Xah Lee's Unixism

[jmfbahciv at aol.com]

In article <m3pt4qc57f.fsf at europa.pienet>,
   Greg Menke <gregm-news at toadmail.com> wrote:
>Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
>
>> Antony Sequeira wrote:
>> 
>> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
>> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
>> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
>> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
>> > that help avoid
>> > 9 qqqq  11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
>> 
>> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
>> nothing to do with Iraq.
>> 
>> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
>> avoid another 9/11...
>> 	1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
>> such a future attach.
>
>Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? 

No.  It would have been the stupidest thing to do.  Invasion
of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
turned into a 100% religious war.

> .. Thats where
>the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. 

IIRC, Hitler came from Austria.  So we should have only 
invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?

> .. Iraq is chump
>change on that account-

It's an ideal place.  It's located right in the middle of
all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
than the other countries' populations so getting them
self-supporting doesn't need a cold start.  The country
was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
again.

> .. heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
>better target on this basis.  Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
>the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?

Yes.  It's a good plan and the cheapest.
<snip>

/BAH