Uncle oSAMa wants you.

[chequita guevara]

Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won't be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge.

The same way bombing Libya did?

[NeOmega]

I love it.

[SpencerH]

The "colonel" has been quiet ever since Ronnie and Maggie sent the message that they werent to be ****ed with.

[Chris 62]

"Destabilize the region"...

Favorite media buzz word that means nothing.

What exactly does Iraq control that is stable?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The same way bombing Libya did?

We didn't turn Libya into a stone age country and kill a million of its citizens.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Uncle oSAMa

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We didn't turn Libya into a stone age country and kill a million of its citizens.

The same cries of overwhelming rage in the Arab street where heard then as well. As I'm sure Chris can attest to.

PS We didn't turn Iraq into a stone age country or kill a million of its citizens either.

[Chris 62]

I think I heard the "destabilize" line for Afghanistan also.

Again, what exactly is stable that will go ass-over-t1t?

[Roland]

"The same way bombing Libya did?"

You have Lybia-style bombings on a permanent basis in Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Not exactly. We'd be bombing the Presidential Palaces if that were so.

[Roland]

The only reason you don't do that is that Saddam isn't there.

[Bereta_Eder]

uncle osaaama

[Bereta_Eder]

i think the whole thing wants action, but in moderation and certaintly NOT disguising other interests as "Action for terrorism" because people will know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The same cries of overwhelming rage in the Arab street where heard then as well. As I'm sure Chris can attest to.

Back then, terrorism was largely state-sponored. Syria, Libya, Iran, etc didn't like each other. So while the "Arab street" may have rallied against the bombings, there was no one who was gonna do anything. BTW, I've seen some stuff which suggests that we bombed Libya not because it was a major sponsor of terrorism, but rather because it was weak and easy to attack. Many of the bombings laid at Libya's door are also linked to Syria.

PS We didn't turn Iraq into a stone age country or kill a million of its citizens either. [/QUOTE]

There's a million dead Iraqis and we bombed pretty much all of their modern infrastructre.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The only reason you don't do that is that Saddam isn't there.

He's in one of them. He sleeps in a different one each night.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's a million dead Iraqis and we bombed pretty much all of their modern infrastructre.

Gee... we bombed them when we were at war with them because they pulled a sneak attack on another country and tried to annex them... we must be bad...

And as far as the million dead... could it because the leader of the country is ignoring his people, and spending the resources he has to eat like a pig, build beautiful palaces for himself, and rearm his military instead of providing for his people... oh but that's right, it's our fault he treats his own people like slaves...

[Chris 62]

Sounds like ol Saddam could use some "Destabilizing", whatever that means.

[Bereta_Eder]

nope its because of the embargo

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I think I heard the "destabilize" line for Afghanistan also.

Again, what exactly is stable that will go ass-over-t1t?

Afganistan was stable under the Taliban, for what it's worth. Now it's on the verge of civil war. Pakistan's going fundi on us. War almost broke out between Indian and Pakistan. It wasn't exactly stable, but there was a wobbly equalibrium. Now it's more wobbly.

BTW, the US is now giving arms to the warlords in Afganistan. The commander there said that since these are the people on the front lines, they need to be equipped. After the fight, anything is supposed to be turned over to the Afgani army.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The same way bombing Libya did?

Yes.

You don't think bombing Lybia contributed to the emergence of Al Quaeda ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Richelieu
You don't think bombing Lybia contributed to the emergence of Al Quaeda ?

No, not at all.

[Jules]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, the US is now giving arms to the warlords in Afganistan. The commander there said that since these are the people on the front lines, they need to be equipped. After the fight, anything is supposed to be turned over to the Afgani army.

Sure it will.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
And as far as the million dead... could it because the leader of the country is ignoring his people, and spending the resources he has to eat like a pig, build beautiful palaces for himself, and rearm his military instead of providing for his people.

Which would be a good come back, except that the UN handles the money and dsitributes the food, not Hussein. The majority of the deaths are not starvation related but caused by lack of access to clean drinking water and decent health facilities. The technology and chemicals to make clean drinking water are banned by the embargo, and there just isn't enough medicine.

Nor did Iraq sneak attack Kuwait. It had warned Kuwait several times in 1990 that it would invade if they didn't stop the slant drilling and over production of oil whih was killing Iraq's economy. The Saudi's took him seriously and tried to pressure the Kuwaitis to back down, who replied that if Hussein attacked, they'd bring in the Americans.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, not at all.

...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Afganistan was stable under the Taliban, for what it's worth. Now it's on the verge of civil war.

Bad news Che, they were FIGHTING a civil war under the Taliban, US intervention only turned the tables on whom was winning.

Pakistan's going fundi on us.

If you believe certain Leftist sources.
Show of hands, how many think Pakisatan's military strongman will allow Fundmentalists to remove him from power?

War almost broke out between Indian and Pakistan. It wasn't exactly stable, but there was a wobbly equalibrium. Now it's more wobbly.

A near war that Al Qaeda tried to bring on with a heavy terror campaign, that ultimately failed.
The "crisis" was staged to try and draw attention from Afghanistan, luckily the Indians were to smart to fall for cheap tricks.
More "wobley"?
Hardly.

BTW, the US is now giving arms to the warlords in Afganistan.

At the current Afghan leader's request.

The commander there said that since these are the people on the front lines, they need to be equipped.

A sensible strategy.

After the fight, anything is supposed to be turned over to the Afgani army.

So we should ask them to fight for us, and deny them the means?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which would be a good come back, except that the UN handles the money and dsitributes the food, not Hussein.

The UN handles the money and distributes the food only in Northern Iraq. Coincidentally, they seem to be doing much better than thier Southern counterparts.

[Roland]

Dino:

"He's in one of them. He sleeps in a different one each night."

Read that, but I've also heard it's incorrect. According to that he's actually roaming around Baghdad and surrounding areas, sleeping in much less obvious locations.

Is a bit more plausible - how difficult is it to hit all palaces at the same time ?

Che:

"The technology and chemicals to make clean drinking water are banned by the embargo, and there just isn't enough medicine."

There are only some problems with dual use products you can blame on the sanctions. The bulk of the **** goes down directly to Saddam's regime - and the sanctions in the end as well.

[Roland]

Ah, yes: "except that the UN handles the money"

Only a part of it, mostly for the reparation fund. The rest goes to Iraq, only it's use is under UN control. Saddam also has a lot of income from smuggling.

[Ming]

Ahhh yes... Saddam spends the resources he has in ways that don't help his people. If he were to instead use them to help them, he could eliminate most of the suffering. However, that wouldn't help his propaganda about the US being the cause of his people's problems.

So he is willing to sacrafice his own people just for the sake of making a political statement... Now there is a good leader for you...

But oh yeah, we are the bad guys in this one...