and no one really cares about the bombing because they've been going on for 10 years and are US and UK responses to Iraq attempting to shoot down allied planes patrolling No-fly zones established by the U.N. There has been on average one strike a month over the last 10 years, this strike doesn't reflect a change in policy. If you wonder if Americans care about a war in Iraq, check newspaper websites. Its been dominating newscycles for over a month.
What are you 5 years old? Of COURSE the army kills people if necessary. Fortunately they dont have to do it very often because they train very hard to prevent it from happening. Soldiers are not bloodthirsty killers. They understand the necessity of war because only THEY have seen it. They have sacrificed so that immature children like you can have the right to criticize when all you should be saying is..............thank you.
They always come back Greyhnd00, haven't seen you around for a while. Glad you could chime in here. Last I saw of you, you left the boards like a dog with its tail between its legs. Get it? Ah, and you are ex-military, right?
No, they just told me that so I'd sign on the dotted line. I did not take one single flight lesson nor was given the chance.
i]Originally posted by mactheknife [/i] i care. i've known about the attacks for quite some time, but it's pretty obvious there's nothing i can do about it. bush (and blair) are both obviously set on fighting their own vigilante war with no other support because of "suspected" weapons of mass destruction. Of course they're only "suspected", Saddam won't let any UN Inspectors get within sniffing distance of any of his facilities. The UN, spineless as it is does nothing what i can't help but notice is the fact that none of this (saddam) really mattered until we realized we couldn't find bin laden. we still needed a threat to national security, apparently, so we focused on the next best thing. a recent AOL poll i read (i know they're not real reliable, but still) ranked hussein over bin laden in terms of threats to national security. 1) We can't find Bin Laden because there is a chance he may actually be dead. 2) Saddam was always the bigger threat, it was just that Bin Laden became the more immediate problem after 9/11. Even befroe that, Clinton attacked his base rather ineffectively, so he has been on our radar screen, but Saddam has more weapons, more dangerous weapons, and a better infrastructure. Saddam always has mattered, they've been doing this inspector dance for years now. Only after 9/11 did the impetus to do something about Saddam come to the fore how many people has hussein killed on american soil? So we wait until he takes out the Empire State Building? Maybe the Golden gate Bridge? Or perhaps a nice shower of a deadlier anthrax virus sprayed in Washington DC. If you don't think he had some connections with Bin Laden, you are merely deluding yourself. i have the feeling this post is going to be ripped to shreds, but i dont visit this forum real often so i probably wont even see it. so have at it. Stupid posts always get shredded. Yours shall be no different. --Tom
Guess I'm deluded I'm highly skeptical that Hussein had any meaningful connections with Osama Bin Laden (i.e. supported him or Al Queda). I guess I'm deluded. But let me tell you why I won't believe the accusation that Hussein supported Bin Laden until I see solid proof - Hussein is essentialy secular and has his own glorification and retention of power as his primary aim - with regional dominance another goal. While he surely hates the US, he is not a religiously motivated jihadi like Bin Laden. He doesn't want to set up a reactionary religious form of government like the Taliban. If you hadn't noticed, Al Queda wasn't just advancing a radical critique of the USA, and planning attacks against us, but they also criticize middle eastern regimes that aren't sufficiently Muslin fundamentalist for them (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia even). While I don't believe that Hussein has been a prime target of Al Queda rhetoric, let alone attacks, his regime is secular and he has been an ally of the Soviets and Russians who are hated (almost as much as the US) by Al Queda due to their occupation of Afghanistan. Hussein and Bin Laden are really not cut of the same cloth, and have quite different objectives. The only thing they really have in commoon is that they both hate the US. But this alone does not prove that Hussein supported or aided Al Queda or Bin Laden. That a leader - any leader - can make himself more popular by rallying his subjects (oops - citizens) against an outside enemy who is the source of their problems and is pure evil is so obvious that I'm amazed we could even debate it. For awhile, Bush's evil icon was Bin Laden. Since we're a bit embarrassed that we don't know if he's dead or alive, he's a bit inconvenient to use as a bogeyman. Hussein has always been a convenient option for this role, its just that he was no longer convincing as a source of misery or angst to the American people prior to 9/11, and for many of us he still is not convincing in this role. This doesn't mean that Hussein truly isn't an evil man who inflicts great suffering and injustice on the people of Iraq - he does - it jsut the idea that he poses a direct threat to the US that is a stretch. It is certainly not coincidence that he has reemerged now that the country is (somewhat) in the mood for war and the most obvious target (bin Laden) is poorly cast in the role of chief bad guy.
1. wrong. he has agreed to allow inspectors, as i reacall. 2. he doesn't have the technology, or the money, to do such a thing. unless he goes the underhanded, al-qaeda route. which i'm sure is a possibilty. mac "16 year old fighting a losing battle" scarle
Actually, you have hit on the one I spend lots of time on -- trying to find out what cretins mean when they post. So what are you trying to say here? Since I made what I thought was a pretty valid point -- we are in the here and now. Whoops. Now we're not. Damn.