In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?

You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so...

Did Iraq?

Saudi funded the madrassas, gave them passports, threw money at them,
and whined that the end result was nothing to do with them.

What, precisely, did Iraq do? (Mildly exasperated by claims that 'Iraq
backed 9/11')

So it must be those Saudi
individuals who have supported AQ that you are carping about.
Otherwise, because the infamous "shoe bomber" was a Brit, we should
"punish" the UK?

Did we fund his particular sect?

Since then, Iraq had no WMEs. They claimed so, they were invaded, and
still no WMEs emerge.

You really think they had no WME, as you call it

Weapons of Mass Effect. Chemical, biological, radiological weapons don't
_destroy_ much of anything unless it's ruined by decontamination: but
they produce major effects (evacuations, mass casualties, isolation,
decontamination...) Nuclear does mass _destruction_, the others don't.

Blame JDCC, not me.

, programs?

Programs aren't weapons - and what programs did they have?

They had plans on hold for when sanctions lifted and would have made a
hard charge for WME once they could get hold of equipment, precursors,
skills,

The mere
existance of such programs would be in violation of the various UN
resolutions, not to mention the ceasefire agreement from ODS.

So, where are the programs? "Bury this in your garden" in 1991 isn't a
program for 2003.

Justification does not require the finding of a horde of prepped and
ready chem rounds.

I'll settle for pretty much any WME at this stage. Still none to be had.

North Korea says they _do_ have WMEs and the missiles to deliver them.

So?

It was a major problem when Iraq were unable or unwilling to prove this
wasn't true: why is it trivial that North Korea has thus tooled up and
stated their intent to use?

One gets invaded, the other doesn't. Clear lesson? WMEs make you safe as
long as your claim is credible. North Korea is believed, Iraq was not..

WME's are not making the DPRK "safe".

The Stars and Stripes flies over Baghdad but not over Pyongyang. Iraq
didn't have findable WMEs, Pyongyang apparently does (and the missiles
to deliver them to sensitive spots) Kim Jong-Il still runs his country
into the ground for personal gain, Saddam Hussein is either dead or
hiding hard.

I'd say WMEs are showing a definite advantage: Kim's claim is credible,
Hussein's was either not credible or an acceptable risk.

It would seem that the
possibility of defanging the DPRK without resorting to armed conflict
is a reasonable one; twelve years of piffling about with Saddam, his
refusal to comply with disarmament requirements, and various
unenforced UN resolutions indicates that avenue was leading nowhere in
the case of Iraq.

The US has been piffling around with North Korea since 1953: I don't see
any prompt resolution in sight. That doesn't seem to be a problem - why
not?

Why are Righties so unutterably stupid?

I believe the extremes of both sides are rather stupid, just as I am
none to impressed with the less-than-cerebral machinations of those
who seem to think that all foreign policy has to be done with a cookie
cutter (the "you went into Iraq, but not the DPRK" blathering being a
fine example).

It's just curious that one scenario can sit and simmer for fifty years
and still be "not a problem", while a dozen years makes the other into a
crisis.


Better to use a diplomatic version of METT-T and
develop an optimal COA for each independent situation.

Funny, even that doesn't lead to unanimous agreement.

(eyeball-deep in how to turn doctrine about 'effects based operation'
into useful facts)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk