Dale 2.0 (Or the Revenge of Robert?)

[MOBIUS]

No I don't. I've already proved that you're incapable of reading a simple sentence! I'd actually thought you'd seen the error of your ways - but oh no - here you are back for more punishment!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

ultimately it is all about the ability, or the lack thereof, to read. How can we communicate when we consider each other to be illiterate? I am afraid there is no solution for that problem, and in the meantime 110001st civilian died as a direct result of liberation, add 1:5 ratio of wounded on top of that... success... free from life finally

[MikeH]

I didn't understand a word of that you twit.

[MOBIUS]

But just think how many millions of Americans would have surely died if Saddam was still in power today!!!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

millions of Americans and the whole London would have died from weapons of mass deception in 45 minutes ...

and all those lucky Iraqis, christian or otherwise, being liberated, unlike poor people of North Korea, Iran, Libya ( the poor still living in axis of evil!). Better free and dead in free Iraq killed by foreigners, or wounded, with still non-exitant infrastucture, hospitals or otherwise, sectarian infigthing, maybe tortured (but not by Saddam!, Americans are more kind when torturing ). Total success.

[Robert]

Exactly. Which is why you are continuing to embarrass yourself with your populist (well, it was populist until it was exposed as a sham!) and inconsistent stance...

lol, being pro-Iraq invasion is the populist stance?

[giblets]

Plomp, I'll repost this in case you missed it:

In November 1989, Ali Mohamed, a former special forces Sergeant stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, left military service and moved to California. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan and became "deeply involved with bin Laden's plans."[72]

A year later, on November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of Ali Mohammed's associate El Sayyid Nosair, discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers.

I don't think it's clear that terrorist attacks on America weren't being planned before American troops in Saudi Arabia became an issue.

Also, I'm not convinced of the premise that Saddam Hussein had to be taken out of power before American troops could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. I think he only invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he thought he could get away with it, and after the way the US responded I don't think he was going to try something like that again, even if American troops weren't sitting next door.

[Robert]

Sorry, thanks gribbler.

That quote proofs that there were individuals who wanted to attack America before the 2nd Gulf War (Iran/Iraq being the first Gulf War).
But this was not related to OBL yet:

One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda, formed by bin Laden with an initial meeting held on August 11, 1988.[71] Bin Laden wished to establish non-military operations in other parts of the world; Azzam, in contrast, wanted to remain focused on military campaigns. After Azzam was assassinated in 1989, the MAK split, with a significant number joining bin Laden's organization.

the paragraph after your quote is named: "Gulf War and the start of U.S. enmity"
It says ao.:

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was banished and forced to live in exile in Sudan.

I think I've already quoted that.

So: yes, I do believe that individuals always have wanted to attack America.
But Al Qai'da and Osama Bin Laden turned against America after the Gulf War and especially the presence of American troops in SA.

If you compare that "non-military operations" attitude of OBL before the Gulf War with the militaristic/terroristic attitude of OBL after the Gulf War, then you can see the difference the Gulf War made.

Also, I'm not convinced of the premise that Saddam Hussein had to be taken out of power before American troops could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. I think he only invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he thought he could get away with it, and after the way the US responded I don't think he was going to try something like that again, even if American troops weren't sitting next door.

Well, you're free to have that opinion of course.
Your opinion here may be as true as mine. It's impossible to verify any of these.

My main point is that I think that despite the fact that, like you point out, can't be sure that SH would strike again, it is valid to remove him to be sure. Certainly after he used WMD on the Kurds, WMD on Iran and invaded Kuwait.
SH was one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, and the only one to use WMD on this big scale in recent history.

Bottom line is that people often don't know how difficult the status quo was in the Gulf Regio, b/c of SH.
And how America and England were the nations who enforced the UN resolutions for 12 years, without any help from Germany, France, Russia or China. And exactly this enforcement from America/UK was the reason for the growth of hate against the UK/USA.

Then the entire 'is the war legal' debate is nonsense, imho.
The only reason that the UN had value till then was b/c of the UK/USA. Not because of France (who invaded Ivory Coast), Russia (who invaded Tsjetsjenie), China (who is still occupying Tibet) and Germany (Where Schroder used an anti-war position only to win the elections).

Then, yes indeed, my sympathy lies with the USA and the UK.

[Fve Crathva]

SP

[Cort Haus]

I for one am struggling to keep up with who's supposed to be the most embarrassed on this thread.

[Provost Harrison]

AAHZ exists in a permanent state of embarrassment...

[Boris Godunov]

Well, here's the real test: Robert, did you advocate invading Iraq and toppling Saddam prior to 9/11/01? And can you provide evidence you advocated such?

It's rather galling that you're so gung-ho about something that killed thousands of people in other countries, including mine, but in which your country wasn't involved and didn't have to make any sacrifice. I guess it's real easy to advocate other countries sending their soldiers to die for dubious causes.

[C0ckney]

it's also very unchristian.

[notyoueither]

Boris, that sentiment can be turned around and pointed back at you.

[Boris Godunov]

it's also very unchristian.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?