Peter Kemp wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:35:34 GMT, Stephen Harding
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Stephen Harding
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
He can run and hide, being animate. Weapons can't, being dead metal.

No, but people can't be stashed underground for years on end, or cut up into
components and reassembled later either.

Yet all these "thousands of tons" (SecState Powell's words to the UN)
of WMD are gone without a trace of digging found, despite having been
a real threat (remember the 45 minutes to deployment?) right up until
the war ended?

I think the 45 minute thing was a Brit claim, no?

No matter really, since the US seemed to accept the claim. Could be honest
misinterpretation of situation rather than Machiavellian plot.

I have no doubt there were sources that said such things. This particular
claim was clearly wrong. I still believe WMD will show up.

How often, and with what result?

As I understand it, terrorist types were only lightly tolerated by Saddam's
Iraq. Ansar al-Islam in the north were Sunnis who liked to blow up Shiite
Kurds, so were OK. Those wanting to go farther afield for American prey
were probably persona non grata...at the time.

So why invade Iraq as a "terrorist sponsor", then?

To be rid of Saddam, a looming threat IMHO.

Why was he suddenly looming? What made him so dangerous in 2003 that
wasn't there in 2001/2000/1999/1998/1997/1996? Nasty man, no doubt,
but looming threat?

Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.

From a cold logical perspective, Saddam was locked in his box with
little capability to do more than rattle the lid when US and allied
aircraft flew over air-defence sites.

Hardly. The box was about to open. French/Germans/Russians have been
chaffing at the bit to end sanctions. Not until the US/UK were "very serious"
about invasion did continued sanctions suddenly seem a good idea.

Err, sanctions can't be lifted without the UNSC agreeing, and look who
has veto rights? That's right, the US and UK. Of course you could try
to overrule the UNSC by getting a 2/3 majority in the General
Assembly, but that hasn't been done since the Korean war!

There's been plenty of trading with Iraq on the side, irrespective of any
UN resolutions. Iraq had been selling plenty of oil out from under UN
"Food for Peace" oversight.

The resolution itself doesn't create a favorable outcome in dealing with
Saddam as far as US interests go. The *US* (UK too I think) was largely
flying no-fly patrols. Easy for France to say "continue doing that" for
another 10 years while we quietly do business and work for lifting of
sanctions.

Just how long are we supposed to enforce the no fly zones, with increasing
AA activity towards overflights?

At the very least until Afghanistan is stable, and the WOT is rather
further along. Instead of which the US is hamstrung, being
realistically unable to deploy any more troops anywhere.

The no-fly zone was a political ham-stringing waiting to happen! The fact
that no planes were lost...even to mechanical failures, over the past 12
years I find somewhat astonishingly lucky. Add to it the increase in SAM
firings and this is simply not tenable.

You are advocating a policy of allowing US pilots to provide Iraqi AAA units
target practice for absolutely no political gain. Only loss is possible
over the long run.

He wasn't going to take the steps to get the sanctions lifted - he was
getting hugely rich and his position secured by them so they probably
suited him very nicely.

Doubt it. He wanted control of his country back! That means no "no fly" zones.
That means crushing the semi-autonomous Kurds (who've been doing quite well on
their own no thanks to Saddam).

On the contrary, the Kurds have been doing well *because* of Saddam.
Most of the Kurdish revenue was from the oil being smuggled over the
border into Turkey, through the Kurdish areas.

Economically oil helps. But oil doesn't create democratic institutions, and
the Kurds actually have a reasonably well functioning democracy complete with
talk shows with broad political/economic opinion. No help from Saddam was necessary!

Why? Is his army going to be better trained and re-equipped by then? Are
his people going to love him any more?

His army will have WMD for all to see (if he doesn't already have them...for all
not to see).

But, I thought the army already had WMD, and never got rid of it all
post 1991? Or so Blair and Bush told me. So that one's a fallacious
argument.

Had them or not, he'd have them by 2010 if sanctions were lifted!

UNSCR isn't binding and vital. Never have been. They are an annoyance and
hindrance, about to be removed by friends in the SC. They're useful tools to
whomever gets one passed.

If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
town, or that Zionism = Racism.

Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
critical of Israel for decades - the US.

Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?

If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

Their irrelevant if they address Syrian occupation
of Lebanon (does such a resolution even exist?).

Not to my knowledge, in which case yes, a non-existent resolution is
irrelevant.

That's the problem. Too many non-existent (and therefor irrelevant) UNSC
resolutions against Palestinian terror or Arab occupations and political
infringements on citizens. How can one think the UN is balanced, and therefor
credible, in such a conflict?

If one looks at the number of UNSCRs against Israel, versus the numbers
against Arabs of all persuasion, you'd have to conclude it's a one-way violence
in the Holy Land. It most certainly is NOT!

Hence the Security Council.

And deadlock.

Quite. Noting of course that the only reason there is deadlock is due
to the existence of the veto. But I don't see any of the big 5
volunteering to give it up any time soon.

The veto should be eliminated, and in its place, some sort of mechanism for
forcing compromise. Something like, but not necessarily identical, to the
US House/Senate (British Lords/Commons???) with rules that force compromise
to get things done.

But of course, that implies giving up national sovereignty, which I think
nations in addition to the US, would be loath to do.

*Real* leadership isn't sitting back to let a majority decide how you should
act. Valid national interests can't be overruled by a majority that does not
share those interests, nor will pay a consequence if dangers or interests are
not engaged.

*Real* leadership also involves concepts like "finish what you started"
and "you hooked him, you land him".

Angling expedition currently underway.

True, but while the fish is still in the water you're asking the rest
of the world to get the nets so your fishermen can go home.

I haven't heard that! Quite the contrary. I think the US is willing (somewhat
reluctantly of course) to be in Iraq for several more years. That should have
been the plan all along.

NK and Iran are much nearer WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged
to have chemical warheads on over a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a
threat to me - when do we go in?

Syria might very well be a viable target. I think one war at a time is a
good rule though, especially when it is not yet clear if the outcome will be
favorable.

Well the US is currently on 2 wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and
posturing mightily on the Korean peninsular.

Which seems to have paid off. This administration wasn't panicked into
appeasement mode by the whacky NKs. They threw the course rhetoric right back
at them. I think we'll get something accomplished now that China finally sees
NK as a problem in their national interest as well!

As always, my position on Iraq, is not "why invade", but "why invade
now, when we're still busy with AQ?"

I just think the cost of invasion was going to be greater later than now.
But I guess we'll never know. It's certainly going to cost a bundle though.


SMH