"John Cairns" wrote in message
et...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time.
He might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our
effort. Did I mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in
Afganistan? I guess we don't have enough troops to deal with that
either.

There seems to be some pretty good evidence now that Saddam was a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East, rather than the destabilizing
force we thought him to be. After Iran overtakes Iraq, the Muslim civil
war that will likely ensue should be a whopper.

Wonder if he'd like his old job back?

Max

There was pretty good evidence back in 1990 that Saddam was preferable to
the alternatives, credit to George I. Remember, when George II was asked
if he consulted his father re/invading Iraq and toppling the regime, he
stated that he consulted with his "other" father, his "earthly" father was
probably telling him that it was a huge mistake. War is peace.

When one fails to listen to voices of reason, hindsight tends to be 20/20.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq
instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who
brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors
at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split
our effort. Did I
mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in
Afganistan?

No, you didn't. You also failed to mention who buys all that
heroin.

SV

In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq
instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who
brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors
at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split
our effort. Did I
mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in
Afganistan?

No, you didn't. You also failed to mention who buys all that
heroin.

Sorry... we and the Europeans.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops.

Well they let jarheads, and ground pounders go after him. They should
have sent the Navy. The battle of tora bora would have been named to
birth of the glass canyon had the Navy been asked to take out Ossama
there.


Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat.


I thought we were doing both.

Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort.

Yes he was. He was a threat to the whole region.

You could argue that since Ossama was hiding is a rat hole out in the
middle of bum**** no-where he is not as much a treat as Saddam was at
the time. Face it Saddam and his FN physco family was a loose cannon
that had to be dealt with.

Did I
mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I guess we
don't have enough troops to deal with that either.


WTF should we?

Joe




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
I found this interesting read from Michael G. Leventhal over the
dojgov.net. It gives an interesting historical perspective on our
current war on terror. It appears that dealing with the Muslim fanatics
has a long history in our Republic:

In article .com,
Joe wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops.

Well they let jarheads, and ground pounders go after him. They should
have sent the Navy. The battle of tora bora would have been named to
birth of the glass canyon had the Navy been asked to take out Ossama
there.

I like that... send in the Seals! :-)


Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat.

I thought we were doing both.

So did I, but sadly we're not. Afganistan is also going down the
tubes.

Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort.

Yes he was. He was a threat to the whole region.

Actually, he was contained pretty well. That wouldn't have lasted
forever, but we had some time to work things out at a time of our own
choosing.

You could argue that since Ossama was hiding is a rat hole out in the
middle of bum**** no-where he is not as much a treat as Saddam was at
the time. Face it Saddam and his FN physco family was a loose cannon
that had to be dealt with.

I think recent events pretty much prove that his organization,
et. al., are still quite a threat.

Didn't have to deal with Saddam by Bushco lying to us about the threat.

Did I
mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I guess we
don't have enough troops to deal with that either.


WTF should we?

No reason. I like heroin addicts.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jon,

Would it be right for some foreign country (Muslin) to tell us how much
Corn we can grow? We can't tell them how much land can grow "Poppies"
anymore than we can tell Central American countries how much Cocoa they
can grow. It isn't OUR BUSINESS!




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon,

Would it be right for some foreign country (Muslin) to tell us how much
Corn we can grow? We can't tell them how much land can grow "Poppies"
anymore than we can tell Central American countries how much Cocoa they
can grow. It isn't OUR BUSINESS!

No, but is it ok to tell them what leaders they can have? Apparently,
there's a double standard. Are you claiming that it's ok to depose a
foreign leader who is no great threat to the US, but it's not ok to
discourage a group from fueling the heroin market? Which does greater
good or harm?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jon,
You've given us "Moderates" another black eye. What's wrong with your
memory?

Have you forgotten the Kuwait War? Have you forgotten the UN rulings
given Iraq to stop the War? Has you forgotten the two "No Fly Zones"
set-up by the UN? Have you forgotten Saddam's misuse of "Medicines for
Oil"? Have you forgotten the 1000's of Rockets fired at UN Peace Keeping
Flights over the "NO FLY ZONES"?

How in the Hell can you say he was no threat? I don't agree with "George
2nd" handling of the situation but damn it, to not say he wasn't a
Threat is STUPIDITY.!!!




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon,
You've given us "Moderates" another black eye. What's wrong with your
memory?

What memory. Saddam was not a threat to us. Please demonstrate
otherwise.

Have you forgotten the Kuwait War? Have you forgotten the UN rulings
given Iraq to stop the War? Has you forgotten the two "No Fly Zones"
set-up by the UN? Have you forgotten Saddam's misuse of "Medicines for
Oil"? Have you forgotten the 1000's of Rockets fired at UN Peace Keeping
Flights over the "NO FLY ZONES"?

Beat him down, destroyed his ability to do it again. The No Fly Zones
were working fine. Medicine for oil money has nothing to do with a
threat to the US or anyone else. Never hit any plane with his "1000s"
of rockets. And, we could have dealt with that without killing 1000s
of our troops or invading.

How in the Hell can you say he was no threat? I don't agree with "George
2nd" handling of the situation but damn it, to not say he wasn't a
Threat is STUPIDITY.!!!

Wise up Thom. We were misled and now both Iraq and Afganistan are
going down the tubes.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Threat" is a codeword used by extremists to aDVANCE THEIR CAUSE.

The "environment" is threatened" cry the eco-wacko leftitsts.

Our "liberty" is "threatened" cry the right wing religo-nuts.

A threat has to be credible to be real.

Did Hussien possess a means to attack the US?

In his 20+ year reign did he ever attack the US?

Why would he threaten the US when we were on his side in the Iraq-Iran war?

Was Noriega in Panama a threat?

Castro was a bigger threat, he had atomic missiles in the 60's. North Korea
is a bigger threat. Iran is a bigger threat. Both have nukes and the stated
will to use them against the US.

Why don't we attack those threats?