I don't understand. If Iraq is part of the war on terrorism...

[Virginian]

and the northern part that Saddam did not control had a terror training camp linked with al Qaeda. And that camp is responsible for some of the terror attacks like the one on the UN, Why didn't we bomb the terror camp while we were at war with Saddam?


If Afghanistan has a history of tribal war lords, was the Taliban just another group of warlords? Have we installed another dictator?


If a different group were in power in Iraq, would they have been just as bad as Saddam? Will the next leader be just another tyrant. Have we been duped by exiles to take the country for them so that they can be just as cruel as Saddam?

[lfairban]

1. The answers are . . .

Possibly there were al Qaeda before March '03.

No one knows who did the UN, some al Qaeda may be part of groups who may be responsible for attacks on US forces since May. Why would we bomb the camps? They are too far from the oil fields and too few in number to pose a serious threat.

Taliban are militants, their leaders would be characterized as war lords.

We have not installed another dictator in Iraq, yet. I believe we have designated a leader in Afghanistan, but only the capital city is under firm control.

Most likely any group trying to impose stability would be as bad as Saddam was, but there is much disinformation on how bad SH was. You may find this interesting:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairban/Pages/Iraq.html#Halabjah

Yes, we were duped by exiles like Chalabi:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairban/Pages/Iraq.html#Chalabi

[RC]

2. This is too important to be lost down the memory hole again

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm