after the targeted thugs have quit those buildings after
realizing that CNN was spending a lot of time pointing cameras at them.

I understand we need to go after terrorists, but apparently we aren't
allowed/inclined to go after them if they reside in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia
and are on the government payroll. Are we safer or not, since we attacked
Iraq? Why was it Priority #1 to find and punish Bin Laden in the hours after
9/11, yet our president later announced, "..don't know if we're going to find
him or not"? 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.

Gordon

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >> > When did
> >> >we become so stupid?
> >>
> >> Sometime around when we sent bombers to drop on downtown Belgrade.
> >
> >Uhmmm..? And the connection is...?
> >
>
> The only connection is that neither the citizens of Belgrade nor the
citizens
> of Afganistan attacked us, but that didn't stop our government from
dropping
> bombs on population centers.

For cryin' out loud, stop being so danged facile about this--the Taliban
supported AQ, provided them refuge and training grounds, guaranteed their
security, etc. Stop acting as if Afghnistan had nothing to do with 9-11. And
get off your freakin' high horse about bombing "population centers"; the
strikes we have conducted have utilyzed every possible means to reduce
collateral damage and focus on hitting legitimate targets. Those that have
been injured due to collateral damage should instead be considering what
they *did not* do, or what they *did*, to incur the attacks in the first
place. As to Belgrade, there were a few hundred thousand Kosovars who might
disagree with you in regards to whether there was any cause for attacking
Belgrade.

Think about what sort of psychological damage it
> does to kids and non-combatants when the "greatest nation on earth" comes
and
> terrorizes you and everyone you know by blowing up familiar landmarks in
your
> home town, 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.

>
> 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, courtesy of a friendly (to them) Taliban government.

but apparently we aren't
> allowed/inclined to go after them if they reside in Pakistan or Saudi
Arabia
> and are on the government payroll. Are we safer or not, since we attacked
> Iraq? Why was it Priority #1 to find and punish Bin Laden in the hours
after
> 9/11, yet our president later announced, "..don't know if we're going to
find
> him or not"? 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. Along with your reputation in my mind, also sadly,
I might add. 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. 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.

Brooks

>
> Gordon

[Vaughn]

"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!

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[Krztalizer]

> 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

[Vaughn]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[Vaughn]

"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

[WaltBJ]

"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.)

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>
>
>
>

[Krztalizer]

>
>> 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

[Vaughn]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

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
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

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
>
>
>
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Roush Fan6]

Re: 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.

[B2431]

>From: (Roush Fan6)
>Date: 5/25/2004 10:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>Re: 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

[Matt Wiser]

"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!