Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
So we then procede to attack a division of tanks and scores of infantry. Ok.



Pray tell how we were to otherwise remove a dictator of his like and make SURE that the elimination of the threat of chem/biochem weapons. More UN sanctions? I'm sure just another day or two Saddam would have surely broken under the IMMENSE strain of them... In all seriousness, how else were we to remove him and make sure that all chemical and biochemical weapons were destroyed?

Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Would you rather I comment on "its stated aims and goals" or "its aims and goals"?



Either, due to this administration being one of "what you see is what you get", for the most part.

Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Did Saddam and Iraq pose a threat? Yes, if you were Kuwait or Iran.



By this rather questionable line of reasoning I'm guessing the Taliban of Afghanistan (whom protected and worked with Bin Laden) only served as a threat to Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China, solely due to their geographic closeness...

...or did the orchestrated events of 9/11 not constitute an attack on the US by a foreign entity protected by a governing body of the nation of Afghanistan?


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
In the years after the Gulf war and with American troops in Kuwait, I did not see Iraq as a regional threat. There was nothing that led me to believe they posed any threat to their neighbors.



Of course they didn't serve as a military threat. We destroyed most of it in '91 and established "no-fly" zones that kept their planes on the ground, not to mention sanctions that prevented the importation (for the most part) of military equipment and supplies. Kuwait had much of the same opinion of Iraq that you have stated before late 1990; Iran did as well before Saddam tore up the peace treaty and declared war on Iran in 1980...


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
I have no reason to suspect the next ten would have been any different.



Hundreds of tons of missing nerve agent and other weaponized material, one dictator that's sworn hatred and revenge against the US and no alarm bells going off AT ALL!? Saddam has a motive (his hatred for the US); all he would have needed for an opportunity is TIME.


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
You already know my opinion on Iraq being a "long-term threat against us" so I will not comment on it further. I do not know if the Kurds will get a voice or if countries like Turkey would even allow it. Until "we get up and get the hell out of there" we have done the opposite and shown other Arab and non-Arab nations that we have an interest in becoming a colonial empire.



I think we've shown them that if certain extremist governments (also extremist elements within those governments that run unchecked) continue the irresponsible behavior and continue to pursue programs that serve to threaten our allies, our interests and ultimately ourselves, will pursue the most appropriate path of removing those threats...

Originally posted by JaTo:
...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.



We'll just have to disagree on that one.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Ponder this:
If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...


I have not heard bin Laden say this, but I have the feeling he would not have appreciated troops in Iraq any more. I believe bin Laden's true reason for his fatwa has to do with Israel-Palestine conflicts and our involvement in them.

I would have been supportive of pushing into Iraq at that time. I do not want to get into it, but there were many factors that justified it which are no longer present. As I have stated earlier, I do not believe it could have happened though. The same Americans who would have been against it because "What did Iraq ever do to us?" are now the same ones overreacting to an obvious terrorist attack and lashing out with support of this war. This administration has stated its reasons and justifications for the war many times, but the only reason they were able to start this conflict was because of September 11th. September 11th would have happened no matter how we had handled the situations in Iraq years ago. But this war would not have happened without September 11th.




From what I've read on Bin Laden, he is much of the same mind that this administration is on Hussein: the majority population of Iraq isn't fond of him in any way, shape or form. Religious differences aside (both being Muslim, yet not of the same fundamental belief), both HATE the US. Hussein's beef is that we spanked him hard in '91 and have somewhat manicled his main military muscle since then; the straw that broke the camel's back. Refer to this quote taken from here (don't laugh, I know it's from USA Today, but it's the only reference I could find on short notice):


U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Placed there just before the Gulf War with Saudi Arabia's blessing to protect that nation and to serve as a staging point for taking back Kuwait, the troops have never left. The U.S. Air Force has about 5,000 personnel in the country. Their presence enrages some Muslims, who regard the country as holy ground because it is the birthplace of Islam, and has given bin Laden a crucial rallying cry. "For bin Laden, it has been the critical thing," Taylor says. (In 1996, his followers bombed the American military barracks there in Dhahran, killing 19 servicemen.)


This also mentions Palestine, though if you care to discuss hypocracy, refer to most any Muslim country and their treatment of other Muslim sects or outside religious groups that have claims to land or religious sites (Kurds in Turkey and Iraq; Tribal squabbles in Afghanistan between those if differing belief; Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan; hell, refer back to Lebanon in the '80s...) Palestine is only a rallying cry for these nuts because Irael has our support, first and foremost, to preserve it against aggressor Muslim nations within the region. This does get used to keep the Palestinians in line as well; there's no denying that and it gets quite brutal at times.

In short, any current extremist Muslim talking about Palestine as a "cause" to fight for is akin to an American Skinhead cell claiming solidarity with American Indians and their struggle on reservations...

More later. This is all I can pull together on short notice.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe