The Iraq Thread

[Longinius 1]

"Next fact of life: A government will do what ever it decides is best, regardless of anyones opinion. That's what we elected them to do, to make decisions for the rest of the country."

Yes, we elect leaders to make decisions for us. That doesnt mean they cant make the wrong decisions though. It happens all the time. Governments make decisions that dont have the support of the people. Whenever it happens, its bad, because our elected officials are supposed to look after OUR interests, not their own.

"If the US decides it's best to take down Iraq, then they will, with or without UN approval, with or without public approval, and with or without help."

And this would be a perfect example of where a government does a very, very bad thing. In fact they are abusing the power granted to them by their voters.

"If France decides to play the passivist then they will, that's the choice made by their government (BTW...does anyone know if France has been involved in any real conflict since Napoleon?, WWII doesn't count, they rolled over and waited for the US and UK to rescue them)."

Does that matter? Just because you dont think war is a good option doesnt mean your wrong. Maybe France learned a lesson through the wars they fought.

"Last lesson: If the rest of the world is afraid the US will take over Iraq, then why aren't they willing to help..."

Because we think its wrong?

"because I can garantee that if the US has to go in alone, they will not give control of Iraq to the people who just wanted to sit on their thumbs."

They wont give control to anyone else anyway. Its an American general who will run Iraq once this is over, not a british one. It was never even suggested to be anything else BUT an American. In fact, if anyone should run Iraq it should be someone appointed by the UN. Not by the US, Britain, Chile or the Vatican.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not trying to talk down to you, and to anyone over the age of 25, I apologize if it sounds that way.

But if you think my analisys is crap just read a few history books. <span id='postcolor'>

Yep they are crap. I am 31 years old, UN soldier, have been abroad for missions sometimes and know war. You´d better start reading this thread from post 1 before you buzz in like the king of the hill.

[FSPilot 0]

Yes, the older you are the more you know about everything.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

andy_aws-..does anyone know if France has been involved in any real conflict since Napoleon?"

I think WW1 would count with over a million French men dieing after fighting fanatically to defend their homeland.

But being English i must say that Napoleon was Wellingtons bitch

[Jinef 2]

France has been in Vietnam, ya know? The sunny place that was a rave for Americans in the 60s.

Algeria was also quite sunny, and the French were there as well. The Gulf War, the one in 1991.

Oh but those weren't real conflicts now were they?

Learn your facts before you post on this board. Or just slag people off with no self restraint - like me!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 13 2003,01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France has been in Vietnam, ya know? The sunny place that was a rave for Americans in the 60s.

Algeria was also quite sunny, and the French were there as well. The Gulf War, the one in 1991.

Oh but those weren't real conflicts now were they?

 Learn your facts before you post on this board. Or just slag people off with no self restraint -  like me! <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, we couldn't of pulled of GW1 or Algeria without the French.

And vietnams something that really pissed me off about the government. That's France's deal, not ours.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (andy_aws @ Mar. 12 2003,18:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(BTW...does anyone know if France has been involved in any real conflict since Napoleon?, WWII doesn't count, they rolled over and waited for the US and UK to rescue them).

<span id='postcolor'>

Typical ignorant and chauvinistic attitude of people who only think of the end result - or better - your ignorant view of history!

"Rolled over" ? - Actually, most european nations were "rolled over" by the germans! Do you know why? Go back to your history books, you'll be surprised if you care to find out!

If not I'll save you the trouble anyway! France - like the rest of the countries that were occupied, were inferiour to german tactics, weapons technology and military build up. They were in effect simply outdated!

You also seem to forget that there was a considerable resistancemovement in all of the occupied nations. Further on, french, norwegian, belgian, dutch, danish etc soldiers fought Germany from abroad. Also, you seem to forget that the soviets played a significant role in the freeing of Europe from the nazis.

How selective your memory is - or could it possibly be because your history books only highlight the US war effort?

The rest of your post contains arguments answered so many times I don't even bother to reply!

[Gollum1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (andy_aws @ Mar. 12 2003,19:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you think my analisys is crap just read a few history books<span id='postcolor'>

-and confirm your suspicions.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 12 2003,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, we couldn't of pulled of GW1 or Algeria without the French. <span id='postcolor'>

Nice joke, really! Indeed you couldn`t have done Desert Storm like you did it without the french. The French Foreign Legion was the first ground troop in Iraq after the US bombing raids. The GIs came later. Almost never mentioned, because the big USA is afraid of loosing face, or what? But that fact is even mentioned in Three Kings, as easteregg so to say. Watch the beginning of the movie: there`s a funny guy washing himself. He speaks french! They call him a specialist...

Got it? The GIs were almost only shell collectors for the french in GW. That`s not meant as a offense towards the US troops over there, but don`t forget what the french did!

BTW dont fuck with the Legion. Many enemy troops surrender after only hearing that the Legion will be send against them. E.g. the Legion was able to defeat the sniper threat in Sarajevo where all other foreign troops had failed. They managed to clean all the skyscrapers in Sarajewo in the hardest way of urban warfare. Inhouse-close-combat so to say.

I know no other troop that did such a thing in the last years, no matter from which country. You americans could call yourself happy if you had the french help in the upcoming GW 2.0  

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 12 2003,20:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or just slag people off with no self restraint -  like me! <span id='postcolor'>

and get PRed if excessive. flame baiting is also an offense that we deal with.

let me remind ppl again: no flame baiting, no flaming.

[Sam Samson 0]

you guys realize that the UN, an agency I have come to frown on recently, only truly legitimized 2 wars since it exists? korea and the gulf war.

where was your whining and protesting in 99-kosovo? was that a legitimate war? it didn't carry any UN-nod.

btw: what would the UN be without the US and a handfull of western european nations? a conglomerate of third world fiefdoms and two dozen arab dictatorships. not exactly a haven of free thought and democracy.

the french haven't won any wars since napoleon's time, and the first fierce fighting the GIs of WW2 experienced was in africa - against the french, before they were subdued and integrated into the allied effort.

the french have never forgiven the americans that it was them who liberated them from the germans. even de gaulle himself worked against US interests, trying to establish france as a third power between the US and the USSR. (a joke of course.)

france's chIraq tries to establish a european antipole to US-might, which I find exceedingly cynical.

iraq's prime weapons merchants were the ones now protesting US policy the most vehemently: france, germany and russia. they (f and r) are also the only ones who have signed greasy oil deals with their favorite dictator.

most of you are against this war because it is george w bush, a conservative, who leads the effort. where it a liberal you would fuss as much as the NOW-gang did during clinton's abuse of power with an intern: noddadall.

where are the protesters' signs telling saddam to cooperate?

why is everybody sucking up to a guy who killed more than a million folks in wars and kills around 200.000 people annually even now? employing rape, torture - executing some by sticking them into acid tanks?

some of us here will look really foolish when in a few weeks the iraqi people will dance in the streets, cheering US (and hopefully british troops) on as they roll into baghdad.

this war will hopefully be a quick and lasting triumph for all freedom-loving people.

...and how we'll pay for repairing iraq?

with its oil-money, of course. the people who got liberated will foot the bill and not think anything of it.

I hope none of you will ever live under somebody like saddam - and then be confronted with protesters protesting your liberation.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 12 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: what would the UN be without the US and a handfull of western european nations? a conglomerate of third world fiefdoms and two dozen arab dictatorships. not exactly a haven of free thought and democracy.<span id='postcolor'>

And who gives the US and the western world to dictate how the world should be run? Let me guess: god told you in a vision to enforce democracy around the world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the french have never forgiven the americans that it was them who liberated them from the germans. even de gaulle himself worked against US interests, trying to establish france as a third power between the US and the USSR. (a joke of course.)

france's chIraq tries to establish a european antipole to US-might, which I find exceedingly cynical.

<span id='postcolor'>

You know what is just about the only positive thing about this situation? It's seeing war-mongers like you squirm. The fact that Bush and USA are trying to suck up to the UN Security council means that the approval of the UN is important and that you can't just ignore it.  I can see how this tortures you and I enjoy it immensly.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And who gives the US and the western world to dictate how the world should be run? Let me guess: god told you in a vision to enforce democracy around the world.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, if the Frence could be led by a person with visions, so can we!  

What's so wrong with enforcing Democracy?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: what would the UN be without the US and a handfull of western european nations? a conglomerate of third world fiefdoms and two dozen arab dictatorships. not exactly a haven of free thought and democracy.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't get TOO cocky now.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 12 2003,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, we couldn't of pulled of GW1 or Algeria without the French. <span id='postcolor'>

I don't think WE did anything in Algeria.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 12 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where was your whining and protesting in 99-kosovo? was that a legitimate war? it didn't carry any UN-nod.

btw: what would the UN be without the US and a handfull of western european nations? a conglomerate of third world fiefdoms and two dozen arab dictatorships. not exactly a haven of free thought and democracy.<span id='postcolor'>

nope. cause Clinton went ahead without UN, under NATO. and Republicans whined about it. now that Bush is in the White House, they don't think it is necesary for now.

i think for the sake of itself, UN should move to Switzerland, US doesn't want UN, then we don't have to give up a good portion of valuable land to host that ugly building, not to mention the cost of guarding it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">iraq's prime weapons merchants were the ones now protesting US policy the most vehemently: france, germany and russia. they (f and r) are also the only ones who have signed greasy oil deals with their favorite dictator.

<span id='postcolor'>

that includes us too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most of you are against this war because it is george w bush, a conservative, who leads the effort. where it a liberal you would fuss as much as the NOW-gang did during clinton's abuse of power with an intern: noddadall.<span id='postcolor'>

and when Clinton attacked AQ's Afghanistan base and Iraq what did Republicans do? Nothing. no shit. All they whined about was that Clinton went overboard. Clinton knew the threat that AQ posed and "lobbed" the missiles, and at that time, Republicans were ignorant as they are now. And do they concede they were wrong? nope. they say it's all Clinton's fault.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where are the protesters' signs telling saddam to cooperate?

why is everybody sucking up to a guy who killed more than a million folks in wars and kills around 200.000 people annually even now? employing rape, torture - executing some by sticking them into acid tanks?<span id='postcolor'>

where is the sign that says Rumsfeld should look back history and admit they made a mistake?

the problem with current focus on Iraq is that there is a really bad basis for argument. first it was ties to AQ, now it's inspection as the basis. in otherwords there were no concrete reason to start argument with. If anything, Iran or NK is posing more threat since they admit openly that they are busy with WMD.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 12 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most of you are against this war because it is george w bush, a conservative, who leads the effort. where it a liberal you would fuss as much as the NOW-gang did during clinton's abuse of power with an intern: noddadall.<span id='postcolor'>

and when Clinton attacked AQ's Afghanistan base and Iraq what did Republicans do? Nothing. no shit. All they whined about was that Clinton went overboard. Clinton knew the threat that AQ posed and "lobbed" the missiles, and at that time, Republicans were ignorant as they are now. And do they concede they were wrong? nope. they say it's all Clinton's fault. <span id='postcolor'>

Hardly taking care of the problem. Probably didn't even hit anything.

If Clinton "knew" of the Al Queda threat he would have taken Bin Laden from Turkey when he was offered. But instead Clinton refused...and then Bin Laden found a nice cozy home in Afghanistan.

