On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:26:09 +0000, Marguerita
<marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:09:28 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> wrote in
news:55ql60pm006gu5l0rocs5amukthv7bn29f@4ax.com:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:49:06 -0500, "Chris S."
<chrisks@NOSPAMudel.edu> wrote:

Osprey wrote:

"Chris S." <chrisks@NOSPAMudel.edu> wrote in message

And for this, some people have every right to hate us. This doesn't
sign-off on terrorism, but neither does it leave the US without
blame.

So what should we do now? What we done in the past...is done and
over with. We are facing the problem today of terrorism.

True, but those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Clark made
an excellent point when he said our actions in Iraq may have
potentially increased the terrorist threat. For years, Bin Laden's
rallying cry was to oppose the West before they invaded an Islamic
country. And what did we do? Perhaps he had reason to be paranoid, and
now so do we.

As far as Bin Laden was concerned, the US already had invaded an
Islamic country - they had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, his home
country. That seems to be what started him down the path towards 9/11.

We were invited there, that was hardly an invasion.

I agree - but that's not how Bin Laden or a lot of other Muslim
extremist saw it. Even moderate Muslims were pretty horrified at the
behaviour of the troops. Whichever angle you view it from, stationing
troops in a part of the world with strong anti-American feelings is
not necessarily a good idea.

We weren't invited. The ruling Royal family didn't want us there. We
asked, applied diplomatic pressure and were reluctantly given
permission provided it was only until Hussein was out of Kuwait. But
we went nack on that promise.