In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
True, but not what I asked. How much involvement did Iraq have in the
9/11 attacks?

None that we know of--but that is immaterial.

So what terrorism against the US _did_ flow from Iraq?

Or do you think that,
along with having a "Foreign Policy Standard Playbook", we should also
only act if something is directly related to 9-11?

Iraq was allegedly "sponsoring terrorism" - I'm curious as to what that
was.

Depends. Are the Irish flinging funds at the terrorists?

I believe some were.

Government bodies?

Are they
willing to co-operate with us?

A lot apparently were not. And who is this "they"?

The government. The group that runs the country.

You are out for the
blood of the Saudis because some individuals doubtless supported OBL,

"Some individuals" being the House of Saud.

so are you now shifting the Irish analogy to a collective "they"?

Where's the Irish ruling family?

Either you want to punish the
entire nation for the actions of a few citizens, not representing the
government, or you don't--which is it?

"Punish the entire nation" is your invention. Most of its inhabitants
get no say in what their management do.

Why is democracy and freedom from repression a Good Thing in Iraq, but a
dangerous threat in Saudi?

And BTW, from what I have read, the Saudi government has been
assisting the US.

Will the Gardai share information with UK
law enforcement on cross-border crimes?

Doesn't matter

Only because you're inventing claims and then saying they're mine.

--you are all fired up to slam Saudi Arabia because of
the actions of a few,

Remind me again where I said that?

yet you now only think of the *governmental*
response when the Irish analogy is posed? Put them on the same scale.

Why? One's a democracy, the other's a repressive autocracy. If you have
power and authority in Saudi, it's because you comply with the monarchy.
You can get rich in Ireland (just like in the US) without having to sign
up to government policy.

The more accurate example is "Irish republicans set off some bombs, so
we invade Portugal. They're all Catholics aren't they?"

You seem to be missing my point. The Saudi government did not
perpetrate 9-11,

No, they just paid for it and provided the manpower.

True, but completely irrelevant to their alleged (and apparenly widely
held) sponsorship of 9/11.

I have not said they did.

You haven't; it seems many of your countrymen think so.

I am just not impressed by your redirection
efforts, either at Saudi Arabia or the DPRK, with your "why not them?"
Simply put, in the case of Saudi Arabia, because their government was
not behind 9-11

Neither was Iraq. Didn't stop them being invaded as "sponsors of
terrorism" (or was it "building stockpiles of WME?")

(unless you fall into the alt-conspiracy.whacko
class), and in the case of the DPRK, because other methods are working
(not to mention their own self destruction).

Other methods in the DPRK are working?

Remember that six months was considered too long a wait for Iraq; but
fifty years is "it's working, give it time" for North Korea?

You don't see _any_ inconsistency there?

Did we pay the mosque, or just allow it to run (damn that 'freedom of
expression' and 'freedom of religion'...)

But it is not OK for Saudis to support their religious institutions?

If Richard Reid had been an ecumenical Anglican you'd have more of a
point, because he'd have been a member of the State religion. Similarly,
if the 9/11 hijackers had been !NOT WAHABBI then the Saudi link largely
goes away.

Where does the Wahabbi sect come from, again? And who bankrolls it?

How much money did he make? This is a guy who thinks that carrying
exploding shoes onto an airliner is a cool idea, and thinks he can set
them off in a crowded cabin without interference.

I'm willing to hazard that he isn't an intellectual or financial
powerhouse.

Doesn't matter by your argument--he was a Brit, he was supported by
Brits, and he is a terrorist; how does this differ from what you are
condemning the entire Saudi nation for?

Where's the State involvement?

Any need to censor reports on where he came from, who funded him, how he
got into the mess he inflicted on himself?

There is that political thing again.

If the Saudis are blameless, what's to hide?

And golly gee, that censorship
must be rather porous, as we all do know that some Saudis did/do
support AQ, huh?

Sure, but 15 of 19 is apparently statistically insignificant.

Hasn't aired here yet.

Here are a few:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...2003/08/28/us_
says_iraq_arms_plan_relied_on_deceit/

http://www.msnbc.com/news/962866.asp?cp1=1

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030906_1020.html

In other words... Iraq allegedly _didn't_ have WME, _had_ trashed its
stockpiles, _had dispersed and scattered its development efforts...