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Mar. 12 2003,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's so wrong with enforcing Democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

What was so wrong about enforcing communism?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 12 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you guys realize that the UN, an agency I have come to frown on recently, only truly legitimized 2 wars since it exists? korea and the gulf war.<span id='postcolor'>

Guess what warmonger - UN was created to avoid wars.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where was your whining and protesting in 99-kosovo? was that a legitimate war? it didn't carry any UN-nod.<span id='postcolor'>

If you would care to notice you would find out that UN was pretty much sabotaged by most of the important members.

Why don't you try to remember that US was one of the countries that would NOT risk their soldiers lives - or that UN from the start were denied sufficient equipment to deal with the serbs. Why don't you wonder about the fact that such equipment was brought into the area when the UN-badge was swapped in favour of Nato-badges on vehicles and armour?

Sure, finally - when most of the western world agreed that something had to be done US engaged the serbs by bombing. However, it is not surprising that US ground troops never took part in risky operations. The former comander of the british forces also noted a few things: The US command was reluctant in providing medical services for soldiers of other Nato-members - despite their favourable locations of such facilities and top technology. He was also disturbed by US intelligence because they bugged his office and listened to his phonecalls. Finally, US had a habit of dropping weapons to the kosovo resistance - which the UN envoy Thorvald Stoltenberg claimed severely hampered negotiations and additionaly created fierce violence where the civilians were the real victims. So I guess US screwed up pretty much by following their usual procedure - violence instead of negotiations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: what would the UN be without the US and a handfull of western european nations? a conglomerate of third world fiefdoms and two dozen arab dictatorships. not exactly a haven of free thought and democracy.<span id='postcolor'>

btw: what would the world be without UN? Possibly a worse place to be I guess.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the french haven't won any wars since napoleon's time, and the first fierce fighting the GIs of WW2 experienced was in africa - against the french, before they were subdued and integrated into the allied effort.<span id='postcolor'>

France was definately a winning country during WW I.

You also seem to forget that France's foreign legion actually fight almost every day somewhere in Africa - something they have been doing ever since the colonial times. I guess they won a few battles as well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the french have never forgiven the americans that it was them who liberated them from the germans. even de gaulle himself worked against US interests, trying to establish france as a third power between the US and the USSR. (a joke of course.)<span id='postcolor'>

The french are chauvinistic yes - towards most other peoples - including americans. France also happen to provide the european continent with some security - believe it or not.

You may remember a few years ago when France did their nuclear testing at Mururoa. The reason for that? To develop tactical nuclear weapons because out there in the world some idiot of a leader might speculate in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Which might be a good thing considering US leaders nowadays actually base their threats and rethoric on the use of such weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france's chIraq tries to establish a european antipole to US-might, which I find exceedingly cynical.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, a Bush supporter like you should perhaps not talk about cynicism. Oil, power, control?

Secondly, France is definately not alone on this one. It's about opposing war - not challenging US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">iraq's prime weapons merchants were the ones now protesting US policy the most vehemently: france, germany and russia. they (f and r) are also the only ones who have signed greasy oil deals with their favorite dictator.<span id='postcolor'>

Sure, the above mentioned nations have lucrative deals with Iraq - but are you suggesting you don't?

Let's see....hm....who benefits most of the "food for oil" programe? Who supported Iraq in the 70's and 80's with weapons (including bacteriological culture) and cash?

By the way - let's not forget about the other dirty regimes you support in the same way. Lovers of freedom - yeah right!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most of you are against this war because it is george w bush, a conservative, who leads the effort. where it a liberal you would fuss as much as the NOW-gang did during clinton's abuse of power with an intern: noddadall.<span id='postcolor'>

You are not in position to asume anything at all on my behalf!

I couldn't care less if your president was Lincoln almighty! What your administration is doing is WRONG!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where are the protesters' signs telling saddam to cooperate?

why is everybody sucking up to a guy who killed more than a million folks in wars and kills around 200.000 people annually even now? employing rape, torture - executing some by sticking them into acid tanks?<span id='postcolor'>

Good point - but in fact - your country is the most pressing danger now! None in this forum or elsewhere loves Saddam, and most wish he would go to hell - and stay there!

