Capt. JG wrote:
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite
an indictement.

If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to
impeach the President.
Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh?
Been to any M. Moore flicks lately?

Joe


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

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
.... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

wrote:
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

The reason the focus of the military was on Iraq was was because in
1998 the Congress of the United States passed the "Iraqi Liberation
Act."

This act was promoted and signed into law by then President Clinton.
This Act called for support of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) and
the removal of Saddam from power.

The Iraqi Liberation Act was enacted and was black letter law
long before President Bush was elected as President. President
Bush inherited this law, and the removal of Saddam had already
been mandated by the US Congress long before President Bush took
office.

In October 2001, the US Congress voted unanimously (save one
traitor from California) to resolve that "a state of war exists
between the USA and all international terrorists and all those
that aid or harbor terrorists." This Congressional resolution
provided President Bush with the individual power to determine
which entities and nations were either terrorists or aiding or
harboring terrorists, and further, granted President Bush
*exclusive* discretion to use the full weight of the US Military
to hunt down or otherwise eliminate any such designated enemies.


Saddam had developed his own terrorist faction called the
Fedayeen, and these terrorist goons surfaced during the invasion
of Iraq. These terrorists were not only responsible for murderous
attacks on coalition forces, they also were murdering Iraqis that
refused to fight and were further holding hostage the families of
Iraqi soldiers. In true radical Muslim style, these Fedayeen
terrorists also traveled around the Iraqi countryside
decapitating Iraqi women that had committed the unspeakable crime
of simply waiving at the coalition forces.


Saddam openly admitted and bragged about sending money and
arms to the Palestinian terrorist organizations known as Hamas,
PLO, and Islamic Jihad. All three of those terrorist
organizations have murdered Americans in the past, and are
well-known terrorist organizations.


On December 27, 2000, Saddam openly and publically declared
war on the United States, Britain and Israel. Saddam's
declaration of war occurred only ten months prior to the 911
massacres, and his declaration of war was carried on the front
pages of all the Baghdad newspapers, and on the front page of
most Arabic European newspapers. Under the articles of the Geneva
Convention, any nation in receipt of an official declaration of
war has a right to preemptively attack the nation that issued the
war declaration.


The USA and Britain not only had the legal right to invade Iraq
and depose Saddam due to the violation of not less than seventeen
UN Resolutions since the Gulf War, they also had the moral
authority and the ethical necessity to do so.

Joe

End of this thread.....

I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should be
Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells him
to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best interests
of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off
the table.

Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is
sworn in.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts
about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's
quite
an indictement.

If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to
impeach the President.
Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh?
Been to any M. Moore flicks lately?

Joe


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

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like
PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser
to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

Your buddies are dead on right. Same story in the book I mentioned.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

Capt. JG wrote:
I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should be
Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells him
to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best interests
of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off
the table.

Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is
sworn in.

YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Get a rope!

Now were going to see some true action, 100 hour!

Good Lord! Dang Skippy start poppin corn.


Joe



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

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts
about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's
quite
an indictement.

If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to
impeach the President.
Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh?
Been to any M. Moore flicks lately?

Joe


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

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like
PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser
to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...


The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda

Joe,
Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first
book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric,
MMC

MMC wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...


The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda

Joe,
Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first
book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric,
MMC

MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world.

Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power
and un-oppose him.
BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care.

Space Troopers! Away

Joe

Well, it can't be worse than the 2000+ days of the Bushco administration...
let's see that's a bit more than a dead US soldier per day. Quite a record.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should
be
Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells
him
to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best
interests
of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off
the table.

Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is
sworn in.

YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Get a rope!

Now were going to see some true action, 100 hour!

Good Lord! Dang Skippy start poppin corn.


Joe



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

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The
American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts
about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel
the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's
quite
an indictement.

If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to
impeach the President.
Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh?
Been to any M. Moore flicks lately?

Joe


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

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like
PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's
Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior
adviser
to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had
partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous
refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

The next AH without any airforce, army capable of doing much, or WMDs. In
other words, not a threat to the US.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

MMC wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...


The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda

Joe,
Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your
first
book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric,
MMC

MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world.

Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power
and un-oppose him.
BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care.

Space Troopers! Away

Joe