Pretty much what I said before the war, then.

It's not going to produce much result, is it? The scientist is the
useful part: the equipment isn't going to be much use after a dozen
years or more in the mulch.

Trouble is, knowledge is hard to eliminate unless you seize or kill the
scientific staff.

Read the articles.

I did. Iraq destroyed, dismanted and scattered equipment; dispersed
scientists; and disposed of materials and feedstocks.

This is supposed to _increase_ their threat level?

Yes, _if_ sanctions are fully lifted, and _if_ they're allowed to buy
everything they want, and _if_ they're left alone without interference
or surveillance, they can then produce WMEs. So what? Applies to every
nation state and not a few other actors. Why does this require an
immediate invasion of Iraq?

And yet for all the discrepancies in the paperwork, with literally
hundreds of trailerloads of chemical and biological agents or precursors
"unaccounted for", nobody has been able to find them.

Apparently he destroyed a lot of the paperwork after 95 when his
son-in-law carried out his short-term defection. Regardless, he was
obligated to "full and complete" disclosure, and he did not
comply--too bad for him.

Can't say I have any sympathy for Hussein or his mob, just regret that
he may still be wasting good air.

Still, what has the US got itself by invading Iraq? I don't see much
threat eliminated, much advantage gained, and some visible costs (chief
among which being a very heavy commitment of your Army that's going to
seriously limit your flexibility for a while)

Not a chance. More that he wanted to pose and posture as being the
mighty leader who defied the US, inflated his capabilities in the belief
that the US would bluster, threaten and back down... and got caught when
his bluff was called.

No sympathy at all for Hussein. I think we should have gone in autumn
rather than spring, with more effort made to make it a UN-sanctioned
operation; but I'm mostly concerned about the problems incurred by the
US (and UK) having to hold onto Iraq having won the war. (Which is why
having it be a UN problem from the start is preferable)

I believe the "problem" is a bit exaggerated, both by opposing
politicians, and by the media.

Define "exaggerated". If you mean the portentious blather that "Iraq is
the new Vietnam", or most users of the word "quagmire", then I agree.
The casualties, while individually tragic, are hardly serious at the
strategic level.

On the other hand, you're now committed to Iraq for an undecided period,
have been saddled with responsibility for the outcome, and are decidedly
short on deployable troops.

The endgame of military operations is frequently less than tidy; but
all Iraqi schools, universities, and hospitals are now open, and the
infrastructure is healing.

"Healing" is too strong a word, in many cases. Power generation and
distribution is particularly strained, and not amenable to rapid or easy
reconstruction (the plants are a _mess_ and every failure adds further
stress).

The major threat seems to be those
disenfranchised by the allied action (namely, Saddam's thigs).

Not enough information to be decisive. I've heard stories of generic
criminals using attacks on the US to gain status, revenge attacks by
family or friends of Iraqi casualties, and it's been alleged that many
of the attacks are by foreign terrrorists (the so-called 'flypaper
strategy')

Nothing fielded, or capable of mass production anytime soon, from the
evidence.

The mere failure to ever accomplish that "full and complete"
disclosure is a violation; the attempts to hide the "dual use"
approach is another.

Okay, so how many people can you kill with an incomplete declaration?
(Maybe a few, if you wrap it around a nail-studded cricket bat and use
it to beat brains out with... otherwise you're relying on paper-cutting
people to death)

The "hidden dual-use technology" is alleged but not shown yet. (Sort of
like the stockpiles of WMEs)

Clear violation, but a rather thin cause for war.

That would be three violations by my book; one is enough reason to
have taken that scumbag down.

You're remarkably fond of the UN all of a sudden, Kevin

He cheerfully used them on Iran and on his own people when there was no
danger of retaliation in kind. He refrained from using them against the
Coalition in 1991 when his programs were in much better shape: suggests
that he's not irrational. (Evil, not crazy or stupid.)

How strongly do you believe that Kim Jong-Il is a rational actor?

