K
Kurgan Gringion
Guest
"Charlie C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> You say "Saudi Arabia" was more responsible than Iraq for 9/11 presumably because most of the
> hijackers were Saudis.
The Wahhabist regime there promotes religious fundamentalism, that is where the $$$ for Al Qaeda
comes from, that is where most of the people come from, including Osama bin Laden.
>The "shoe bomber" was a British citizen; does that make England responsible for that hijacking
>attempt. People are quick to blame a country for the actions of some of it's citizens. Now, if the
>hijackers WORKED for the Saudi Government (even covertly) that's a different story but I haven't
>heard that yet.
see above.
> With regard to Iraq not being a "threat" to the U.S., I think the concern was with Iraq (or any
> country with enough resources) sponsoring terrorism. Clearly Iraq was a state sponsor of Terrorism
> but, unlike Iran, has/had
many
> resources (money and oil) to "make a difference".
Unlike Iran? Hezbollah. Iran/Contra.
>Could Iraq beat the U.S. in a straight up war? Clearly not! This has bee demonstrated twice!
Could
> Iraq develop weapons and sell/give them to terrorists to 1) aid their
cause
> and 2) claim plausable deniability? (More likely no 2) You bet.
And what would the benefit to them be? Lot of negatives, no positives.
> Now, I have very mixed feelings about this war. While I believe the world
is
> a better place without Saddam, I am really disapointed with the way the post-War Iraq has been
> handled. You'd think that in an effort to win any kind of favorable public opinion (in Iraq!) they
> would have the Army Core
of
> Engineers (or someone!) ready to go to start rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
1) the war isn't over yet
2) your point about the infrastructure is valid. If the Iraqis are going to be worse off after the
war compared to before, we will have problems. A similar thing has happened in Afghanistan - lots
of resources devoted to making war, very little devoted towards supporting the resultant
government.
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> You say "Saudi Arabia" was more responsible than Iraq for 9/11 presumably because most of the
> hijackers were Saudis.
The Wahhabist regime there promotes religious fundamentalism, that is where the $$$ for Al Qaeda
comes from, that is where most of the people come from, including Osama bin Laden.
>The "shoe bomber" was a British citizen; does that make England responsible for that hijacking
>attempt. People are quick to blame a country for the actions of some of it's citizens. Now, if the
>hijackers WORKED for the Saudi Government (even covertly) that's a different story but I haven't
>heard that yet.
see above.
> With regard to Iraq not being a "threat" to the U.S., I think the concern was with Iraq (or any
> country with enough resources) sponsoring terrorism. Clearly Iraq was a state sponsor of Terrorism
> but, unlike Iran, has/had
many
> resources (money and oil) to "make a difference".
Unlike Iran? Hezbollah. Iran/Contra.
>Could Iraq beat the U.S. in a straight up war? Clearly not! This has bee demonstrated twice!
Could
> Iraq develop weapons and sell/give them to terrorists to 1) aid their
cause
> and 2) claim plausable deniability? (More likely no 2) You bet.
And what would the benefit to them be? Lot of negatives, no positives.
> Now, I have very mixed feelings about this war. While I believe the world
is
> a better place without Saddam, I am really disapointed with the way the post-War Iraq has been
> handled. You'd think that in an effort to win any kind of favorable public opinion (in Iraq!) they
> would have the Army Core
of
> Engineers (or someone!) ready to go to start rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
1) the war isn't over yet
2) your point about the infrastructure is valid. If the Iraqis are going to be worse off after the
war compared to before, we will have problems. A similar thing has happened in Afghanistan - lots
of resources devoted to making war, very little devoted towards supporting the resultant
government.