American Alienation [Language Warning]

Somehow we got infected with a strong case of ostrich syndrome

Wow, what a huge load of crap. That guy does not seem to have paid any attention to the real world. If we had stayed out of Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan we might have actually caught Osama, we could have rebuilt the country thereby keeping the country from becoming the worlds largest producer of opium, we wold have sealed the main route for fanatics out of Pakistan - we had to let Pakistan fester with fanatics because we needed their airspace to attack Iraq which had nothing to do 9/11 which was the point of whole middle east intervention thingy. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and may soon fall sway to extremists who will have access to nuclear weapons.

We don't go around attacking the countries that disobey UN sanctions (the us, israel, palestine, and so on). We went into Iraq and bombed it into the 19th century. During the 1st iraqi war we bombed bridges, water systems, power systems, sewage and communications - we managed to destroy most of the infrastructure of a country that was one of teh most modern in all of the middle east - and did not manage to get him. 10 years later we go in and finish the job - there is no infrastructure left - except for the oil pipelines, of course. It takes 2 to tango, in order for Saddam to make billions illegally - there had to be politicians, businessmen, and corporations making tens of billions trading with him illegally. It is like finding someone guilty of taking a bribe from someone who was found innocent of offering the bribe.

Although, the thought of Ricki martin being the last thing I heard in life is depressing.

Did you get that from Alternate History?

So you can not only see alternative futures, but you can foresee the future of this stream time line as well. What model of crystal ball do you use?

Do you use also something like Professor Charles Xavier to pin point how many fanatics are in Pakistan? What was the name of the machine? Ah, yes, Cerebro.

Your reality and the real history crossed path here, and at this point is in sync. You are correct USA attacked Iraq and it did have nothing to do with 9/11.
But then we lost you in another dimension when you finishes that sentence with...
...at which point I am the one that lost interest in the rest of what you wrote.

aia,

I tried to figure out your point but there did not seem to be on so I lost interest

I am ignoring this as irrelevant crap - the ranting preceding the links pretty much lead me to believe there was not much there that was relevant.
We can agree that we were attacked on 9/11; we know that about 14 of the 19 suicide attackers were from Saudi Arabia and that most of them were Wahabi. We know that Condi Rice, Vice-President Cheney, and President Bush each made multiple speeches referring to the al qaida/ Iraq connection and stating that Saddam had met with the planners and funded them. Bin Laden was tracked to Afghanistan and we demanded that they immediately turn him over to us - the Taliban who had control of Afghanistan at the time said "okay, lets work this out". Again the US demanded that we turn osama over to us (during this time Bush made his famous 'wanted dead or alive' speech wrt osama) and again the Taliban said sure, lets set this up and we will give him to you. Iran spoke ups and said we can help. Again the US said that we have tried everything in our arsenal of diplomacy to get osama and we really don't want to go to war but we must capture Osama Bin Laden. Again the Taliban said lets talk we will give him to you and Iran said we will help. As you know we invaded Afghanistan; we did not get Osama, we fought some battles and the military was getting ready to head into the mountains where Osama was presumed to be trapped. Theoretically, we had the mountain stronhold surrounded on 3 sides and had our friends the Pakistanis (who had a side business selling nuclear technology to the North Koreans and to kadaffi). It would have taken some work but we could have take the mountain bases and probably even have killed Osama. But again the drums of war were beating, this time for Iraq - though many in the general population of the US began to believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack - most of the war deparment and none of the world leaders fell for the story; then started pumping out the story Saddam was building nuclear weapons and the famous - "we do not want the smoking gun to a mushroom cloud" Well, the weapons inspectors who had been in Iraq all this time said that he did not possess nuclear weapons, did not posses the technology to produce nuclear weapons and had pretty much discarded his early attempts. Someone came up with a fake bill of sale for some uranium so an ex-ambassador to the area was dispatched by the CIA to check the story out. The ambassador came back and said the story was bogus - Saddam was not out trying to buy nuclear weapons grade materials; to punish the ambassador who did the investigation was punished by the VPs office when they outed his wife as a covert CIA agent (ruining a 20 year career and endangering almost any foreign contact she might have made over her career.

