Anyone know

why we weren't gearing up to an imminent attack on Iraq before Sep 11?

Yes, because an attack like Sept. 11 is a good way to light a fire under your arse and make you realize you better start taking care of your problems.

I see...
so, er, will we be tackling our other problems next, Turkey for example?

Where would America get the right to invade a country before 9/11 ? It would have been a crime. So they needed something to justify an "illegal invasion." I've seen enough evidence to know that they "let" 9/11 happen so they can get almost everything done without people asking too many questions. Now they also have the right to "lie" or better said "mislead" you to win your vote for war.

I only believe something Bush say when it gets confirmed by an independent news source.

i don't get why bush isn't waging war against saudi arabia or yemen.

There are bigger problems that we have already got on our plates. Iraq and the remaining leaders of the Taliban.

and anyone know why we weren't gearing up for an immenent attack on al qaeda before 9/11?

Originally posted by Bob88
and anyone know why we weren't gearing up for an immenent attack on al qaeda before 9/11?

It's simple, before 9/11 America couldn't invade Iraq or talk about preemptive strikes or any other war threats against no one, at least not openly. 9/11 has changed many things, (soon the Axis of Evil was born) it flipped over many many minds. It gave America the final power they needed. No more chit chat. Gun talks.

But they forgot one thing, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the peoples all the time ! France, Germany, Russia and China aren't stupid, they know what will happen with their interests when America takes over. Like I said many times before Iraq is no threat at all if you really believe that OBL planned the 9/11 attacks.

If he really did them then you American guys are in real deep trouble. Becuase that means he knows soo much about your security, intelligence, military etc one can basicaly say that he has you under control.

I personally don't give a crap about international law..whether people think preemptive strikes are legal yadda yadda. All I care about is my country, we were the ones that got an airliner flown up our backside, not France or any of those other countries.

My point is that 9/11 prompted the US to look at the containment strategy of Iraq, which basically amounted to us installing troops in a great deal of the ME which are there to protect our so-called friends. In 94 when Saddam massed almost a hundred thousand troops on the Kuwait border they knew in order to protect Kuwait and SA we'd need a larger presence, there to this day. This presence fuels anti-Americanism and fundamentalism and terrorism. We're there to contain Saddam and it can't last forever. If there were no Saddam we wouldn't have to put troops all around the Middle East. It addresses Iraq�s lack of disarmament and gives the US an exit strategy that isn�t an option w/ Saddam in power. By ending the Gulf War too early the US probably created the opposite of what it would have preferred. And Clinton�s lack of interest in Iraq probably isn�t helping us much now as a lot of people, like lupe�s original post implies, suggests that people are wondering �why Iraq � why now?� � despite:

- 93 Iraqi attempted to murder fmr. President Bush in Kuwait.
- '94 almost 100k troops gathered on the Iraq/Kuwait border. The UN passed resolution 949. US/British troops rushed into Kuwait then back out.
- '95 Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was able to hide his WMD's from the inspectors. (this person was in charge of the WMD program, defected to Jordan, then was later killed by Saddam)
- '96 Saddam invaded the kurdish area of iraq (Clinton dropped a few bombs)
- '98 Inspections totally collapsed and Clinton dropped a few more bombs.

I wouldn�t say the policy on Iraq has been effective. Nor has the UN been effective in enforcing it's own resolutions towards Iraq. Now, especially after all this time, without the threat of force, Saddam isn't going to comply with anything.

Part of me wishes all the permanent Security Council members would publicly agree on the use of force, while amongst each other say how they really feel, but giving Saddam the impression that force will be used unless he disarms. Sounds outlandish, I know.

[Edited on 24-2-2003 by Bob88]

some folk were thinking about changing the containment policy way before 9-11, Bee-Oh-Bee.

it's easy to say we are in a different world now because of 9-11. that's their easy out if someone decides to ask them a tough question. we weren't in a different world when this policy was written. that makes me suspicious of anyone running that "it's a different world" line when this policy is questioned.

you're right Saph - in '98 Daschle passed some regime change legislation and it was talked about in the Bush campaign.

Originally posted by TigeriS

Originally posted by Bob88
and anyone know why we weren't gearing up for an immenent attack on al qaeda before 9/11?

It's simple, before 9/11 America couldn't invade Iraq or talk about preemptive strikes or any other war threats against no one, at least not openly. 9/11 has changed many things, (soon the Axis of Evil was born) it flipped over many many minds. It gave America the final power they needed. No more chit chat. Gun talks.

But they forgot one thing, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the peoples all the time ! France, Germany, Russia and China aren't stupid, they know what will happen with their interests when America takes over. Like I said many times before Iraq is no threat at all if you really believe that OBL planned the 9/11 attacks.

If he really did them then you American guys are in real deep trouble. Becuase that means he knows soo much about your security, intelligence, military etc one can basicaly say that he has you under control.

Yeah, all three are smart. All three have a financial reason to not want Hussein to be ousted, and all three couldn't give a crap less about the U.S. or the citizens thereof. Others may buy that crap that Germany and France are so smart and no so much more than the U.S., but I know better.

[Edited on 25-2-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Honey, you know i'm talking about Defense Planning Guidance...why do you wanna play these games? me thinks, it was authored by Paul Wolfowitz around 1991-'92. well before 2001 and "the different world" we find ourselves in that calls for us to hit first in your opinion.

but, if you wanna play---"what, huhn? never heard of it." that's fine with me it's your world sweetheart. you're entitled to your delusions.

