• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Possible Iraqi involvement

ive been getting this feeling that were(the media,the ppl,the president)are focusing too much on Bin Laden,and wouldnt be at all surprised if this is a diversionary tactic by our government,to plan an all out assault on Iraq & perhaps other countries.
Then again,what do i know?
The issue with Saddam should be addressed once and for all.(among others)
 
Even if Saddam had something to do, I would bet the gov would not acknowledge it. It serves them no good logistically(militarily) to pursue both Bin Ladin AND Saddam at once atleast not right now.
 
Why not pursue them both @ once?Massive relentless air strikes against Iraq would be much easier...than snuffing out phantoms in hills.
I dont trust Iraq AT all.They too should be dealt with once and for all.
 
Like I said, its a logistics problem not strategic. Feeding, providing water, clean cloths, communications, entertainment, etc. to thousands of "people" is not easy.
 
there was a thread last week (wednesday or thursday) that said that the Mussad (Israel's Intelligence agency) had found out that Iraq/Hussein funded Bin Laden with the money and means to do the attacks. IMO i think that is quite feasable and probably true.
 


<< It serves them no good logistically(militarily) to pursue both Bin Ladin AND Saddam at once atleast not right now. >>


Why? Since a full scale land war will most likely be impossible in Afghanistan (unless you really really liked Vietnam), they could put those troops in Iraq (hell, if Desert Storm is any indication all we would need is like 3 M1A1 tanks 😀 ) and have the special forces units deal with Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
 
Ladiesman: he just doesnt go around carrying 300 million. In global financial markets, currency exchange, he has to have someone helping him out. Government have more knowledge and strenghts in those areas. So I think when people refer to financial help, that does not necessarily mean paying him -- we are talking a broad range of financial help
 


<<

<< It serves them no good logistically(militarily) to pursue both Bin Ladin AND Saddam at once atleast not right now. >>


Why? Since a full scale land war will most likely be impossible in Afghanistan (unless you really really liked Vietnam), they could put those troops in Iraq (hell, if Desert Storm is any indication all we would need is like 3 M1A1 tanks 😀 ) and have the special forces units deal with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. >>






It just doesn't do them any good at this moment to point the finger at Hussein until they understand the whole military situation in Afghan. more. For sure, any battle in Iraq will be easier and more "satisfying" then in any battle in Afghan.
 
he has like 300million just sitting around

i can assure you that 300 million wont get you as far as you think it will. thinks in terms of goverment spending, buying nuclear weapons, etc.. that stuff aint cheap
 


<< he has like 300million just sitting around

i can assure you that 300 million wont get you as far as you think it will. thinks in terms of goverment spending, buying nuclear weapons, etc.. that stuff aint cheap >>



it would get me pretty far...

what i wanna know is if you have 300 million just sitting around, why the heck would you want to risk your life in doing something and losing your fortune? id move to america and freakin stick a lot of it in the bank and have fun wtih the money... forget wasting it on weapons.. yeesh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top