AR282: "If you recall the Stark incident in '87, I was at that one. After that nightmare was over, a lot of those guys wanted more. They wanted to bomb the fuck out of Iraq for that one."

AR282, you are now talking about something completely different, after being hit, and after taking losses, it is natural to want to strike back.

Akenaton, in answer to your questions:
- Yes they are.
- No they are not.

In response to your statements, first:

"If I want to be defended, I would prefer my defenders to be stationed in the UK not in Iraq or Afghanistan."

This course of action would allow those who have openly declared that they will attack you, your national interests and kill your citizens (primarily because you are upholding a UN Security Council Resolution dating back to 1948) the initiative and freedom to attack you at will. If you doubt that, take the example of the US since 1992, how often were the US attacked during the Clinton administration (He tended to share your view) and how often since G W Bush (Remember that 911 was sanctioned and put into planning while Clinton was in office). You could keep your defenders at home and you would suffer repeatedly and on an increasing scale. Go on the offensive and it gives your attacker something to think about other than where, when and with what he is going to attack you.

As for the second:

"...there were no Al quaeda terrorists in Iraq before we marched in on Bush's coat tails."

Oh but there were Ake - Mullah Krekkar and the Answar Islam group - allowed, by Saddam, to set up shop in a part of the Kurdish North in an area outwith the protected "No-Fly Zone" demarcated by the 38th Parallel, so that they could have a go at the Kurdish opposition groups.