"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
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?

Firstly, it does not have to be directed *at the US*; note that we
have been involved with the fight against Abu Sayif in the PI. Second,
we have one attempt at assassinating a former US President (I assume
you do remember that one). Add in some rather direct threats of use of
terrorists against US targets by both Saddam (during the ramp up and
beginning of ODS), and later by his son Uday this past year. Throw in
the discovery of at least one training camp on the outskirts of
Baghdad, which reportedly served Palestinian needs. But again, this
does not bear upon the wisdom of the US taking action to rid the
Middle East, and the world at large, of Saddam's rule of 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.

See above. Saddam himself was crowing about sponsoring a meeting with
various terrorist leaders during the period immediately preceeding
ODS--sounds like he set a poor precedent. Then there were those
meetings with the AQ leader from the Sudan (the one that the media
reported finding memos from Iraqi intel regarding?). And again--there
is no need to establish direct linkage with 9-11 for all US foreign
policy decisions (gee, you are the guy claiming that by golly we
should go into the DPRK with guns blazing, right? and what is Kim's
tie to 9-11??).


Depends. Are the Irish flinging funds at the terrorists?

I believe some were.

Government bodies?

OK, so when it comes to the Irish, it has to involve government bodies
providing the funds and support, but with Saudi Arabia only a few
individuals are sufficient? You don't like even playing fields, do
you?


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.

You have proof that the King was directly supporting AQ?


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

Where's the Irish ruling family?

My point is that in *neither* case is the *government* supporting the
respective groups. If you want to claim otherwise because some
individulas in the widespread Saudi royal family, then I guess we
should call all of your *own* royals "nazi sympathizers" because of
the manner in which ol' Edward behaved?


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?

BZZZ! Now you want to turn this into a "we have to fight for freedom
everywhere" schtick? Not gonna fly very far. You asked why we had not
punished Saudi Arabia (which is the "entire nation" last I
heard)--don't change your spots now (your exact words were, "What
_did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia"). So, what exactly *are* you
advocating? Punishing Saudi Arabia, or not?


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

I guess that little factoid has little bearing, huh?


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.

"What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia". Those were your words,
right?


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

Remind me again where I said that?

"What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia".


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.

So if its a monarchy, it is OK to assume that the entire nation, or
even the ruling family, is guilty if one, two, some number of them are
guilty? And to then punish the entire nation? Egads, what does that
say about the members of your own royal family, and the family as a
whole, who played footsie with Hitler?


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.

The government did? You need to write a book, because that is news to
me.


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?")

There were a number of reasons; his dalliances with terrorists being
one of them (those fellows in the North who Saddam allied himself with
were apparently rather nasty fellows in their own right--what was it,
Al As Salaam or something similar?), his refusal to meet the
requirements set forth in the ceasefire agreement (and seconded in the
UN resolutionns you are so proud of), and his continued threat to a
commodity vital to most major economies (you do recall his little
feint back south that resulted in a US brigade and additional airpower
being deployed back into Kuwait, right?). And his adnmitted desire to
maintain a WMD capability is icing on the cake. With a candle in the
form of the tens of thousands of civilians he slaughtered within his
own borders (what, its OK to attmpt to reign in "ethnic cleansing" in
the Balkans, but nowhere else?).



(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?

Yeah. If you don't believe it, tell me how many times that the DPRK
has reinvaded the ROK, or has used those WMD's they have. Then tell me
that the DPRK is not self-destructing as we speak from within.


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?

Nope. Because unlike you, I see each situation as independent and
unique; you are the only guy I know who seems to think that foreign
policy has to be made with a cookie cutter.


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?

Who really cares? The fact is that the government of Saudi Arabia was
not behind 9-11; claims otherwise should be directed to that
conspiracy group...


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?

Where is the state involvement in Saudi Arabia?


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?

Well, when we have folks like you, who point to one-of-many saudi
royals and claim, Hey, why have we not punished Saudi Arabia?!", then
it is understandable that diplomacy may require some degree of
discretion. I find it amazing that you are so vehement in your
argument that we should make war on Saudi Arabia, but despite your
claims that you are just peachy with the fall of Saddam, you always
seem to be telling us that, well, he was evil, but not that evil...you
should go kick some other asses!"?


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.

Fifteen of nineteen what?


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...

I guess, given that you like to make these continuous attacks on the
very idea of taking Saddam out, that you take from them what you
choose to. But I do find it interesting that after repeatedly claiming
that there were *no* Iraqi WMD programs, you summarize here that
"[Iraq] had dispersed and scattered its development efforts"; sounds
like you are having a problem in realizing that there had to be
*programs* that were so scattered and dispersed. How do you explain
this disconnect in your theory?