Sweetheart I gotta tell you something that dirtbag in charge of Iraq committed genocide. You know what honey I could care less if someone presented evidence he was the Second Coming. If he has so much as an ounce of VX he should be taken out of power.

What baby you think that's not right, honey I am sorry but if you feel that way whether you want to admit it or not you supporting Genocide. And I need to find someone else to call honey, baby and sweetheart.

And that's the bottom line.


I am sorry love and am sure you can find someone out there who thinks like you do. Last week 10 million protested in suport of leaders commiting Genocide. Did not get any of there phone numbers for you though
but am sure you can find out. What really makes me happy is that you are not alone.

See I know how you feel about being lonely but your darkside is terrifying

Can't deal with that anymore

[Edited on 25-2-2003 by Toltec]

TC with all respect, don't you think this whole Iraq thing is blown up or better said Biassed ?? I mean what kind of threat is Saddam right now ? There are bigger threats out there, North Korea for example, they are getting their war machines polished right now and your government doesn't even pay attention. OBL still walks around making plans (if he's still alive) but no, you guys want Saddam because he did some things a dozen other leaders have done or are still doing.

That's the problem, I don't understand how you folks can talk so bad about Iraq while North Korea is getting ready. So why don't Americans make a case now for a preemptive strike on North Korea to stop them ? They have more WMD's than Saddam has, they are testing missiles right now and why isn't that a problem ?. Do you get my point ?

See that doesn't make any sense and that's the problem most Americans don't see.

[Edited on 25-2-2003 by TigeriS]

It makes sense you just don't want to listen apparently. Different situation, different means of dealing with it. It's not being ignored, Rumsfeld not 15 minutes ago mentioned North Korea in a speech. I've even heard officials say it could come down to military action there at some point. And how many times do people have to say that just because there are things going on in other places, that OBL is still being looked for. Ahh..so, you see you can relax now.

Originally posted by TigeriS
TC with all respect, don't you think this whole Iraq thing is blown up or better said Biassed ?? I mean what kind of threat is Saddam right now ? There are bigger threats out there, North Korea for example, they are getting their war machines polished right now and your government doesn't even pay attention. OBL still walks around making plans (if he's still alive) but no, you guys want Saddam because he did some things a dozen other leaders have done or are still doing.

That's the problem, I don't understand how you folks can talk so bad about Iraq while North Korea is getting ready. So why don't Americans make a case now for a preemptive strike on North Korea to stop them ? They have more WMD's than Saddam has, they are testing missiles right now and why isn't that a problem ?. Do you get my point ?

See that doesn't make any sense and that's the problem most Americans don't see.

[Edited on 25-2-2003 by TigeriS]

WHAT?!?! Saddam's not a problem right now. You mean he hasn't declared that he will kill every American that he has the power to kill. He doesn't want to wipe the united states off the map???

Sure N. Korea is a problem, but they haven't outright told us that they were going to launch a nuke, and we all know that as soon as Saddam has the chance, he will.

Bin Laden is a problem, but we can't find him. We have found that he was being aided by Saddam. We know Saddam is in Iraq. We know that he will continue to make all the WMD's that he wants. We KNOW that he WILL attack us.(because he said he would)

Now back to N. Korea. Has N. Korea actually said they are going to attack us? No, they said that they 'could' attack us. They have said that they have weapons that 'could' reach us.

Don't worry, once we get this Iraq business settled down, we'll deal with N. Korea.

Toltec: well, it seems you think that by not supporting one type of murder i support another. that's your logic and it's kinda too black and white for my taste so, i'm rejecting your opinion. i kinda like your choice though. instead of addressing the orgin of pre-emptive strike policy...you choose to tell me i support Saddam. so now am i supposed to try and convince you that i don't? that would be useless.

and you won't find me on no street corner holding a picket sign. it's too damn cold and too damn pointless. it'll be what it is.

Saphronia in preparing that response was more concerned about your sense of humor. Not that I see you have one I feel better.

I understand what you are saying and an analogy is that two wrongs do not make a right. But the problem is when you get you what is the next wrong. It is an unknown, which falls under the analogy, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". And if you fool me a third time well that is doubly my fault as well.

Yeah I sort of pulled a checkmate in relation to the issue of supporting Saddam's acts in relation to Genocide. At the same time you are correct but only in the sense of what at present is an unknown.

Here is the thing though, US troops know what they are doing and to be specific, in the sense of avoiding collateral damage (innocents). And here is the problem I have in relation to the future. We allow Saddam Hussein to get away with what he did to the Kurds and Iranians. And one day, someone else (some other leader in some other country) does the same thing. This because of what we allowed (this is about us) what happens then is justified (a precedence is set in law). Saphronia this is not just about the children of our children but as well perhaps, about even there children as well (and there children too)

Saddam Hussein committed Genocide we the human race must stand against such action. It pertains to a future in which such acts are permitted. My main concern is that formalities are more relevant than humanity (this matter is an issue in relation to history). My advice is to stop the cycle and not allow any leader no matter what the consequences, to engage in what must be addressed as disgusting.

I truly hate war but when it addresses Genocide I applaud it. I feel that a culture has no right to torture another and when I observe that, I am prepared to defend cultures right not to be tortured. In relation to this I am prepared to fight a war in respect to stopping torture. Realize this Saphronia no sexist response is presented here, but what is apparent is sincere concern over what happens next.

What are your thoughts?