On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.

Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

It was sarcasm. Despite all of the evidence showing al-Qaeda working in
cooperation with several Middle Eastern countries, the 9/11 Commission still
goes out of its way to make up stories that discredit the notion that 9/11
was state sponsored.



What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?

Precisely! The dichotomy makes no sense. If al-Qaeda was willing to
approach Saddam with disregard to how their supporters in Saudi Arabia would
feel, then why would they rebuff Iran?





Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.



Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist
insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against
that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.

NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less
than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

That wasn't the question that Don posed.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was state-sponsored,
then attacking that country is our right and our responsibility.

It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."


It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons. Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes. Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."



Pre-emptive attacks are self-defense. And, yes, they're "our right".



It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons.

No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the WMD
issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone into
Iraq.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

It's not that important in the whole scheme of things. Hell, we might
already have his head for all you and I know. When was the last time a
videotape of him surfaced? He was popping up left and right for about 4
months after 9/11...and then...nothing for the next 30 months. The war on
terror is a lot bigger picture than bin Laden. If we got him 4 months after
9/11, the liberals would be screaming that we accomplished our objective and
that we should bring our troops home.

Our primary objective was to knock the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan,
disrupt the terrorist training camps there, and install a US-friendly gov't
which would allow us to station troops on the Iranian and Pakistani borders.
Mission number one accomplished.

Our second objective was to drive Saddam from power in Iraq, reestablish the
oil flows to the West (so we're not held hostage by only Saudi oil), and
install a US-friendly government which would allow us to establish US bases
on the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi Arabian borders. Mission number two is
90% accomplished.

Our third objective is to diplomatically pressure Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
to crack down on the Islamic fundamentalists in their respective countries,
and then drive the terrorist-sponsoring leaders from power in Iran and
Syria. Mission number three has just begun. Should Bush get re-elected, I
predict that mission number three will be accomplished within 2-3 years.

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in place.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.