Pretty much what I said before the war, then.

So you are saying they did, as we claimed, maintain programs of this
ilk? Then what are you arguing about?


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,

Like IIRC France was arguing, or at least solidly in that direction?

and _if_ they're allowed to buy
everything they want,

Like the Germans, along with other nefarious individuals from around
the world, including in some cases the US, were selling them?

and _if_ they're left alone without interference
or surveillance, they can then produce WMEs.

Like that NFZ thingie they continued to try to defeat?

So what? Applies to every
nation state and not a few other actors. Why does this require an
immediate invasion of Iraq?

Gee, it sounds like all of those conditions you posed were plausible,
at least in terms of their intent...


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)

How seriously do you think it will limit it? Less than what, thirty
percent of AC combat brigade equivalents being deployed into Iraq will
"seriously" limit our flexibility? And you are aware that we are now
activating RC combat units for duty in Iraq, meaning that the
available pool increases, so now you are talking about maybe 15% of
the total force combat brigade strength, and an insignificant part of
our tactical airpower? Sounds like you have been listening to the
Chicken Little side of the story in this regard.

As to what we have accomplished...if you can't look at Iraq today and
figure it out for yourself, I can't explain it to you. The media may
like to concentrate on the Iraqis who bemoan how much rougher things
are now, but it is hard to forget the reception that the average Iraqi
gave to coalition forces when they deposed Saddam.


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.

Really? Look at the numbers again, and then tell me that we are
"decidedly short" of deployable troops (and since we are deploying RC
combat forces to Iraq, and have an RC division handling KFOR now, you
have to include them in your tally).


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).

And what was their condition before this conflict? Not so good IIRC.
ISTR reading within the last couple of weeks that one town was now
receiving power that had been unavailable for the past twelve years,
so your mileage may vary with "healing".


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')

Well, the US military leaders seem to think that Saddam's thugs are
the primary culprits, and I place a bit more credability in them than
I do in the media's "conventional wisdom".


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)

So nations should not be held accountable for meeting ceasefire
agreements?


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

Hey, you just agreed that they were dispersing and hiding, etc.; now
you change your tune?


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

Nope. You can trace those UN resolutions back to the ceasefire
agreement, in broader terms.


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.

Your point being? In fact, the US has been acheiving its goals in the
ROK without armed conflict--sounds like we should continue to do so
for as long as we can to me. In Iraq, we were facing a gent who
refused to comply with the ceasefire agreement he had made, and was
positioned to deal a rather nasty blow to the world economic picture
just as soon as he could. Different situations, no cookie cutter
solutions required.


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).

Only in an attempt to appease those like you who are squemish with the
idea of us using a big stick when we deem it necessary.


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.

They have had them for ten years or more, and you think they are not
about as "fielded" as they are likely to get in the near term?


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?

Not a single one for each individual situation, no.


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?

But hey, you have been saying that *WMD's* keep them safe--what are
all of these other things?


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.

They seem, based upon meager reports, to be generally with us on this
one right now. Not that they would hesitate to stick a knofe in our
back if they thought they could get away with it and it was to their
advantage, but right now they see greater value in improved relations
with the US than in the opposite. Works for us (and I have little
doubt we are keeping our eyes on our six).


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.

No, you don't. You keeping trying to over-generalize. In some cases
that *could* be reason enough alone (i.e., where we believed immenent
use was in the cards).

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).

Trying to develop that Playbook again? Ain't gonna work. All such
situatios are unique, and require unique solutions. Even the old
containment strategy did not result in the deployment of US troops en
mass to every troublespot--different solutions were crafted for each
situation, be it Greece after WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Western Europe,
etc.


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

There were.


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.

Correct. What does that assassination attempt have to do with oil? Or
Saddam's bucking the ceasefire terms? But yes, the continued freedom
of the oil supply is a factor in the Middle East, and it is not in
Korea. Who'd have thunk it?


Like I said, different situations.

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

When it is a governmental effort, yes indeed it can be. Likewise a
governmental effort directed at killing *any* US citizen can be
(though we both know that Presidents stand a bit apart from us common
folk in this regard). Just another factor in that whole "unique
situation" I keep telling you about.


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_.

I have given you a number of reasons that I have stood on. I am not
going to repeat what I have already repeated to you again and again,
so hopefully you can recognize some of those reasons I have listed.

Brooks