Back to the drum beats to war: with the 9/11/osamma/sadam connecton pretty much trashed, the nuclear weapons story falling out of favor they went for a new meme - they were producing mobile biological labs that could be used to produce terrible weapons of mass destruction that would be released onto an unsuspecting world. So the time to invade was now. for the second time a butsh bombed Iraqi infrastructure; dams were destroyed, water storage systems and canals were destroyed, electrical plants were destroyed - again oddly enough, the infrastructure that was not destroyed was the oil infrastructure. A general who stated we need at least 15000 boots on the ground was fired. and they got a general who said we'd only need 7080 thousand troops and they would be met with flowers and dancing. Well, that is not quite how it turned out. Iraqi oil revenues are not paying for war effort.

All sorts of things that were supposed to easily did not - we fired the entire Iraqi army and sent them home and then fired the entire bureaucracy -- well, the story gets sadder and more incompetent from here. The soldiers and marines did their job with what they had but they were undercut by the brass and the politician. Example - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was the guy who fired the general who wanted more troops and more time to supply his men before going to was. Then he had the gaul to say, we fight the was with the army we have not the army we wish we had" There are millions of Iraqi civilians homeless; those who have homes are subject unannounced visits from US military forces, from local militias. Whenever possible the civilians have to carry at least forms of id so that if picked up by one group or another, they can prove they are of the proper group and so get to live

Instead of linking to non-relevant crap - you could have just as easily linked to something somewhere that might have countered my thesis; brought at least one salient point but your idea of a discussion is attacking the opponent rather than the opponents argument but be that as it may, please accept this gift of more targets.

As I stated in my previous post - I still don't know what the point of your post was but with a strong bout of insomnia depriving me of much needed sleep, I thought I would waste some of the time here

Oh, yeah, after we left off Afghanistan and attacked Iraq - Bush2 was asked about Osama and he said, I don't think much about him at all.

The use of satiric runs the risk of annihilating any hope of connection with the intended audience if they don't know about the symbols used. Thus the links mitigate that risk.


No. It was not my intention to attack you, but rather dismiss any seriousness intended in your words.( the unpolitical correct word would have been “ridicule” )

This time you make a better job at regurgitating the by now old “Anti-war / I hate Bush” "You-Know-Whom" spin.
I am, however, disappointed not to read any mention to how Bush planned the 9/11 attack from a deep bunker in Area 51.


I marvel to my inability to keep this post strictly sober. Perhaps is due to the fact I can't take seriously any writing where a “thesis” contains the word “crap” several times. Moreover, my thoughts continue to divagate: Why green, shouldn't be of a more “brownish” shade since you favor “crap” in so many diverse terms?

hunh?

So you think I am not being serious? And you consider ridicule a form of discourse?

Why would you expect the mention of Area 51? Why expect me to mention Bush planning 9/11 attack?

better have you comm line checked - looks like you got line noise
Okay, just to get it out of the way - your post is mostly crap - there now you can disregard this.

Well, anyway - to put this on a more serious footing. lets see if we have any hope of discussion. You can pick any of these for discussion (or not).

Did the Bush administration accuse Saddam of complicity in the 9/11 attacks and/or supply funds to Osama/al Qaida?

Did the Bush administration later accuse Saddam of possessing nuclear weapons and/or being near to producing them?

Did the Bush administration later accuse Saddam of producing poison gas and/or biological weapons; and putting them in mobiles labs?

Did the Bush administration use any/all of the above for their reason for attacking Iraq?

Did the Bush administration find any proof of any of the above?

Oh, thanks for the new word - I had to google it to make sure it was a word.

Looks like Lady Aia and Doctor GrimJack are really going at it! Nice debate, and fun to follow. The obvious conclusion is that Aia watches Fox News channel on TV and GrimJack does not.

A note to our foreign friends, Fox News caters to our present Vice President's line of thought.

its the Americans that are screwing everything up. the general consensus from our guys in the ground is that Americans are too heavy handed and were not prepared. americans started banding around words like "Won" about a month into the war, whereas we planned for 6 years. also they have limited experience of sectarian violence. we have like 50 years and it pays off, as our areas have a lower violence.