You on the other hand, are partly responsible for him being in power in the first place! Or do you believe your support during all those years weakened his position. I guess thats part of the reason why there is no effective opposition is not only because they are dead - but the perpetrator was supported by a US financially and militarily. So, indirectly you have blood on your hands too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">some of us here will look really foolish when in a few weeks the iraqi people will dance in the streets, cheering US (and hopefully british troops) on as they roll into baghdad.<span id='postcolor'>

Incredible - and you claim to study political science?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this war will hopefully be a quick and lasting triumph for all freedom-loving people.<span id='postcolor'>

You might want to telll that to the families of the future victims of US bullitts and bombes!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...and how we'll pay for repairing iraq?

with its oil-money, of course. the people who got liberated will foot the bill and not think anything of it.

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course they won't protest - after all it's not like you have harmed these civilians in any way when you over the last decade have bombed their electricity plants, water plants, roads and bridges, denied them vital medicine and food and generally deprived them of decency?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope none of you will ever live under somebody like saddam - and then be confronted with protesters protesting your liberation.<span id='postcolor'>

Not a chance of that - that's why we do things differently now here in Europe!

[FSPilot 0]

Communism's bad, mmkay?

Lets get back to Iraq. This is the Iraq thread after all.

[Jinef 2]

War in Iraq is bad, mmkay?

Oh wait why instead of us just arguing pick up some rifles, march down there and see for ourselves if the Iraqi civilians wan to be 'liberated'.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 13 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War in Iraq is bad, mmkay?

Oh wait why instead of us just arguing pick up some rifles, march down there and see for ourselves if the Iraqi civilians wan to be 'liberated'.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course they want to be liberated!

Obviously any right thinking civilian would rather be vaporzied by a MOAB bomb than live under a dictator!

[FallenPaladin 0]

Very funny!!!

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the first fierce fighting the GIs of WW2 experienced was in africa [in regards to the French] <span id='postcolor'>

I was under the impression that the first fighting the Americans experienced in Africa was the 'Kasserine Pass' debacle. Link

The efforts of the US to sudue the relatively small amount of Vichy French troops came later, in an attempt to make them come over to DeGauls (sp? ) leadership.

[Jinef 2]

Hmm, all i know is that most of the French are quite cool when you get to know em. I did speak a bit of French which helped (they do get a bit indignant sometimes )

I would really like to go on one of those big rollerskates through Paris on friday nights! Sounds really fun especially if you do it with friends!

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 13 2003,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 12 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most of you are against this war because it is george w bush, a conservative, who leads the effort. where it a liberal you would fuss as much as the NOW-gang did during clinton's abuse of power with an intern: noddadall.<span id='postcolor'>

and when Clinton attacked AQ's Afghanistan base and Iraq what did Republicans do? Nothing. no shit. All they whined about was that Clinton went overboard. Clinton knew the threat that AQ posed and "lobbed" the missiles, and at that time, Republicans were ignorant as they are now. And do they concede they were wrong? nope. they say it's all Clinton's fault. <span id='postcolor'>

Hardly taking care of the problem. Probably didn't even hit anything.

If Clinton "knew" of the Al Queda threat he would have taken Bin Laden from Turkey when he was offered. But instead Clinton refused...and then Bin Laden found a nice cozy home in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

unfortunately, when OBL was kicked out from Qatar(or Sudan), he was not on the most wanted list. It was only after USS Cole and Kenyan US Embassy attack that he was for sure to be the culprit. and by that time he was in Afghanistan.

furthermore, the missile did hit their mark. unfortunately, OBL was saved due to leaving that place a bit earlier. he later called(through translator) ABC news reporter who interviewed him, and said that war is on.

but as FSPilot says, let's get back on Iraq topic.