- From: Dave Head <rally2xs@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:46:30 -0500
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:49:14 -0800, OldSalt@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Your concept is totally wrong, first off Sadam did NOT trust
or even like Ikiad. He would not have done anything with them. Even
when his country was invaded, he told his people not to trust or deal
with Ikia that was now in side his nation.
Who is Ikiad? I'm talking terrorists in general. He had some
terrroist darlings, and would pay suicide bomber familes money of a
family member performed a suicide bomb attack in Isreal. If he wanted
to attack the US, I'm sure that he could have found a few of those
guys to come over here and distribute a few tons of anthrax.
Plus we would have caught UBL in Afghanistan, we had him
surrounded, but not with our troops since they were in Iraq. He
bought his way out, from one of allies (one of the tribes that was
suppose to be working for us), if we had just our troops there, he
would have been nailed.
It is my understanding that the reason that we had tribal allies
surrounding UBL was that we had to show confidence in them as an ally.
Could we have used more troops in Iraq? Sure - that was kinda rushed,
but we had waited a pretty good long time already. Troops were geting
tired of being on alert, and then Turkey betrayed us, after decades of
protecting their asses from the Soviets, they wouldn't let our troops
invade from there.
Going into Iraq and Afghanistan both were the right things to do to
protect this country. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD, he could have
made them anytime he wanted, with the exception of nukes. Anthrax?
Sure, no problem. VX? Yep... Just what we need coming across the Rio
Grande in backpacks of a few dozen young Arab attackers.
- Re: Priorities
- From: OldSalt
- Re: Priorities
- Prev by Date: Re: Which 4G Is Right For You?
- Next by Date: Re: Priorities
- Previous by thread: Re: Priorities
- Next by thread: Re: Priorities