Well, since the open source data has speculated that he has actually
had a nuclear capability (i.e., actually had weapons) for about ten
years or so (and I have noted no mushroom clouds on that horizon as
yet), he seems to have at least as good a grasp as ol' Saddam did.

....in July 1990 when he hadn't invaded any neighbours for a while.

You'd have got a different answer in July 1991, perchance.

Either the UN is relevant or it isn't, Kevin. If the UN is a useless
talking shop and its resolutions just waste paper... then its
resolutions are waste paper.

Pretty much that is the case.

Then why waste time justifying actions in terms of UN resolutions?
Nations can invade anyone they want to, with the only issue being "can
they get away with it" - makes life a lot simpler. (And probably
shorter).

What's the timescale for eliminating the very clear threat of DPRK WMEs?

Not my place to know. Why, do you have a pressing engagement that
requires action *this day*?

Might be an idea to prevent them being fielded, rather than trying to
neutralise them once assembled and ready to fire. The track record of
finding and killing mobile ballistic missiles isn't inspiring.

Not at all. I'm just comparing the response. Saddam Hussein fails to
prove he completely dismantled his WME program and gets caught testing a
missile with a range under 200km and gets invaded.

Kim Jong-Il has a WME capability that would make Hussein weep bitter
tears of envy, has lofted missiles over Japan to make a point, and
remains in power and continuing to develop his nasty toys apace. What's
the difference? No UN resolutions against North Korea?

Nope, different threat, different region, different neighbors,
different internal situation, etc. Hint--there are really no
*identical* situations like this, so trying to make them so is a
fruitless endeavor.

Are you claiming that there's no rational strategy, Kevin?

I'm trying to isolate the factors that cause a nation to be considered a
threat. Development of (or possession of) WME doesn't count as a threat:
threatening neighbours with various flavours of lethal harm isn't
threatening: infiltrating your neighbours with commando teams isn't
threatening... so what _is_ a threat?

I've given up trying to fathom US motives: they change like the colour
of oil on water (and I do not mean to impugn the US posters who try to
explain them). Was it about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? It seems
not, because other nations develop and even flaunt them. Was it about
defying UN resolutions? Who cares about defying an irrelevance? Was it
about supporting terrorism? North Korea will sell anything to anyone as
long as they pay hard cash.

Answer the question--if WMD's are what has kept the DPRK safe, why
were they secure *before* they had them?

Lack of will? Lack of vendetta? Lack of threat? Fear of foreign
retaliation? Inertia?

I'd be wary of assuming Chinese support, however.

I would not be, in this case,

The Chinese standing aside, perhaps (they know where their interests now
lie), but not active support.

Show me something better.

I don't have to--you are making the illogical claim here.

WMEs alone aren't a cause for war - we've got that proved. Being
generally obnoxious and on the Axis of Evil has got one member invaded:
the other two may actually have WME (Iran) and almost certainly do
(DPRK).

Of course, this presupposes that there _were_ rational reasons for
invading Iraq.

And the US objective in the Middle East was to stop Hussein attacking
his neighbours, which has been an even more complete success than the US
work in South Korea (no Iraqi mini-subs trawled up off the Kuwaiti
coast, or found grounded on Saudi beaches with the landed commandos
fighting suicidally)

Well, at least Mr. Kim has not tried to assassinate a former US
President, nor is he sitting astride a resource that the rest of the
world depends upon.

Hey, "it's not about oil", remember? Lots and lots of determined
rhetoric on that subject.

Like I said, different situations.

So allegedly trying to kill an ex-President is now grounds for invasion?

Similar issues apply. One reason there aren't "unsatisfied UN
resolutions" from Korea is that there was no formal surrender, for
instance.

And again, North Korea has much more WME, longer-ranged missiles, more
demonstrated willingness to sell to cash buyers than Iraq: what's the
difference? UN resolutions?

If you cannot comprehend the difference, then I have seriously
misjudged your reasoning ability--and I doubt that is the case. You
know that each situation is different, but you choose to cling to the
single common thread (WMD capability) in an attempt to...well, I don't
really know exactly *what* you see as an objective in this case, to be
honest.

Trying to determine the reasons for invading Iraq. There are many people
willing to say what they weren't... but nobody willing to go firm and
stay there on what they _were_.

--
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