"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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?

None that I know of.

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.

I think they were aiding the Ansar al-Islam group up in northern Iraq.
Of course, this group was [is] Sunnis primarily interested in blowing up
Shiite Kurds, not Americans. Terror against Kurds was in Saddam's
direct interest for obvious reasons.

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

"Some individuals" being the House of Saud.

I think that's an over statement.

The Saudi leadership is a spineless bunch, with lots of money. They
rely on paying off those who threaten them, and much of OBLs money
has apparently come from shakedowns of Saudi businesses and public
persons. Basically pay him off. Not exactly co-conspirator types.

The fact of course is this policy has somewhat backfired on the Saudis.
They sound good to Fundamentalists (in country and next door), and to
the cause of Arab solidarity WRT the "Palestinian problem", and the
Americans tolerated it.

Now suddenly, the Americans are no longer willing to let the rhetoric,
and monetary support for fundamentalist schools pass. And the radical
Islamic crowd still doesn't think well of the House of Saud. Time for
some heavy duty statement of principles that may require more spine
than the Saudis actually have!

This still doesn't make Saudi Arabia or its leaders, "terrorist sponsors".

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

I'd say democracy and freedom is considered a "dangerous threat" by all
parties in the mideast.

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

Remind me again where I said that?

You seemed to me to say that the Saudis were a terrorist nation because
of the lip service, and money and lack of cooperation by them. Perhaps
your comment was more rhetorical or I simply misread it.

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.

You are saying the Saudi government was in on the 9/11 attack??? I have
never heard this and don't believe it. It's mere guilt by association.

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?")

I think the reason was WMD. Seems it wasn't as valid a reason as thought,
perhaps by design, or perhaps by bad decision-making or by bad information.

(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?

It seems so.

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?

Can you see anything beyond blind following of a rule? There are *contexts*
to decision-making. I can think of a whole host of reasons that counter an
"invade N. Korea" decision because they have WMD/support terrorists/threaten
US interests reasonings.

Perhaps invasion causing a shreading of our S. Korean ally *irrespective* of
who ultimately wins a war might be a good consideration in NOT following the
invade rule?

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?

I don't think it comes from the Saudis does it. It's simply a very strict,
conservative and intolerant implementation of Islam, no? They live in other
places too. They bankroll it to keep the members off their backs; part of
their "buy off the enemy" national policies.

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?

They're not blameless. They're simply trying to play both sides of
a fence. In the long run, it doesn't work.

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.

I'd say so, for a single incident.

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 would seem so, although I still believe they were attempting to maintain
the *capability* to produce them as soon as the watchdogs had gone home.

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

This is supposed to _increase_ their threat level?

No, simply maintain it for another day. Gulf War II was going to happen
in the spring of this year, or some season 10 years from now. We're done
with it and we can move on.

I think it is unfortunate for our leadership and image that all the claims
have not been proven to be true about Saddam's government. But it's good
he's been removed (if only for the moment).

We can very possibly see the Iraqi War II film from an alternative universe
in 5-10 years. At that time, the US will NOT invade Iraq after the UN (France)
forced American withdrawl from Iraq in 6 months, leading to the return of
Baathist government in Iraq (who has all the weapons, the money, the
organization, the leadership, the ruthlessness? Who still has Saddam?).
Then we can see what Saddam does with his renewed power and unfettered
access to lots of oil money...and how well a UN resolution keeps him in check.

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?

Because Saddam isn't like most leaders of other countries I'd say. There's
something truly evil about the guy. He's a servant of Satan, with all the
power that gives him. He's not to be trifled with!

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)

In the short term, trouble. In the long term, if things work out, more
influence in the middle east. A demonstation that a free society can
lead to a prosperous society. That open, transparent markets is the fastest
way to personal and national wealth. An entirely new paradigm of economic
and political operation.

Does it mean that Iraqis will love Israelis? Probably not. That they'll
like Americans? Probably not, although hopefully it will show that our
national interests are not solely in tow to Israel, and can have favorable
outcomes for Arabs as well.

Maybe an entire rethinking of what sort of leaders Arabs have, *by Arabs*!
No more "push the Israel button" to distract a harassed, oppressed population
from focusing on their leaders.

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.

Yes. I wish US leadership was more direct about the challenges a rebuild
of Iraq presented. The cost, in lives and wealth, and the time it would take.
I still think this can turn out to be a very favorable result, with history
saying good things about the effort. But the Saddam demon is going to die
very, very slowly (if at all) and not without a lot of effort.

"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).

Has been for 30 years. The war did very little to hurt infrastructure. The
US was downright inept in occupation duties immediately on arrival in Baghdad.
If the looting could only have been curtailed, things might be a lot better
now. Water over the dam. At least occupation leadership seems to be
learning from past mistakes and adapting. Success is still very possible.

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).

Having a UN resolution with you is a points gain. The US is hardly unique in
using the UN when it's a plus; ignoring it when uncooperative.

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?

NK is very definitely a threat. To US interests if not directly to the US (at
the moment). Dealing with that threat could be simply ignoring it, hoping it
will go away (perhaps because it isn't real), not recognizing it to begin with,
the multi-lateral game currently in vogue and I'd say the method of choice,
and direct intimidation or beligerency.

Beligerency seems out of the question in NK given the region. Japan, China,
SK all end up being de facto involved by a US decision to invade. How many
artillery peices,/rockets are aimed at Seoul by the north? What sort of damage
can even a hungry, politically indoctrinated all their lives, million man army
do, even in a losing effort?

Something to consider seriously.

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.

The Chinese seem to finally understand this is in their interest as well. This
is an important change in the region, and Bush deserves some credit for it.

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.

I think the reasons were rational. Just mostly wrong, for whatever reasons
you wish to assign.

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.

I have to think anyone who thinks it's "all about oil" is in a dogmatic rut.

Like I said, different situations.

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

Well it could very well be. Not certain on legal issues concerning this.

Similar issues apply. One reason there aren't "unsatisfied UN

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 think it could easily have been perceived threat from WMD or terrorism.
I personally have never believed those reasons were compelling enough
*immediate* reasons.

I supported it, despite now being firmly in neo-isolationist political
camp, because I believed Saddam was an *ultimate* threat. Not today
or tomorrow, but a serious threat ~5 years after sanctions lifted. It
was going to cost more then than now. Let's be done with it and move on.

I don't feel that way about NK, or Iran. I don't favor US troops in
Liberia. I want them out of SK and Japan and Kosovo and Bosnia. I want
them out of NATO. I want them home.

And I want them home from Iraq *after* the country is truly rid of Saddam
and his ilk, and on the road toward stable self-governance...or within
2-3 years at the most, come hell or high water.

All other nations will be considered a threat when one of their missiles
hits NYC or DC or LA.


SMH