"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:heWdnSCQAZKDYtTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews .com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after
the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had
the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO
part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why
did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in
case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a
time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on
this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man
way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter where
the dollars come from.


Tippity tappity, tippity tappity...

Address the issue, expert.