On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:45:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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@giganew s.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.


Which issue!!

You're like a blob of mercury. Every time you get backed in a corner you
squish out in a new direction!

It *is* fun to watch though.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:45:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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@gigane ws.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.


Which issue!!

You're like a blob of mercury. Every time you get backed in a corner you
squish out in a new direction!

It *is* fun to watch though.

Since you responded with "tippity", I'll ask you first what that was a
response to. Look at the paragraph beginning with "Why does it matter?", and
be EXTREMELY specific about what you didn't grasp.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:25:37 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Saddam put these installations in civillian aras. We blew the **** out
of them anyway.
Go look at some of the old stories coming out of the German, Italian
and French press during the 90s.
"What you recall hearing" is not what most of the world was saying. We
had better spin control in the 90s than we have today. For some reason
the American media and the liberal establishment was ignoring the
European press when they criticised our bombing war.

So....what's your point? It still wasn't a total free-for-all as it is
now.
Even our military contractors loved it - the perfect situation for testing
anything they came up with, and stay ahead of whatever Saddam's people
aimed
at us.


When the bomb hits your house it is the same.
I wasn't in favor of this war ... ever. I didn't lie to myself and say
the 1991-2001 part was any less of a war just because we were only
killing them..The tables really turned on 9/11/01 when they
demonstrated we were not untouchable.

I wasn't in favor of it, either. But here's the thing: Some say we ended the
"no fly" phase of the "war" because of U.N. pressure, kids were starving in
Iraq because they couldn't sell their oil blah blah blah. You remember that.
But then, we go to war and ignore what the U.N. and most of the world thinks
about it. Uh oh. Sounds like the U.N. excuse is only useful when convenient.