Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers

Following up to Tchiowa

7) 9/11 taught the US that we couldn't wait until *after* a terrorist
decided to attack. We have to prevent.

OK, you're convinced the US got it all right in attacking Iraq in
the first place, nobody else is, but never mind. How successful
has the strategy been in stabilising the situation?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Tchiowa

I'm truly amazed that americans linked 9/11 with Iraq (not)

I still don't get that.

Neither do I. Maybe it was to do with mentioning the two things
together.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Dave Frightens Me

Point 7 is just laughable. You didn't learn after Pearl Harbour, and
you haven't learnt now.

I hope the US has ditched the "my enemy's enemy is my friend"
approach.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On 6 Jul 2006 18:03:29 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:

Yada yada yada... so basically you are hiding behind a long, overly
worded document without being able to state the reasons clearly. You
must be assuming people are all to stupid to want to understand the
reasons, and in the US you would be right.

No, I was assuming that you were smart enough to read and understand.
Sorry if I assumed wrong. Let me spell it out for you really, really
simply.

1) Saddam has WMDs and had used them.
2) Saddam invaded Kuwait. The UN kicked him out. But we didn't invade
and take him out. Part of the deal not to do that was that Saddam had
to destroy all of his WMDs and allow full and free UN inspections. He
never did.
3) Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda attacked the US and promised
to do it again.
4) Those organizations were openly trying to obtain WMDs to use against
the US.
5) Saddam was actively trying to form alliances with Al Qaeda. Some top
leaders had been given refuge in Iraq. He invited bin Ladin to live in
Iraq.
6) Those facts and others led to the fear that Saddam would sell or
give WMDs to a terrorist organization. Or that he would use his
technology to teach them how to do it.
7) 9/11 taught the US that we couldn't wait until *after* a terrorist
decided to attack. We have to prevent.

All of those statements are fully documented and factual.

And well distorted too, just like the rest of the case to go to war.
In fact, no one bothers to prove this stuff as rubbish, as it can be
safely assumed as such.

Point 7 is just laughable. You didn't learn after Pearl Harbour, and
you haven't learnt now.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 6 Jul 2006 18:09:38 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

I'm truly amazed that americans linked 9/11 with Iraq (not)

I still don't get that. The statement said absolutely *nothing* about
Iraq being involved. As has been pointed out regularly, the US was
naive about the terrorist threat prior to 9/11. We now view threats
differently. Including threats from people who had nothing to do with
9/11.

Is that concept so difficult to grasp?

It's so abstract that only someone loaded up on fear could believe it.
It makes no sense whatsoever to attack a country based on this
reasoning.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa


7) 9/11 taught the US that we couldn't wait until *after* a terrorist
decided to attack. We have to prevent.


OK, you're convinced the US got it all right in attacking Iraq in
the first place, nobody else is, but never mind. How successful
has the strategy been in stabilising the situation?

How can anyone stabilized the middle east where there are multiple
internal groups fighting for control with each other?

mrtravel wrote:

The Reid wrote:

OK, you're convinced the US got it all right in attacking Iraq in
the first place, nobody else is, but never mind. How successful
has the strategy been in stabilising the situation?

How can anyone stabilized the middle east where there are multiple
internal groups fighting for control with each other?

So it makes sense, then, to add external interference? How does that
improve things?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

mrtravel wrote:


The Reid wrote:

OK, you're convinced the US got it all right in attacking Iraq in
the first place, nobody else is, but never mind. How successful
has the strategy been in stabilising the situation?

How can anyone stabilized the middle east where there are multiple
internal groups fighting for control with each other?


So it makes sense, then, to add external interference? How does that
improve things?


The external interference was added for another reason.
WMD, failure to comply with the agreements that ended the previous war,
Al Quaida, bad man in charge, .... whatever reason you believe the US
went into Iraq in the first place, I doubt you think the reason was to
referee between the various religious divisions.

mrtravel wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

So it makes sense, then, to add external interference? How does that
improve things?


The external interference was added for another reason.

Nothing to do with establishing order in the region, then.

WMD, failure to comply with the agreements that ended the previous war,
Al Quaida, bad man in charge, .... whatever reason you believe the US
went into Iraq in the first place, I doubt you think the reason was to
referee between the various religious divisions.

Tell me, are you stupid enough to believe the stated reasons, or are
you simply joining in the telling of lies?

And do concentrate: other apologists for the US-led intervention claim
that al Qaida presence in Iraq was not a reason. We must learn to
ignore any suggestion that it was.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

mrtravel wrote:


Padraig Breathnach wrote:


So it makes sense, then, to add external interference? How does that
improve things?


The external interference was added for another reason.


Nothing to do with establishing order in the region, then.


Do think we invade Iraq in order to make the Sunnis and Shiites get along?



WMD, failure to comply with the agreements that ended the previous war,
Al Quaida, bad man in charge, .... whatever reason you believe the US
went into Iraq in the first place, I doubt you think the reason was to
referee between the various religious divisions.


Tell me, are you stupid enough to believe the stated reasons, or are
you simply joining in the telling of lies?

I said "whatever reason you believe".....