Gravitymaster

Sorry you feel this way, Mikkey. You are way off base. Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote above after a good nights sleep. Maybe then you will realize how overly sensitive you are. If not? Hey we can always judge you by how you act.

Damn Mikkey, don't get all pissy on us, lighten up. The difference you are failing to see is what the motivating factors were. Thats what the thread was all about. Your contention that the war in Iraq had less to do with Ghaddaffis change in attitude and the other view that the war was a major motivating factor. Juanesky simply presented you with news from a non-US media source and you go all ballistic on us. Whats up with that? Edit: spelling

Now Juanesky, that article has no credibility because it's from a US news source. Have you learned nothing from this thread? ***Hmmm, this thread is about Libya changing policies. The article is about a conference of Arab countries around the Gulf (all US allies) discussing terrorism. Nothing to do with the Libya issue being discussed. Excuse me for speaking for Juanesky but I think he was trying to point out that Ghadaffi didn't just wake up one morning, look out his bedroom window and decide he wanted to re-enter the Global Community. He's trying to point out the effects of a strong US presence in the Middle East and how suddenly after years of ignoring and/or supporting terrorist orginazations, there's suddenly some additional motivation. I get that right Juansky?

***I tend to disagree. The assumption was not so much made on the Iraqi's lack of evidence underpinning their claim of having destroyed their WMD's - it was based on intelligence that they had WMD's. This intelligence was based on dubious sources and the US and UK chose to eat it "raw" - which is not normal practise in intelligence circles. If you are going to war, you should be more careful with these things. It would have been "ironic" if Libya would have used a nuclear weapon against Israel and the US & UK would have no idea beforehand while they are chasing "alleged" WMD's in Iraq. WMD’s are an important issue and with all the money spent on intelligence it would be nice to see them getting the facts right... Perhaps this will help your memory. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

*** Now Juanesky, that article has no credibility because it's from a US news source. Have you learned nothing from this thread?

We weren't attacked AFTER Pearl Harbor though, were we?

*** Pass the taters will ya.

You have not been attacked on US soil and we do not know if and when it will happen again and we do not know if the actions taken so far have prevented these attacks. However we know: 1) There is still a threat for attacks in the US or you would not have the alert. If you want to reduce the threat of attack you need to go after Al Qaeda (not Saddam). 2) There have been a number of terror attacks outside the US since 9/11: Examples: Bali bombing killing 200+ people of this ~ 100 Australians (your allies) 20/30 or so Brits (your allies) and also a few Americans plus people from other "coalition" countries like Denmark. Riyad bombing killing dozens including a number of Americans. Istanbul * 2: Bombing of Synagogues and the bombing of the British targets. Hundreds killed in these attacks. And there are a few more I could mention. Now these attacks were not in the US but they were directed against both US interests and especially your allies. Now this is supposed to be a "global war" on terror. If you are happy for people being blown up outside the US as long as attacks do not happen within the US, then you will loose the international support very quickly. And you will be experiencing another 9/11 at some stage. The only way to avoid these things is to work internationally and focus on Al Qaeda. True, but I was responding to Bill's assesment of US security here at home. Please re-read the discussion and try to stay focused.

I disagree. The only thing that is going to stop terror attacks is when there are either no more terrorists or the terrorists get what they want. I think its naive to think the death of OBL will permenantly damage a terrorists orginazation whose twisted interpetation of religion is based on destruction of the "Infidels".

It may very well be, but a this point, who knows for sure. One thing we do know for sure though is UN sanctions against Libya didn't work. Just a footnote about the competency of the intelligence services. I noticed reports that the intelligence services in the US and UK ware very surprised about the extent of the Libyan WMD program. Funny - they told us that Iraq had lots of WMD and they don't have much, they did not believe Libya had much and they have massive programs.*** As I recall, SH was asked to explain what he did with the WMD he already admitted he had. He never explained and so the assumption was made he still had them. Right or wrong, it was still a valid assumption given his history. *** Now why are the taxpayers of these countries paying so much money to their intelligence services if they can't get it right on vital issues like this? Perhaps they have been distracted by other "events"

Thats all well and good in theory, Bill. But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.

I'm trying to understand what benefit you see in capturing Bin Laden.

What would you suggest we do? ***Quit peddling panic and cosmetic solutions for political advantage, and try to get the intelligence CORRECT for a change. Who and how does anyone gain political advantage? I could understand it to a certain degree if the elections were near, but they are almost 11 months away.

Not according to Howard Dean and Madeline Albright. If you can't believe the leader of the Democratic race for president, who can you believe? _____________________________________________________ > I believe I said I'd rather have terrorists fighting our troops than our > police. And I'd rather have them fight neither. In addition, I strongly doubt that any potential terrorists in the US are buying plane tickets to Baghdad so they can join in the fight. ____________________________________________________ Correct, they are flooding into Iraq instead of coming here. _______________________________________________________ and Iraq has not been directly involved with terrorism against the US recently (at least, until we invaded Iraq.) *** ........and since we invaded Iraq?

Ah, so you suggest we are purposely allowing him to escape to prevent an increase in terrorism? But capturing Hussein was a good thing to do? Hmm. I note two more US soldiers were killed today in Iraq. Too bad we didn't allow him to remain in his hole, eh?*** What I said above was neither you nor I "KNOW" what reason there may be and that you shouldn't rule out the possibility. There may be a reason it was time to capture Saddam and there may come a time when it's time to capture OBL. >I'm really glad Bush challenged the terrorists with his "bring it on" > statement. Better for the terrorists to be fighting against the best > trained army in the world in Iraq than with our police over here. ***The flypaper theory. Sorry, but I have an awful lot of friends over there now - and they are NOT bait. Hoping that terrorists kill a US soldier instead of an Israeli businessman is a fool's bargain. Where did I say that? I believe I said I'd rather have terrorists fighting our troops than our police. I don't appreciate you making up out of whole cloth, what I've said. Edit: to add quotations

I certainly do believe I live in Canada

Are you suggesting that America's reasons for having not yet captured bin Laden constitute a purely strategic attempt to prevent further terrorism? ____________________________________________________ I'm saying it's possible. Neither you nor I know what type of strategy our military or govt. has. There are a lot of very intelligent people who engage in psychological and sociological evaluations of situations such as this and I can assure you the armchair stratagists on this site really have no clue what our real motivations may be or the reasons for them. Why ??? What effect do you think the capture of OBL will have on terrorists attacks? It seems pretty clear in you previous post that you felt we needed to divert more resourses to capturing him. If you don't think it will reduce the probability of another attack, then why would we do as you suggest? Celebrate if you want to, but Hussein's capture will have no effect on bin Laden's abilitiy to stage another massive terrorist attack. My point exactly. So why divert resourses to capturing him?

You don't really believe that do you?

*** As opposed to you believing what you are spoon fed by the British media?

***Of course. But do you not agree that it would have been wiser to direct our resources toward stopping the most significant and present threat? Bin Laden was successful once, and if this security directive is accurate, it seems to me that he is America's biggest threat. Why, then, did we spend so many resources toward capturing Hussein when they could have been spent hunting down bin Laden? Surely you don't think terrorism will stop with the capture of Bin Laden. If anything, it would probably increase. Perhaps thats why we haven't caught him yet. I'm really glad Bush challenged the terrorists with his "bring it on" statement. Better for the terrorists to be fighting against the best trained army in the world in Iraq than with our police over here.

Bwahahaha Good one.

Oh, so the conservative stance on the war in Iraq is that it was not about terrorism? Then why did Dubya refer to it as the main front on the war on terrorism? It is the main front and here's why: The administration knew that to occupy Iraq would create a "raghead magnet" that would draw all the RIFWs (Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Whackos) from all over the Middle East and Europe. And it's happening. Reports keep coming in about known ragheads disappearing from cities in Europe as they answer the call to Jihad in Iraq. Last week in Italy, a raghead recuriting ring was busted. By providing an attractive target in Iraq for the ragheads to go to, it's making things quieter just about everywhere else. I imagine the members of cells that have been ordered to stay behind are chewing their toenails in frustration at not being allowed to go to Bagdad and fight the "Great Satan". mh Lose the racial epitaths and I would say you have a very good understanding of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Too bad the Venon Spewing Left can't comprehend this. (you know who you are)

I couldn't agree with you more, Bill. My question was in response to the statement "we can't continue to do this indefinitely".

*** What would you suggest we do?

*** Previously, I was supporting Al Sharpton but he pissed me off when he stopped making everything rhyme. It was at that point I realized he was no Jessie Jackson. Now I'm supporting the best candidate, Howard Dean. I'm even planning on voting for him in the open primaries.